Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround

Journal of Educational Change

Volumn 16, Issue 4, 2015, Pages 379-420

  Peurach, Donald J ^a   Neumerski, Christine M ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity building; Infrastructure; Innovation development; Lead turnaround partner; Turnaround

Indexed keywords

EID: 84947870492     PISSN: 13892843     EISSN: 15731812     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z     Document Type: Article

References (109)

1. Aldrich, H. (1999). Organizations evolving. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2. Anderson, T., & Shattuck, J. (2012). Design-based research: A decade of progress in education research? Educational Researcher,41(1), 16–25.
3. Argyris, C., & Schön, D. (1978). Organizational learning: A theory of action perspective. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
4. Berends, M., Bodilly, S. J., & Kirby, S. N. (2002). Facing the challenges of whole school reform: New American schools after a decade. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
5. Borman, G. D., Hewes, G. M., Overman, L. T., & Brown, S. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research,73(2), 125–230.
6. Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005a). Success for All: First year results from the national randomized field trial. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,27(1), 1–22.
7. Borman, G., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2005b). The national randomized field trial of Success for All: Second-year outcomes. American Educational Research Journal,42(4), 673–696.
8. Borman, G. D., Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Chamberlain, A., Madden, N. A., & Chambers, B. (2007). Final reading outcomes of the national randomized field trial of Success for All. American Educational Research Journal,44(3), 701–731.
9. Bossert, S. T., Dwyer, D. C., Rowan, B., & Lee, G. (1982). The instructional management role of the principal. Educational Administration Quarterly,18(3), 34–64.
10. Bryk, A. S. (2009). Supporting a science of improvement. Phi Delta Kappa,90(8), 597–600.
11. Bryk, A. S., Gomez, L. M., & Grunow, A. (2010a). Getting ideas into action: Building networked improvement communities in education. Stanford, CA: Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching.
12. Bryk, A. S., Sebring, P. B., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. Q. (2010b). Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
13. Burwell, S. M., Munoz, C., Holdren, J., & Krueger, A. (2013). Next steps in the evidence and innovation agenda. Retrieved August 27, 2013. http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/memoranda/2013/m-13-17.pdf
14. Camburn, E., Rowan, B., & Taylor, J. T. (2003). Distributed leadership in schools: The case of elementary schools adopting comprehensive school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,25(4), 347–373.
15. Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (2008). Initial results: Congressionally-reviewed initiative to identify social programs backed by top-tier Evidence. Retrieved December 8, 2008. http://ceg.files.cms-plus.com/Evidence/Announcement%20of%20results%2012.3.08.pdf
16. Cohen, D. K., & Moffit, S. L. (2009). The ordeal of inequality: Did federal regulation fix the schools?. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
17. Cohen, D. K., Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., Gates, K. E., & Goldin, S. (2014). Improvement by design: The promise of better schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18. Correnti, R. (2007). An empirical investigation of professional development effects on literacy instruction using daily logs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,29(4), 262–295.
19. Correnti, R., & Rowan, B. (2007). Opening up the black box: Literacy instruction in schools participating in three comprehensive school reform programs. American Educational Research Journal,44(2), 298–338.
20. Darling-Hammond, L., LaPointe, M., Meyerson, D., Orr, M. T., & Cohen, C. (2007). Preparing school leaders for a changing world: Lessons from exemplary leadership development programs. Palo Alto, CA: Stanford Educational Leadership Institute.
21. Datnow, A. (2000). Power and politics in the adoption of school reform models. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,22(4), 357–374.
22. Datnow, A., & Honig, M. I. (2008). Introduction to the special issue on scaling up: Teaching and learning improvement in urban districts: The promises and pitfalls of external assistance providers. Peabody Journal of Education,83(3), 323–327.
23. Datnow, A., Hubbard, L., & Mehan, H. (2002). Extending educational reform: From one school to many. New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.
24. Datnow, A., & Park, V. (2009). Towards the co-construction of educational policy: Large-scale reform in an era of complexity. In D. Plank, B. Schneider, & G. Sykes (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 348–361). New York, NY: Routledge Publishers.
25. David, J. L. (2010). Research says: Drastic school turnarounds are risky. Educational Leadership,68(2), 78–81.
