REL Midwest Reference Desk
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results
November 2015
Question
What does the research suggest is a reasonable time frame for implementing a
school turnaround model before seeing measurable results?
Background
REL Midwest received a request for information on the amount of time a school turnaround
model should be in place in order to see results.
Following an established REL Midwest research protocol, we conducted a search for research
reports as well as descriptive and policy-oriented briefs and articles on school turnaround. We
focused on identifying resources that specifically addressed the amount of time needed to see
measurable results following the implementation of a school turnaround model. The sources
included federally funded organizations, research institutions, several educational research
databases, and a general Internet search using Google and other search engines.
We also searched for appropriate organizations that may act as resources on this issue. We have
not done an evaluation of these organizations or the resources themselves but offer this list for
reference only.
What does the research suggest is a reasonable time frame for implementing a
school turnaround model before seeing measurable results?
Aladjem, D. K., Birman, B. F., Orland, M., Harr-Robins, J., Heredia, A., Parrish, T. B., &
Ruffini, S. J. (2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study.
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED526783.pdf
From the executive summary: “This exploratory study describes approaches to improving
schools through retrospective, in-depth qualitative case studies. To select schools to be
examined, [the authors] sought to identify CSR [Comprehensive School Reform] schools
demonstrating two distinctive patterns of improved student achievement between 2000
and 2005, rapid-improvement (i.e., schools that made quick and dramatic improvements
in student achievement over a one or two year time period) as well as slow-and-steady
(i.e., schools that made noteworthy student achievement improvements but over a four or
five year timeframe). This process led [the authors] to study 11 schools. . . . This report
provides examples of how some schools appear to be achieving noteworthy gains in
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—1
4295_11/15
student outcomes; while achieving these gains appears to be relatively rare, there also
appears to be multiple ways to do so. This study points to the dynamic settings in which
many low-performing schools operate and the need for ongoing investigation of how
schools can achieve impressive results and sustain them in constantly changing
environments. Researchers, policymakers, and practitioners in recent years have paid
much attention to the scientific search for ‘what works’ to improve schools and turn them
around. This study’s findings draw attention to the fact that turning schools around is not
just about adopting a set of effective or promising practices. It is about recognizing that
‘one best system’ does not exist—that no single approach can guarantee improvement in
a particular school. It is also about implementing practices well, while at the same time
navigating and adapting to a constantly changing landscape.”
De la Torre, M., Allensworth, E., Jagesic, S., Sebastian, J., Salmonowicz, M., Meyers, C., &
Gerdeman, R.D. (2012). Turning around low-performing schools in Chicago: Summary
report. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research.
Retrieved from
http://ccsr.uchicago.edu/sites/default/files/publications/12CCSRTurnAround-3.pdf
Selected text from the report: “On average, Chicago elementary/middle schools that
underwent reform made significant improvements over time. Four years after intervention,
the gap in test scores between reformed elementary/middle schools and the system average
decreased by almost half in reading and by almost two-thirds in mathematics.”
“Elementary/middle schools that went through reform made significant improvements in
test scores compared with similar schools that did not; however, large improvements did
not occur immediately in the first year. In the first year of reform, improvements in reading
and math test scores were only marginally higher than those at comparison schools (see
Figures 1 and 2). But there was progress during the years after reform at almost all schools
that underwent reform, in both reading and math, so that the gap in test scores between
reformed elementary/middle schools and the system average decreased by nearly half in
reading and by almost two-thirds in mathematics four years after intervention.”
“Figure 1. Reading achievement in elementary/middle schools was significantly better
after the second year of intervention; after four years the gap with the system average was
reduced by almost half.”
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008).
Turning around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #20084020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved
from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/Turnaround_pg_04181.pdf
From the overview: “This guide identifies practices that can quickly improve the
performance of chronically low-performing schools—a process commonly referred to as
creating ‘turnaround schools.’ For this guide, we define turnaround schools as those
meeting two criteria.
