Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround

2013 ◽  
Vol 51 (4) ◽  
pp. 498-527 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Marsh ◽  
Katharine O. Strunk ◽  
Susan Bush
2019 ◽  
Vol 103 (3) ◽  
pp. 189-208
Author(s):  
Dallas Hambrick Hitt ◽  
Coby V. Meyers ◽  
Dennis Woodruff ◽  
Guorong Zhu

Building upon the prior development of a model of turnaround principal competencies, we investigated the extent to which the identified principal competencies correlate with student achievement. Participants met rigorous selection criteria for having effectively turned around their schools during their first 2 years as principal. We conducted correlational analyses to examine the strength of relationship between each of the seven competencies and found that the model appears to reflect the internal states of principals who orchestrate school turnaround. We suggest that this initial effort should be further refined as additional data sources become available, but note that this model, given the popularity of principal competencies in districts, can inform current policies and practices.


2017 ◽  
Vol 39 (4) ◽  
pp. 670-696 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ron Zimmer ◽  
Gary T. Henry ◽  
Adam Kho

In recent years, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to reform chronically low-performing schools. To fulfill their federal Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly managed them; (b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged for management by a charter management organization; and (c) placed schools under the management of a district Innovation Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone schools, which were separately managed by three districts, substantially improved student achievement. In schools under the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve schools without removing them from the governance of a school district.


2013 ◽  
Vol 50 (3) ◽  
pp. 259-287 ◽  
Author(s):  
Maia Bloomfield Cucchiara ◽  
Erin Rooney ◽  
Claire Robertson-Kraft

2014 ◽  
Vol 49 (8) ◽  
pp. 895-929 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tina M. Trujillo ◽  
Laura E. Hernández ◽  
Tonja Jarrell ◽  
René Kissell

2014 ◽  
Vol 29 (1) ◽  
pp. 51-84 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julie A. Marsh ◽  
Katharine O. Strunk ◽  
Susan C. Bush-Mecenas ◽  
Alice Huguet

2018 ◽  
Vol 37 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Ian M. Mette ◽  
Jason Stanoch

Rural communities traditionally enjoy an intimate relationship between stakeholders and the local school system.  While preliminary research exists to suggest rural school turnaround might be more likely to occur when a strong communal connection exists (Mette, 2014), little is known about rural school turnaround efforts serving predominantly Native American students.  This article reports findings of a School Improvement Grants (SIG) funded effort to digitize curriculum and deliver instruction through the use of tablets in Yellow Pine, a school district on a Native American reservation in a rural, Upper Midwestern state.  Data were collected through interviews with school and district leaders, as well as through teacher focus groups.  Findings highlight the failure to engage a historically disenfranchised community from the beginning of the improvement process, particularly the lack of involvement of students, parents, and teachers, which in turn led to little impact on student achievement.


2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mark Chin ◽  
Thomas Kane ◽  
Whitney Kozakowski ◽  
Beth Schueler ◽  
Douglas Staiger

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document