26. Donahoo, S., Peurach, D. J., & Scott, J. (2012). Have allowing and encouraging private corporations to participate in public education positively affected school governance? In R. C. Hunter, F. Brown, & S. Donahoo (Eds.), Debating issues in American education: School governance (Vol. 7, pp. 165–186). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
27. Duke, D., & Salmonowicz, M. (2010). Key decisions of a first-year “turnaround principal”. Educational Management Administration and Leadership,38(1), 33–58.
28. Duncan, A. (2009). Turning around the bottom 5 percent: Address by the secretary of education at the national alliance for public charter schools conference. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www2.ed.gov/news/speeches/2009/06/06222009.pdf
29. Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. Washington, DC: The Albert Shanker Institute.
30. Elmore, R. F., & Burney, D. (1999). Investing in teacher learning: Staff development and instructional improvement. In L. Darling-Hammond & G. Sykes (Eds.), Teaching as the learning profession: Handbook of policy and practice (pp. 263–291). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
31. Finnigan, K. S., Bitter, C., & O’Day, J. (2009). Improving low-performing schools through external assistance: Lessons from Chicago and California. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(7), 1–27. Retrieved July 27, 2010 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v17n7/.
32. Firestone, W. A., & Corbett, H. D. (1988). Planned organizational change. In N. J. Boyan (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 321–340). New York, NY: Longman.
33. Glazer, J. L. (2009). How external interveners leverage large-scale change: The case of America’s choice, 1998–2003. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,31(3), 269–297.
34. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. P. (2013). School improvement networks as a strategy for large-scale education reform: The role of environments. Educational Policy,27(4), 676–710.
35. Glazer, J. L., & Peurach, D. J. (2014). Occupational control in education: Epistemic communities and the control of teaching. Washington, DC: George Washington University.
36. Glennan, T. K, Jr, Bodilly, S. J., Galegher, J. R., & Kerr, K. A. (Eds.). (2004). Expanding the reach of educational reforms: Perspectives from leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
37. Haskins, R., & Baron, J. (2011). Part 6: The Obama administration’s evidence-based social policy initiatives: An overview. In R. Puttick (Ed.), Evidence for social policy and practice: Perspectives on how research and evidence can influence decision making in public services. Nesta: London.
38. Hatch, T. (2000). What does it take to break the mold? Rhetoric and reality in New American Schools. Teachers College Record,102(3), 561–589.
39. 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 #2008-4020). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
40. Hess, F. M. (2008). Back to school. The American: The Journal of the American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved February 1, 2009. http://ceg.files.cms-plus.com/Evidence/Announcement%20of%20results%2012.3.08.pdf
41. Honig, M. I. (2004). The new middle management: Intermediary organizations in education policy implementation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,26(1), 65–87.
42. Honig, M. I. (Ed.). (2006). New directions in education policy implementation: Confronting complexity. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
43. Honig, M. I., & Hatch, T. (2004). Crafting coherence: How schools strategically manage multiple, external demands. Educational Researcher,33(8), 16–30.
44. Hopkins, M., Spillane, J. P., Jakopovic, P., & Heaton, R. M. (2013). Infrastructure redesign and instructional reform in mathematics: Formal structure and teacher leadership. The Elementary School Journal,114(2), 200–224.
45. Hord, S. M., Rutherford, W. L., Huling-Austin, L., & Hall, G. (1987). Taking charge of change. Alexandria, VA: Association for Curriculum and Development.
46. Institute of Education Sciences/National Science Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development. Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
47. Kirp, D. L. (2013). Improbable scholars: The rebirth of a great American school system and a strategy for America’s schools. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
48. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., & Tallant, K. (2010). The school turnaround field guide. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.wallacefoundation.org/knowledge-center/school-leadership/district-policy-and-practice/Documents/The-School-Turnaround-Field-Guide.pdf
49. Leithwood, K. (1992). The move toward transformational leadership. Educational Leadership,49(5), 8–12.
50. Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. (2010). Leading school turnaround: How successful leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
51. Leithwood, K., & Strauss, T. (2008). Turnaround schools and the leadership they require. Toronto, ON, CA: Canadian Education Association.
52. Levine, A. (2005). Educating school leaders. Washington, DC: The Education Schools Project.
53. Livingston, M., Cummings, N., & Madden, N. (1996). Success for All facilitator’s manual. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on the Education of Students Placed at Risk.
