Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

The recent Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to identify and turn around their lowest performing schools, but it breaks somewhat from prior policies by granting states significant autonomy over how they identify and turn around these schools. This mixed-methods study, which draws on administrative, qualitative, and survey data, examines the effectiveness of Michigan’s approach to school turnaround under ESSA. We find that students in turnaround schools experienced significant achievement gains in math and to a lesser extent in English language arts (ELA), with effects concentrated among the lowest achieving students. Analyses of qualitative and survey data suggest that these outcomes were influenced by state-level supports, strategic planning, the threat of accountability for continued low performance, and improved leadership quality in turnaround schools.

Keywords

accountability achievement educational policy educational reform effect size mixed-methods quasi-experimental analysis survey research qualitative research school turnaround ESSA school reform

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aladjem

D. K.

Birman

B. F.

Orland

Harr-Robins

Heredia

Parrish

T. B.

Ruffini

S. J.

(2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies Service. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED526783

Anfara

V. A.

Patterson

Buehler

Gearity

(2006). School improvement planning in east Tennessee middle schools: A content analysis and perceptions study. NASSP Bulletin, 90(4), 277–300. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192636506294848

Atchison

(2020). The impact of priority school designation under ESEA flexibility in New York State. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(1), 121–146. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1679930

Baker

A. C.

Larcker

D. F.

Wang

C. C. Y.

(2022). How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates? Journal of Financial Economics, 144(2), 370–395. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfineco.2022.01.004

Balfanz

Legters

West

T. C.

Weber

L. M.

(2007). Are NCLB’s Measures, Incentives, and Improvement Strategies the Right Ones for the Nation’s Low-Performing High Schools? American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 559–593. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831207306768

Bonilla

Dee

(2020). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence From focus schools in Kentucky. Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 75–103. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00275

Booher-Jennings

(2005). Below the bubble: “Educational Triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312042002231

Brummet

(2014). The effect of school closings on student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 119, 108–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2014.06.010

Burkhauser

(2017). How much do school principals matter when it comes to teacher working conditions? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(1), 126–145. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716668028

10.

Bush-Mecenas

Marsh

J. A.

(2018). The DIVE approach: Using case-ordered meta-matrices and theory-based data displays to analyze multiple case study data. In Lochmiller

C. R.

(Ed.), Complementary research methods for educational leadership and policy studies (pp. 33–56). Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-93539-3_3

11.

Carlson

Lavertu

(2018). School improvement grants in Ohio: Effects on student achievement and school administration. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(3), 287–315. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373718760218

12.

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024004305

13.

Chiang

(2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1045–1057. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002

14.

Amrein-Beardsley

Collins

(2019). Mapping America’s teacher evaluation plans under ESSA. Phi Delta Kappan, 101(2), 22–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/0031721719879150

15.

Clotfelter

C. T.

Ladd

H. F.

Vigdor

J. L.

(2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673–682. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002

16.

Creswell

J. W.

Plano Clark

V. L.

(2017). Designing and conducting mixed methods research. SAGE.

17.

Cullen

J. B.

Reback

(2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. Emerald Group Publishing Limited.

18.

Darling-Hammond

(2006). No Child Left Behind and high school reform. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 642–667. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.76.4.d8277u8778245404

19.

Dee

(2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (Working Paper No. 17990). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w17990

20.

Dee

Dizon-Ross

(2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evidence from Louisiana. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719849944

21.

Dee

Jacob

(2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20586

22.

Dickey-Griffith

(2013). Preliminary effects of the school improvement grant program on student achievement in Texas. The Georgetown Public Policy Review, 19(1), 21–39.

23.

Dougherty

S. M.

Weiner

J. M.

(2017). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to no child left behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33(4), 555–586. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904817719520

24.

Dragoset

James-Burdumy

Hallgren

Perez-Johnson

Herrmann

Tuttle

Angus

M. H.

Herman

Murray

Tanenbaum

Graczewski

(2015). Usage of practices promoted by school improvement grants (NCEE 2015-4019). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED559928

25.

Duke

D. L.

(2004). The turnaround principal: High-stakes leadership. Principal, 84(1), 12–23.

26.

Duke

D. L.

Salmonowicz

(2010). Key decisions of a first-year “Turnaround” principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership, 38(1), 33–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/1741143209345450

27.

Dunn

Ambroso

(2019). Balancing act: State and district roles in school improvement under ESSA. Center on School Turnaround at WestEd. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED602966

28.

Egalite

A. J.

Fusarelli

L. D.

Fusarelli

B. C.

(2017). Will decentralization affect educational inequity? The Every Student Succeeds Act. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 757–781. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X17735869

29.

Fullan

(2016). The elusive nature of whole system improvement in education. Journal of Educational Change, 17(4), 539–544. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-016-9289-1

30.

