Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Although multiple studies have examined the impact of school turnaround, less is known about reforms under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). To advance this literature, we examine North Carolina’s Restart (NCR) model. NCR aligns with ESSA by giving school leaders increased flexibility. Also, NCR differs from previous turnaround models by repackaging a traditionally sanction-based approach to instead motivate school leaders with increased autonomy. Using comparative interrupted time series models, we find positive NCR effects in math, but not in English Language Arts or on nontest-based student outcomes. Also, nearly a quarter of the positive NCR effect can be explained by decreased teacher and principal turnover. These results provide evidence to support current shifts toward reform models featuring local autonomy.

Keywords

school reform school improvement comparative interrupted time series low-performing schools

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aladjem

D. K.

LeFloch

K. C.

Zhang

Kurki

Boyle

Taylor

J. E.

Herrmann

Uekawa

Thomsen

Fashola

(2006). Models matter–the final report of the national longitudinal evaluation of comprehensive school reform. American Institutes for Research. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED499198

Anrig

(2015). Lessons from school improvement grants that worked. The Century Foundation. http://www.tcf.org/blog/detail/lessons-from-schoolimprovement-grants-that-worked

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.

Baron

R. M.

Kenny

D. A.

(1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173

Bell

S. H.

Olsen

R. B.

Orr

L. L.

Stuart

E. A.

(2016). Estimates of external validity bias when impact evaluations select sites nonrandomly. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(2), 318–335.

Benjamini

Krieger

A. M.

Yekutieli

(2006). Adaptive linear step-up procedures that control the false discovery rate. Biometrika, 93(3), 491–507. https://doi.org/10.1093/biomet/93.3.491

Berends

Bodilly

S. J.

Kirby

S. N.

(2002). Facing the challenges of whole-school reform: New American Schools after a decade. Rand Corporation. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=IAFT_Ln9JwcC&oi=fnd&pg=PR3&dq=berends+kirby+facing+the+challenges&ots=cy3UELrPXl&sig=-coXvQr4H_wXxWGbvKVG92sCxfU

Bloom

H. S.

(2003). Using “short” interrupted time-series analysis to measure the impacts of whole-school reforms. Evaluation Review, 27(1), 3–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0193841X02239017

Bonilla

Dee

(2017). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from focus schools in Kentucky. National Bureau of Economic Research.

10.

Bryk

A. S.

Sebring

P. B.

Allensworth

Easton

J. Q.

Luppescu

(2010). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. University of Chicago Press.

11.

Callaway

Sant’Anna

P. H.

(2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225, 200–230.

12.

Carver-Thomas

Darling-Hammond

(2019). The trouble with teacher turnover: How teacher attrition affects students and schools. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 27(36), 1–32.

13.

Charity

A. H.

Scarborough

H. S.

Griffin

D. M.

(2004). Familiarity with school English in African American children and its relation to early reading achievement. Child Development, 75(5), 1340–1356.

14.

Dee

Dizon-Ross

(2019). School performance, accountability, and waiver reforms: Evi-dence from Louisiana. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 41(3), 316–349.

15.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

(2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.

16.

Dixon

L. L.

Pham

L. D.

Henry

G. T.

Corcoran

S. P.

Zimmer

(2022). Who leads turnaround schools? Characteristics of principals in Tenne-ssee’s achievement school district and innovation zones. Educational Administration Quarterly, 58(2), 258-299.

17.

Dougherty

S. M.

Weiner

J. M.

(2019). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to no child left behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33(4), 555–586.

18.

Dragoset

Thomas

Herrmann

Deke

James-Burdumy

Graczewski

Boyle

Upton

Tanenbaum

Giffin

(2017). School improvement grants: Implementation and effectiveness (NCEE 2017-4013). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

19.

Fryer

R. G.

(2013). Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. National Bureau of Economic Research. http://www.nber.org/papers/w16850

20.

Goodman-Bacon

(2021). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277.

21.

Granados

(2017). Superintendent shares plans for NC’s new Achievement School District: WRAL.com. WRAL-TV. https://www.wral.com/superintendent-shares-plans-for-nc-s-new-achievement-school-district/16807037/

22.

Granados

Hinchcliffe

(2018, March 19). Restart program gives some low-performing schools flexibility to help struggling students. EducationNC. https://www.ednc.org/restart-program-gives-some-low-performing-schools-flexibility-to-help-struggling-students/

23.

Heissel

J. A.

Ladd

H. F.

(2017). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62, 302–320.

24.