54. Louisiana Department of Education. (2011). Louisiana’s turnaround zone: Answering the urgency of now. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives.
55. March, J. G. (1996). Exploration and exploitation in organizational learning. In M. D. Cohen, & L. S. Sproull (Eds.), Organizational learning (pp. 101–123). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. (Reprinted from Organization Science, 2 (1), February, 1991).
56. Mass Insight. (2007). The turnaround challenge. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/turnaround/51/file/1/pubs/2010/04/15/TheTurnaroundChallenge_MainReport.pdf
57. Mass Insight. (2009). Partnership zones: Selecting and attracting lead partners to support turnaround schools. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/92/file/1/pubs/2010/04/20/AbridgedPartnerMarketplace_October_2009.pdf
58. Mass Insight. (2010a). The District turnaround office: A comprehensive support structure for struggling schools. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/114/file/1/pubs/2010/09/01/STG_District_Turnaround_Office_August_2010.pdf
59. Mass Insight. (2010b). The lead partner: A new partnership model. Retrieved December 27, 2013. http://www.massinsight.org/publications/stg-resources/108/file/1/pubs/2010/07/09/STG_Lead_Partner_master_deck_March_2010.pdf
60. McRobbie, J. (1998). Can state intervention spur academic turnaround. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.
61. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. M. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. EducationPolicy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved January 5, 2009 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/.
62. Morgan, G. (2006). Images of organization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
63. Murphy, J. (2008). The place of leadership in turnaround schools: Insights from organizational recovery in the public and private sectors. Journal of Educational Administration,46(1), 74–98.
64. Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2009). Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround schools: Insights from the corporate, government, and non-profit sectors. Educational Management Administration and Leadership,37(9), 9–27.
65. Neumerski, C. M. (2013). Rethinking instructional leadership, a review: What do we know about principal, coach, and teacher instructional leadership, and where should we go from here? Educational Administration Quarterly,49(2), 310–347.
66. Neumerski, C. M. (2014). Understanding instructional leadership by understanding instructional systems: A cross-case comparison of three high-poverty, urban elementary schools. Paper presented at the Annual Education Research Association Conference. Philadelphia, PA: April, 2014.
67. Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coherence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement policy. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,23(4), 297–321.
68. NGA, Ccsso, & Achieve. (2008). Benchmarking for success: Ensuring US students receive a world-class education. Washington, DC: National Governors Association.
69. Patton, M. Q. (2011). Developmental evaluation: Applying concepts to enhance innovation and use. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
70. Penuel, W., Fishman, B., Cheng, B. H., & Sabelli, N. (2011). Organizing research and development at the intersection of learning, implementation, and design. Educational Researcher,40, 331–337.
71. Peurach, D. J. (2000). Success for All: Interim report. Ann Arbor, MI: The University of Michigan, School of Education, Study of Instructional Improvement.
72. Peurach, D. J. (2006). Large scale reform of school-level leadership: Managerial leadership in Success for All. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the University Council for Educational Administration. San Antonio, TX. November 2006.
73. Peurach, D. J. (2009). Building an infrastructure for large-scale instructional improvement. Van Leer Education Conference: From Vision and Policy to Implementation. Jerusalem. May, 2009.
74. Peurach, D. J. (2011). Seeing complexity in public education: Problems, possibilities, and Success for All. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
75. Peurach, D. J. (2014, January 16). Lessons from innovators: Calibrating expectations for i3 evaluation results. Huffington Post. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-e-slavin/lessons-from-innovators-c_b_4609088.html
76. Peurach, D. J., & Glazer, J. L. (2012). Reconsidering replication: New perspectives on large-scale school improvement. Journal of Educational Change,13(2), 155–190.
77. Peurach, D. J., Glazer, J. L., & Lenhoff, S. W. (2014). The developmental evaluation of school improvement networks. Educational Policy,. doi:10.1177/0895904814557592.
78. Peurach, D. J., & Gumus, E. (2011). Executive leadership in school improvement networks: A conceptual framework and agenda for research. Current Issues in Education, 14(3), 1–17.
79. Peurach, D. J., Lenhoff, J.W., & Glazer, J. L. (In press). Large scale high school reform through school improvement networks: Examining possibilities for “developmental evaluation.” National Society for the Study of Education Yearbook, 15(1).
80. Phenix, D., Siegel, D., Zaltsman, A., & Fruchter, N. (2004). Virtual district, real improvement: A retrospective evaluation of the Chancellor’s District, 1996–2003. New York: New York University.
