The Relationship Between School Turnaround and Student Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis

Abstract

School turnaround has emerged as a predominant strategy to improve chronically low-performing schools, although the approach remains controversial. This meta-analysis synthesizes results from 35 studies to examine the relationship between school turnaround and various student outcomes. We find that school turnaround is associated with improved attendance, standardized test scores, and graduation rates. When separating the results by the different turnaround models, transformation, turnaround, and restart models are associated with improvements in student test scores. We find no evidence of a significant relationship between school closure or state turnaround conducted under No Child Left Behind (NCLB) waivers and student test scores. We describe how changes in organizational operations, human capital, and the governance and/or management of low-performing schools might have contributed to this observed relationship.

Who Leads Turnaround Schools? Characteristics of Principals in Tennessee's Achievement School District and Innovation Zones

“…The intentional replacement of ineffective principals in the first year of school reform has been a prominent component in the theory of change for school turnaround (Kutash et al, 2010;Redding & Nguyen, 2020;Zimmer et al, 2017). This approach has been grounded in evidence that school leaders are instrumental for student achievement (Leithwood et al, 2004).…”

“…On average, school turnaround has shown little evidence of producing sustained school improvement (Dragoset et al, 2016, 2017; Pham et al, 2020). Furthermore, research finds that different approaches to school turnaround vary in their effectiveness (Redding & Nguyen, 2020; Schueler et al, 2020). For example, one set of studies found that a turnaround model maintaining local governance with increased autonomy outperformed a state takeover model in which school management was largely turned over to charter management organizations (CMOs) (Henry et al, 2020, Pham et al, 2020).…”

“…School turnaround has become a prevalent whole-school reform approach to improve low-performing schools (Dragoset et al, 2016(Dragoset et al, , 2017Kutash et al, 2010). The theory of change behind this model is a disruption of the status quo, often including a restructuring of school governance and management, a renewed focus on talent management, and improvements to school climate (Redding & Nguyen, 2020;Zimmer et al, 2017). Specific turnaround strategies have included strengthening teacher effectiveness, curriculum changes, expanded learning time, and flexibility and support for school operators (Kutash et al, 2010;Schueler et al, 2020).…”

Desegregación y categorización del desempeño escolar: percepciones de los equipos directivos sobre la Ley de Inclusión Escolar en dos regiones de Chile

“…A mediados de los años 90 en Texas, las escuelas comenzaron a ser clasificadas como "ejemplares", "reconocidas", "aceptables" o "de bajo rendimiento", y en Florida, se les asignó una letra desde la "A" a la "F", simulando el sistema de calificaciones en exámenes de estudiantes. Estas clasificaciones en varios estados no traían acarreadas sanciones o premios directos para las escuelas (SAW et al, 2017;HOWE;MURRAY, 2015).…”

“…Además, a nivel federal las escuelas fueron diferenciadas entre aquellas que logran un "progreso anual adecuado" (Made AYP 2 ) y quienes "no logran progreso anual adecuado" (No-made AYP). Las escuelas que no logran los avances esperados durante dos o más años pueden recibir sanciones, tales como el ofrecimiento por parte del estado de una nueva escuela para sus estudiantes, incluyendo la subvención del transporte (SAW et al, 2017).…”