Hemelt

S. W.

Jacob

B. A.

(2020). How does an accountability program that targets achievement gaps affect student performance? Education Finance and Policy, 15(1), 45–74.

25.

Henry

G. T.

Guthrie

J. E.

(2019). The effects of race to the top school turnaround in North Carolina. EdWorkingPapers.com.

26.

Henry

G. T.

Guthrie

J. E.

Townsend

L. W.

(2015). Outcomes and impacts of North Carolina’s initiative to turn around the lowest-achieving schools. The Friday Institute for Educational Innovation, North Carolina State University.

27.

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.

28.

Henry

G. T.

Pham

L. D.

Kho

Zimmer

(2020). Peeking into the black box of school turnaround: A formal test of mediators and suppressors. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 40(2), 232–256.

29.

Herman

Dawson

Dee

Greene

Maynard

Redding

Darwin

(2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools. IES practice guide. National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED501241

30.

Jackson

C. K.

Rockoff

J. E.

Staiger

D. O.

(2014). Teacher effects and teacher-related policies. Annual Review of Economics, 6(1), 801–825.

31.

Klein

(2016). The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education Week. https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/index.html?cmp=SOC-SHR-FB

32.

Lee

(2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78(3), 608–644.

33.

Malen

Croninger

Muncey

Redmond-Jones

(2002). Reconstituting schools: “testing” the “theory of action.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 113–132.

34.

Matthews

G. F.

Pham

L. D.

Jackson

Singleton

D. T.

(2022). Rebuilding the box: School principals navigating new reform environments. University Council of Educational Administration.

35.

NCDPI. (2016). Reform model information. https://www.rep.dpi.state.nc.us/app/reform_models/reform.html

36.

NCDPI. (2017). Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). https://www.dpi.nc.gov/districts-schools/federal-program-monitoring/every-student-succeeds-act-essa

37.

NCDPI. (2019). NCDPI state test results (green book)—Historical trends and results. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/7837/open

38.

NCDPI. (2021). School attendance and student acco-unting manual. https://www.dpi.nc.gov/media/1258/open

39.

NCERDC. (2009). Technical report #5: Linking teachers in the course membership data to teachers in the school activity report. https://childandfamilypolicy.duke.edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2021/11/TECHREPT5.pdf

40.

North Carolina General Statute § 115C-105.37B. https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_115c/gs_115c-105.37b.html

41.

North Carolina General Statute § 115C-288(g), § 115C-288(g). https://www.ncleg.net/enactedlegislation/statutes/html/bysection/chapter_115c/gs_115c-288.html

42.

Pham

L. D.

(2023). Why do we find these effects? An examination of mediating pathways explaining the effects of school turnaround. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 16, 82–105.

43.

Pham

L. D.

Henry

G. T.

Kho

Zimmer

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

44.

Preacher

K. J.

(2015). Advances in mediation analysis: A survey and synthesis of new developments. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 825–852.

45.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731.

46.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40(3), 879–891.

47.

Redding

Nguyen

T. D.

(2020). The relationship between school turnaround and student outcomes: A meta-analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 42(4), 493–519.

48.

Schueler

B. E.

Asher

C. A.

Larned

K. E.

Mehrotra

Pollard

(2022). 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

49.

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, 1–384. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22338

50.

Somers

M.-A.

Zhu

Jacob

Bloom

(2013). The validity and precision of the comparative interrupted time series design and the difference-in-difference design in educational evaluation [Working paper]. MDRC.

51.

Steinberg

M. P.

Sartain

(2015). Does teacher evaluation improve school performance? Experimental evidence from Chicago’s excellence in teaching project. Education Finance and Policy, 10(4), 535–572.

52.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Hashim

A. K.

Bush-Mecenas

(2016). Innovation and a return to the status quo: A mixed-methods study of school reconstitution. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(3), 549–577.

53.

Tyack

D. B.

Cuban

(1995). Tinkering toward utopia a century of public school reform. Harvard University Press.

54.

U.S. Department of Education. (2009). Guidance on fiscal year 2010 school improvement grants under section 1004(3). https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED565877

55.

Woessmann

(2007). International evidence on school competition, autonomy, and accountability: A review. Peabody Journal of Education, 82(2–3), 473–497.

56.

Zimmer

Henry

G. T.

Kho

(2017). The effects of school turnaround in Tennessee’s achi-evement school district and innovation zones. Edu-cational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 670–696.

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

0.36 MB

Beyond Prescriptive Reforms: An Examination of North Carolina’s Flexible School Restart Program

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material