81. Preskill, H., & Beer, T. (2012). Evaluating social innovation. Washington, DC: Center for Evaluation Innovation.
82. Quint, J. C., Balu, R., DeLaurentis, M., Rappaport, S., Smith, T. J., & Zhu, P. (2013). The Success for All Model of school reform: Early findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up. New York, NY: MDRC.
83. Quint, J. C., Balu, R., DeLaurentis, M., Rappaport, S., Smith, T. J., & Zhu, P. (2014). The Success for All Model of school reform: Interim findings from the Investing in Innovation (i3) scale-up. New York, NY: MDRC.
84. Rosenholtz, S. J. (1985). Effective schools: Interpreting the evidence. American Journal of Education,93(3), 352–388.
85. Rowan, B. (2002). The ecology of school improvement: Notes on the school improvement industry in the United States. Journal of Educational Change,3, 283–314.
86. Rowan, B. (2011). Intervening to improve the educational outcomes of students in poverty: Lessons from recent work in high-poverty schools. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 523–538). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation. (co-published with the Spencer Foundation).
87. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009a). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
88. Rowan, B., Correnti, R. J., Miller, R. J., & Camburn, E. M. (2009b). School improvement by design: Lessons from a study of comprehensive school reform programs. In G. Sykes, B. Schneider, & D. Plank (Eds.), AERA handbook on education policy research (pp. 637–651). New York: Routledge.
89. Rowan, B., & Miller, R. J. (2007). Organizational strategies for promoting instructional change: Implementation dynamics in schools working with comprehensive school reform providers. American Educational Research Journal,44(2), 252–297.
90. Sebring, P. B., & Bryk, A. S. (2000). School leadership and the bottom line in Chicago. Phi Delta Kappan,81(6), 440–443.
91. Slavin, R. E. (1983). Cooperative learning. New York: Longman.
92. Slavin, R. E. (1990). Cooperative learning: Theory, research, and practice. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
93. Slavin, R. E., Leavey, M., & Madden, N. A. (1984). Combining cooperative learning and individualized instruction: Effects on student mathematics achievement, attitudes, and behaviors. Elementary School Journal,84, 409–422.
94. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (1996). Disseminating Success for All: Lessons for policy and practice. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University, Center for Research on Education for Students Placed at Risk.
95. Slavin, R. E., & Madden, N. A. (2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
96. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Chambers, M. E., & Haxby, B. (2008). Two million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
97. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., & Datnow, A. (2007). Research in, research out: The role of research in the development and scale-up of Success for All. In S. H. Fuhrman, D. K. Cohen, & F. Mosher (Eds.), The state of education policy research (pp. 261–280). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
98. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L. J., & Wasik, B. A. (1996). Every child, every school: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Inc.
99. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Karweit, N. L., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1992). Success for All: A relentless approach to prevention and early intervention in elementary schools. Arlington, VA: Educational Research Service.
100. Smarick, A. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next,10(1), 21–26.
101. Smith, M. S., & O’Day, J. (1991). Systemic school reform. In S. H. Fuhrman & B. Malen (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 Yearbook of the Politics of Education Association (pp. 233–267). New York: The Falmer Press.
102. Stevens, R., Madden, N. A., Slavin, R. E., & Farnish, A. (1987). Cooperative integrated reading and composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly,22(4), 433–454.
103. Stevens, R. J., & Slavin, R. E. (1995). The cooperative elementary school: Effects on students’ achievement, attitudes, and social relations. American Educational Research Journal,32(2), 321–351.
104. Success for All Foundation. (2002). Success for All: Leadership guide. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.
105. Success for All Foundation. (2008). Raising the bar. Towson, MD: Success for All Foundation.
106. Trujillo, T. (2012). The paradoxical logic of school turnarounds: A Catch-22. Teachers College Record, Date Published June 14, 2012. http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 16797. Accessed December 28, 2013 7:37:26 AM.
107. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). Race to the top: Application for initial funding. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
108. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). An overview of school turnaround. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
109. Zavadsky, H. (2012). School turnarounds: The essential role of districts. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.