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—2
•
First, they began as chronically poor performers—with a high proportion of their
students (generally 20 percent or more) failing to meet state standards of
proficiency in mathematics or reading as defined under No Child Left Behind
over two or more consecutive years.
•
Second, they showed substantial gains in student achievement in a short time (no
more than three years). Examples of substantial gains in achievement are reducing
by at least 10 percentage points the proportion of students failing to meet state
standards for proficiency in mathematics or reading, showing similarly large
improvements in other measures of academic performance (such as lowering the
dropout rate by 10 percentage points or more), or improving overall performance
on standardized mathematics or reading tests by an average of 10 percentage
points (or about 0.25 standard deviations). The schools discussed in this practice
guide met these criteria, according to the data reported in the studies.”
Additional Resources
•
Brownstein, A. (2012). What studies say about school turnarounds. Washington DC:
National Education Writers Association. Retrieved from
http://www.ewa.org/sites/main/files/fileattachments/ewabrief.schoolturnarounds.final3_.pdf
From the summary: “Efforts to overhaul struggling schools have existed for decades, but
it wasn’t until President Obama fortified the process with $3.5 billion in 2009 that the
term school turnaround became etched in the public consciousness. . . . While there is a
lack of empirical studies on turnaround practices that result in improved student
achievement, it is possible to work backward—to examine successful turnarounds, in the
world of education and elsewhere, and determine what characteristics they have in
common. . . . This brief draws on a review of over 50 research studies or syntheses, as
well as scholarly articles and interviews with scholars involved in the many aspects of
school turnaround research.”
•
Duke, D. L., & Landahl, M. (2011). “Raising test scores was the easy part”: A case study
of the third year of school turnaround. International Studies in Educational
Administration, 39(3), 91–114.
From the abstract: “This study provides an in-depth look at the efforts of an elementary
school principal to sustain improved student achievement in the third year of the school
turnaround process. Case-study methodology, including the continuous collection of
qualitative data from multiple sources and analysis based on open and axial coding, was
used to conduct this prospective, exploratory study. To sustain improved student
achievement, many reforms introduced in Years 1 and 2 of the turnaround process were
either modified or replaced in Year 3, suggesting that school turnaround is a dynamic
process characterized by ongoing adjustments. The authors conclude that
institutionalization of reforms may not be an appropriate objective.”
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—3
Note: REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible.
Although we were unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this article, we
determined that it might be of interest to you. The resource may be available through
university or public library systems.
•
Fullan, M. (2001). Whole school reform: Problems and promises. Chicago, IL: Chicago
Community Trust. Retrieved from www.michaelfullan.ca/media/13396044810.pdf
From the paper: “In our own work and in our review of other cases, we have been
interested in how long it takes to turn around a poor performing school or district to one
which evidences good performance. (Fullan, 2001a) The short answer is 3-6-8 years; that
is, it takes about three years to turn around an elementary school, six years for a high
school and eight years for a district. By turn around I mean a significant increase in
student achievement. . . . People might ask can these timelines be reduced, say, cut in
half. The answer is yes. By more intensive use of ‘the Change Knowledge’ we can
accelerate the process and reduce the timelines. We have some recent evidence that
substantial progress can be made in schools in two years, and in districts in three years,
and even in whole nations.”
•
Hansen, M., & Choi, K. (2012). Chronically low-performing schools and turnaround:
Evidence from three states (ED 535509). Paper presented at the SREE [Society for
Research on Educational Effectiveness] Fall 2012 Conference, Washington, DC. Abstract
retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED535509.pdf
From the abstract: “The criteria for determining the student outcomes that define a school
as having ‘turned around’ are not well defined . . . , and the definition of turnaround
performance varies across studies. . . . Although current policy initiatives offer guidelines
for identifying CLP [chronically low performing] schools, there is no standard definition or
methodology in common usage. . . . This paper summarizes the lessons learned from this
exercise of empirically identifying CLP schools and binning them into performance
categories based on their trajectories. This paper provides guidance for others charged with
a similar task. Specifically, the authors learned the critical importance of using studentlevel data (rather than school-level aggregate measures), using growth-based measures in
conjunction with status-based performance metrics, the stability of these performance
metrics over time, and how to empirically recognize turnaround in schools as it occurs.
