Assessing School Turnaround: Evidence from Ohio

Peeking Into the Black Box of School Turnaround: A Formal Test of Mediators and Suppressors

“…We outline this theory of action in Figure 1, but first note several reasons to specifically focus on these measures of student, teacher, and principal stability and capability. First, previous evaluations of school turnaround efforts in California, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Ohio have found positive effects from reforms requiring more substantial staff replacements relative to less dramatic models (Carlson & Lavertu, 2018; Dee, 2012; Papay & Hannon, 2018; Player & Katz, 2013; Sun et al, 2017). These studies suggest that recruiting and retaining effective staff are important mediating mechanisms.…”

Coaching Principals for the Complexity of School Reform

“…In addition to instructional leadership, scholars have increasingly called upon principals to engage in leadership practices that facilitate improvement in student learning and achievement in schools that have demonstrated long-standing achievement declines (Duke, 2015;Meyers & Murphy, 2008). This leadership typically involves exercising strong leadership practices that are informed with data, emphasizing easily attained improvements in student achievement, and creating high levels of staff commitment to new instructional practices (Herman et al, 2008; see also Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010;Meyers & Murphy, 2008;Player & Katz, 2016). The primary aim is thus to disrupt established organizational behaviors and introduce new behaviors that bring about lasting organizational change and sustain higher levels of student achievement.…”

The Rhode to Turnaround: The Impact of Waivers to No Child Left Behind on School Performance

“…On one hand, there is a substantial body of work that concludes that K-12 accountability systems can have positive effects on high-stakes state test scores, even among schools that are labeled lowest performing and subject to accountability pressure (Carnoy & Loeb, 2002; Chakrabarti, 2010; Chiang, 2009; Dee & Jacob, 2011; Rockoff & Turner, 2010; Rouse, Hannaway, Goldhaber, & Figlio, 2013; Winters & Cowen, 2012). More recent research by Papay (2015) and others (Dee, 2012; de la Torre et al, 2013; Player & Katz, 2013; Strunk, Marsh, Hashim, Mecenas-Bush, & Weinstein, 2016; Zimmer, Henry, & Kho, 2016) suggests that even more recent turnaround policies spurred by RTTT may also serve to enhance student performance. While these studies appear to build a positive case for such an approach, they do not necessarily provide insight into why or how these effects are achieved.…”