Hallgren

Gonzalez

Kelly

Demers

Gill

(2019). Year 2 report of the Atlanta Public Schools turnaround strategy (50364.400). Mathematica Policy Research.

31.

Hanushek

E. A.

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.20091

32.

Harbatkin

(2022). Staffing for school turnaround in rural settings. Leadership and Policy in Schools. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2022.2058963

33.

Heissel

J. A.

Ladd

H. F.

(2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.08.001

34.

Hemelt

S. W.

Jacob

(2017). Differentiated accountability and education production: Evidence from NCLB waivers (Working Paper No. 23461). National Bureau of Economic Research. https://doi.org/10.3386/w23461

35.

Hemelt

S. W.

Jacob

B. A.

(2018). How does an accountability program that targets achievement gaps affect student performance? Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 45–74. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00276

36.

Henry

G. T.

Guthrie

J. E.

(2019). The effects of race to the top school turnaround in North Carolina. In EdWorkingPapers.com. Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://edworkingpapers.com/ai-19107.

37.

Henry

G. T.

Harbatkin

(2020). The next generation of state reforms to improve their lowest performing schools: An evaluation of North Carolina’s school transformation intervention. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 13(4), 702–730. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2020.1814464

38.

Henry

G. T.

McNeill

S. M.

Harbatkin

(2022). Accountability-driven school reform: Are there unintended effects on younger children in untested grades? Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 61, 190–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecresq.2022.07.005

39.

Henry

G. T.

Pham

L. D.

Kho

Zimmer

(2020). Peeking Into the black box of school turnaround: A formal test of mediators and suppressors. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(2), 232–256. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720908600

40.

Herman

Dawson

Dee

Greene

Maynard

Redding

Darwin

(2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools. IES Practice Guide (NCEE 2008-4020). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501241

41.

Hitt

D. H.

Woodruff

Meyers

C. V.

Zhu

(2018). Principal competencies that make a difference: Identifying a model for leaders of school turnaround. Journal of School Leadership, 28(1), 56–81. https://doi.org/10.1177/105268461802800103

42.

A. D.

(2008). The problem with “Proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under no child left behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X08323842

43.

Hopkins

Stringfield

Harris

Stoll

Mackay

(2014). School and system improvement: A narrative state-of-the-art review. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 25(2), 257–281. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2014.885452

44.

Horn

J. L.

(1965). A rationale and test for the number of factors in factor analysis. Psychometrika, 30(2), 179–185. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02289447

45.

Huber

D. J.

Conway

J. M.

(2015). The effect of school improvement planning on student achievement. Planning & Changing, 46(1–2), 56–70.

46.

Imberman

S. A.

(2010). Achievement and behavior in charter schools: Drawing a more complete picture. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(2), 416–435. https://doi.org/10.1162/REST_a_00077

47.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5), 761–796. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004

48.

Jennings

Bearak

J. M.

(2014). “Teaching to the Test” in the NCLB era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X14554449

49.

Karcher

Knight

D. S.

(2021). Funding structures and state capacity for school improvement under the every student succeeds act: Case studies of five states. Journal of Education Human Resources, 39(4), 397–429. https://doi.org/10.3138/jehr-2021-0005

50.

Krieg

J. M.

(2008). Are students left behind? The Distributional Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3(2), 250–281. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2008.3.2.250

51.

Ladd

H. F.

(2017). No child left behind: A deeply flawed federal policy. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 36(2), 461–469. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21978

52.

Lee

Reeves

(2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources: State NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209–231. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711431604

53.

Leithwood

Jantzi

(1990). Transformational leadership: How principals can help reform school cultures. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 1(4), 249–280. https://doi.org/10.1080/0924345900010402

54.

LiCalsi

Citkowicz

Friedman

L. B.

Brown

(2015). Evaluation of Massachusetts office of district and school turnaround assistance to commissioner’s districts and schools: Impact of school redesign grants. American Institutes of Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED583091

55.

LiCalsi

Píriz

D. G.

(2016). Evaluation of level 4 school turnaround efforts in Massachusetts. Part 2: Impact of school redesign grants. American Institutes of Research. http://www.doe.mass.edu/research/reports/2016/09L4TurnaroundImpact.docx

56.

Malen

Rice

J. K.

(2016). School reconstitution as a turnaround strategy: An analysis of the evidence. In Matthis

Trujillo

(Eds.), Learning from the federal market-based reforms: Lessons for the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) (pp. 99–125). Information Age Publishing.

57.

Marsh

J. A.

Strunk

K. O.

Bush

(2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527. https://doi.org/10.1108/09578231311325677

58.

Meyers

C. V.

(2020). District-led school turnaround: A case study Of one U.S. District’s turnaround launch for multiple schools. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 19(4), 710–729. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2019.1637902

59.