Also, [the authors] learned that low-performing schools turned around their performance
more frequently than one might have presumed based on prior research. In Florida, they
identified approximately 15% of chronically low-performing elementary and 14% of
chronically low-performing middle schools as turnarounds. Similar rates were observed in
North Carolina—13% and 16%, respectively; and even higher in Texas—29% and 31%,
respectively.”
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—4
•
Hochbein, C. (2012). Relegation and reversion: Longitudinal analysis of school turnaround
and decline. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17(1–2), 92–107.
From the abstract: “School turnaround has become a popular strategy for improvement
of chronically low-performing schools. Research related to school turnaround has relied
substantially upon case studies. These case studies often focus on successful turnarounds
and report immediate outcomes, failing to provide information about the sustainability of
the results. In addition, schools with equally dramatic declining academic performance
garner little attention from educators, policy makers, and researchers. This study
addresses this gap in school effectiveness and school improvement literature by
examining the longitudinal performance of schools after experiencing a dramatic
improvement or decline. Results of the study indicated that 3 years after a school
experienced turnaround, on average, academic performance declined from peak
performance, but did not revert to prior low levels of performance. Similarly, academic
performance of downfall schools, on average, did not relegate schools to a status of
chronic low performance, yet achievement levels did not rebound to prior levels.”
Note: REL Midwest tries to provide publicly available resources whenever possible.
Although we were unable to locate a link to the full-text version of this article, we
determined that it might be of interest to you. The resource may be available through
university or public library systems.
•
Kowal, J., & Ableidinger, J. (2011). Leading indicators of school turnarounds: How to
know when dramatic change is on track. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. Retrieved from
http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539555.pdf
From the executive summary: “In recent years, national policymakers have placed new
emphasis on ‘school turnarounds’ as a strategy for rapid, dramatic improvement in
chronically failing schools, calling on education leaders to turn around performance in
the 5,000 lowest-achieving schools nationwide. This goal may seem daunting, given the
dismal success rates of school improvement efforts of past years. Indeed, even outside
education—in for-profit businesses, nonprofit organizations and government agencies—
bad-to-great turnaround and ‘major change’ efforts succeed only about 30 percent of the
time. Given these odds, the success of the turnaround strategy in education will depend
largely on the speed with which districts and leaders spot schools that are off-track and
quickly redirect major change. Leading indicators are the early signs that leaders outside
education use regularly to determine whether an organization is on the right track or
destined to fail. In school turnarounds, leading indicators can provide early evidence
about whether a school is on track—and if not, how to intervene to increase the odds of
success. In this report, [the authors] summarize the research and experience from other
settings—including venture capital, franchising, and research and development in
industries such as pharmaceuticals—in which leaders have long relied on leading
indicators to enhance the likelihood of success. From these lessons, they identify key
principles and processes to guide the design and use of leading indicators in education.
By critically examining systems in other sectors, and analyzing potential lessons for
school turnarounds, education leaders can bring the benefits of leading indicators to bear
where it is not simply dollars but students’ futures at stake. In other sectors, organization
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—5
leaders identify a set of starting leading indicators based on known success factors in the
industry and the nature of the venture being monitored; zealously monitor those
indicators for signs of impending success or failure; and then act on what the indicators
reveal, using data to target assistance, modify investments, or redirect their focus.”
