Turnaround schools as a distinct category of school improvement¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 causal), q2 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The guide defines turnaround schools by two criteria: they "began as chronically poor performers" with generally 20 percent or more of students failing state proficiency standards over two or more consecutive years, and they "showed substantial gains in student achievement in a short time (no more than three years)". Substantial gains are exemplified by reducing the proportion failing proficiency by at least 10 percentage points or improving standardized test performance by about 0.25 standard deviations. Turnaround differs from general school improvement in speed and in the likelihood of staff replacement.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Schools must meet both the chronic low-performance criterion and the rapid substantial-gain criterion to count as turnaround schools

Constraints¶

• The guide excludes comprehensive school reform models and beating-the-odds schools that were never low performing

Target Learners¶

• students in schools failing to make adequate yearly progress

Target Learning Objectives¶

• rapid, dramatic improvement in student achievement

Claims¶

• School turnaround is a gradual process rather than an immediate event triggered by replacing staff or leadership [+W]

Related Theories¶

• Five Chicago school turnaround reform models mapped to four federal intervention models
• Three eras of Chicago school reform: Decentralization, Accountability, Diversification

Examples¶

-

Key Sources¶

• Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., and Darwin, M. (2008). Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide/7