Meyers

C. V.

Hitt

D. H.

(2018). Planning for school turnaround in the United States: An analysis of the quality of principal-developed quick wins. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 29(3), 362–382. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1428202

60.

Mintrop

MacLellan

A. M.

(2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle schools on probation. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300.

61.

Papay

Hannon

(2018, November 8). The effects of school turnaround strategies in Massachusetts [Conference session]. 2018 APPAM Fall Research Conference: Evidence for Action: Encouraging Innovation and Improvement, Washington, DC, United States. https://appam.confex.com/appam/2018/webprogram/Paper26237.html

62.

Papay

J. P.

Kraft

M. A.

James

J. K.

(2021). Operator versus partner: A case study of blueprint school network’s model for school turnaround. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 15(2), 367–393. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2021.1998737

63.

Peurach

D. J.

Neumerski

C. M.

(2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z

64.

Pham

L. D.

(2022). Is teacher effectiveness stable across school contexts? An examination of teachers who transfer into turnaround schools. AERA Open, 8, 23328584221139764. https://doi.org/10.1177/23328584221139763

65.

Pham

L. D.

Henry

G. T.

Kho

Zimmer

(2020). Sustainability and maturation of school turnaround: A multiyear evaluation of Tennessee’s achievement school district and local innovation zones. AERA Open, 6(2), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858420922841

66.

Player

Katz

(2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698. https://doi.org/10.1086/686467

67.

Portz

Beauchamp

(2020). Educational accountability and state ESSA plans. Educational Policy, 36(3), 717–747. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904820917364

68.

Reback

(2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5), 1394–1415. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.003

69.

Reback

Rockoff

Schwartz

H. L.

(2014). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under no child left behind. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 207–241. https://doi.org/10.1257/pol.6.3.207

70.

Redding

Nguyen

T. D.

(2020). The relationship between school turnaround and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 493–519. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720949513

71.

Redding

Searby

(2020). The map is not the territory: Considering the role of school improvement plans in turnaround schools. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership, 23(3), 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1177/1555458920938854

72.

Schueler

B. E.

Asher

C. A.

Larned

K. E.

Mehrotra

Pollard

(2021). Improving low-performing schools: A meta-analysis of impact evaluation studies. American Educational Research Journal, 59(5), 975–1010. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312211060855

73.

Schueler

B. E.

Bleiberg

J. F.

(2022). Evaluating education governance: Does state takeover of school districts affect student achievement? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 41(1), 162–192. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22338

74.

Schueler

B. E.

Goodman

J. S.

Deming

D. J.

(2017). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(2), 311–332. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373716685824

75.

Springer

M. G.

(2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27(5), 556–563. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.06.004

76.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Bush-Mecenas

S. C.

Duque

M. R.

(2016). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X15616864

77.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Hashim

A. K.

Bush-Mecenas

Weinstein

(2016). The Impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School district. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 251–282. https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188

78.

Strunk

K. O.

McEachin

(2014). More than sanctions: Closing achievement gaps through California’s use of intensive technical assistance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(3), 281–306. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373713510967

79.

Strunk

K. O.

McEachin

Westover

T. N.

(2014). The use and efficacy of capacity-building assistance for low-performing districts: The case of California’s district assistance and intervention teams. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(3), 719–751. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21658

80.

Sun

Kennedy

Loeb

(2020). The longitudinal effects of school improvement grants (Ed Working Paper No. 20-177). Annenberg Institute at Brown University. https://www.edworkingpapers.com/ai20-177

81.

Sun

Liu

Zhu

LeClair

(2019). Using a text-as-data approach to understand reform processes: A deep exploration of school improvement strategies. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(4), 510–536. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373719869318

82.

Sun

Penner

E. K.

Loeb

(2017). Resource- and approach-driven multidimensional change: Three-year effects of school improvement grants. American Educational Research Journal, 54(4), 607–643. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831217695790

83.

Weiner

(2016). Possibilities or paradoxes? How aspiring turnaround principals conceptualise turnaround and their place within it. School Leadership & Management, 36(5), 471–492. https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2016.1247037

84.

What Works Clearinghouse (2022). What Works Clearinghouse procedures and standards handbook, version 5.0. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance (NCEE). https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Handbooks

85.

Wooldridge

J. M.

(2021). Two-way fixed effects, the two-way mundlak regression, and difference-in-differences estimators (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID 3906345). Social Science Research Network. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3906345

86.

Woulfin

S. L.

Weiner

(2019). Triggering change: An investigation of the logics of turnaround leadership. Education and Urban Society, 51(2), 222–246. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013124517714865

87.

Zimmer

Henry

G. T.

Kho

(2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 670–696. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373717705729

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.38 MB

The Efficacy and Implementation of Michigan’s Partnership Model of School and District Turnaround: Mixed-Methods Evidence From the First 2 Years of Reform Implementation

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material