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

Abstract

A growing body of research evaluates the effects of turnaround on chronically low-performing schools. We extend this literature by formally testing factors that may either mediate or suppress the effects of two turnaround initiatives in Tennessee: the Achievement School District (ASD) and local Innovation Zones (iZones). Using difference-in-differences models within a mediational framework, we find that hiring effective teachers and principals partially explains positive iZone effects. In the ASD, high levels of teacher turnover suppress potential positive effects. Also, in iZone schools, increased levels of student mobility and chronic absenteeism suppress potentially larger positive effects. Policies that increase capacity within turnaround schools, such as financial incentives for effective staff, appear to be important ingredients for realizing positive effects from turnaround reforms.

Sustainability and Maturation of School Turnaround: A Multiyear Evaluation of Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Local Innovation Zones

“…Organizational instability from high staff turnover may partly explain why ASD schools could not produce positive effects. This result aligns with prior literature which finds that high staff turnover is negatively associated with student achievement (Henry & Redding, 2020; Ronfeldt et al, 2013) and a prior study finding that staff turnover suppresses potential positive effects of school reform (Henry et al, 2020). Our results also suggest that the characteristics of teachers and principals recruited to ASD schools may help explain insignificant effects.…”

Evaluating Education Governance: Does State Takeover of School Districts Affect Student Achievement?

“…For instance, Henry et al. (2020) find that high teacher turnover in Tennessee's state‐run Achievement School District helped to explain why the effects weren't more positive, and in Lawrence, leaders erred on the side of retaining teachers and generated benefits. In contrast, in New Orleans, nearly all teachers were let go and the reforms resulted in large academic gains.…”

What Teachers Want: School Factors Predicting Teachers’ Decisions to Work in Low-Performing Schools

“…Along with compelling research that finds teachers influence student achievement gains more than any other school-based factor (Chetty et al, 2014; Jackson, 2012; Koedel & Betts, 2007; Rivkin et al, 2005; Rockoff, 2004; Jackson et al, 2014), recent research suggests that recruiting and retaining effective teachers to serve in the lowest performing schools is integral to the success of reforming those schools (Dee, 2012; Henry et al, 2020; Papay & Hannon, 2018; Strunk et al, 2016; Sun et al, 2017). After the disappointing results from initial federal investments in comprehensive school reform, studies in California, Tennessee, Massachusetts, and Ohio found positive effects of school turnaround reforms that required substantial teacher replacements (Carlson & Lavertu, 2018; Dee, 2012; Johnson & Heal, 2017; Papay & Hannon, 2018; Player & Katz, 2016; Strunk et al, 2016; Sun et al, 2017; Zimmer et al, 2017).…”

“…Moreover, several studies suggest that schools replacing more staff also produced larger positive effects than schools replacing fewer staff (Dee, 2012; Strunk et al, 2016; Sun et al, 2017). In addition, a study of Tennessee’s district turnaround networks, known as Innovation Zones, found that nearly 40% of their initial positive effect can be explained by hiring more effective teachers (Henry et al, 2020). The same study found that after initially hiring effective teachers, high rates of teacher turnover suppressed potential positive effects in schools taken over by Tennessee’s statewide turnaround model, called the Achievement School District (ASD).…”