•
Mass Insight Education and Research Institute. (2010). School turnaround models:
Emerging turnaround strategies and results [PowerPoint presentation]. Retrieved from
http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stgresources/112/file/1/pubs/2010/07/20/Turnaround_Models_7_19_10.pdf
From the presentation: “The purpose of this research is to highlight promising school
turnaround models, both implemented by school districts and partnership organizations.
. . . School turnaround is a dramatic and comprehensive intervention in low-performing
schools that: a) produces significant gains in achievement within two years; and b)
readies the school for the longer process of transformation into a high-performance
organization.”
Additional Organizations to Consult
•
Center on School Turnaround
(http://centeronschoolturnaround.org/)
From the website: “The Center on School Turnaround (Center) is part of a federal
network of 22 Comprehensive Centers. There are 15 Regional Comprehensive Centers,
serving individual states or clusters of states, and 7 national Content Centers. The centers
are charged with building the capacity of state educational agencies (SEAs) to assist
districts and schools in meeting student achievement goals.”
•
U.S. Department of Education OESE Office of School Turnaround
(http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oese/ost/index.html)
From the website: “The Office of School Turnaround (OST) is responsible for providing
financial assistance and other support, including through the administration of the School
Improvement Grants (SIG) program, for state and district efforts to turn around the
lowest-performing five percent of schools in each state. The OST uses knowledge of
turnaround efforts, including those of SIG and Priority Schools, to inform its monitoring,
technical assistance, and policy decisions. It focuses on building the capacity of states
and districts to improve student outcomes, and sustain the reforms, in their lowestperforming schools. The OST is also responsible for helping to coordinate the
Department’s programs and initiatives focused on the lowest-performing schools and for
working collaboratively with other Department offices to develop strategies, guidance,
and networks to assist those schools.”
Keywords and Search Strings Used in the Search
•
“School turnaround” AND time
•
Measure AND “school turnaround” AND results OR improvement
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—6
•
Improvement AND “time frame” AND “turning schools around” OR “school
turnaround”
•
“School turnaround” AND improvement AND period
•
“Adequate yearly progress” AND “School turnaround”
•
AYP and “School turnaround”
Search of Databases and Websites
Institute of Education Sciences Sources: Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Program,
Doing What Works (DWW), National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), Institute of
Education Sciences (IES), IES Practice Guides, National Center for Education Evaluation and
Regional Assistance (NCEE), National Center for Education Research
Additional data resources: ERIC, EBSCO databases, Google Scholar, general Internet search
Criteria for Inclusion
When Reference Desk researchers review resources, they consider—among other things—four
factors:
•
Date of the publication: We include the most current information, except in the case of
nationally known seminal resources.
•
Source and funder of the report/study/brief/article: We give priority to IES, nationally
funded, and certain other vetted sources known for strict attention to research protocols.
•
Methodology: Randomized controlled trial studies, surveys, self-assessments, literature
reviews, policy briefs. We generally give priority for inclusion to randomized controlled
trial study findings, but the reader should note at least the following factors when basing
decisions on these resources: numbers of participants (just a few? thousands?); selection
(Did the participants volunteer for the study, or were they chosen?); representation (Were
findings generalized from a homogeneous or a diverse pool of participants? Was the
study sample representative of the population as a whole?).
•
Existing knowledge base: Although we strive to include vetted resources, there are times
when the research base is slim or nonexistent. In these cases, we presented the best
resources we could find, which may include, for example, newspaper articles, interviews
with content specialists, and organization websites.
The Regional Educational Laboratory (REL) Reference Desk is a service provided by a
collaborative of the REL Program, funded by the U.S. Department of Education’s Institute of
Education Sciences (IES). This response was prepared under contract ED-IES-12-C-0004 with
IES, by REL Midwest, administered by American Institutes for Research. The content of the
response does not necessarily reflect the views or policies of IES or the U.S. Department of
Education, nor does mention of trade names, commercial products, or organizations imply
endorsement by the U.S. government.
REL Midwest
Time Frame for School Turnaround Results—7