Understandings and Research Methods

  • Joseph F. Murphy
  • Joshua F. Bleiberg
Part of the Education, Equity, Economy book series (EEEC, volume 6)


In the history of modern education reforms, the concept of school turnaround is relatively new (Murphy & Meyers, 2008). The first known use of the term turnaround in an education context was by Rosenholtz in the mid-1980s (Peurach & Neumerski, 2015). A few years later the first actual case of school turnaround occurred in New York City. The Chancellor of New York City Schools sought the help of an organization called Turnaround for Children that was working to provide wrap-around services to students after the attacks on September 11th (Duke, 2012). Together they worked to develop a national program to help struggling schools. School turnaround gained prominence as a policy starting with the passage of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2002 (Peck & Reitzug, 2014). The focus on school turnaround increased further with the passage of the School Improvement Grant (SIG) program in 2009 (Redding & Rhim, 2013). SIG was a central component of the Race to the Top (RTTT) program (part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, ARRA). SIG served as the main policy tool for improving the performance of historically struggling schools (Aladjem et al., 2010). These initiatives sought to apply “turnaround” improvement strategies that were utilized in the corporate sector (Murphy & Meyers, 2008).


  1. 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. A cross-site analysis from the evaluation of comprehensive school reform program implementation and outcomes study. Washington, DC: Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  2. American Institutes for Research. (2011). School turnaround: A pocket guide. In Reauthorizing ESEA: Making research relevant. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.Google Scholar
  3. Baroody, K. (2011). Turning around the nation’s lowest-performing schools: Five steps districts can take to improve their chances of success. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.Google Scholar
  4. Bogdan, R., & Biklen, S. (1992). Qualitative research for education: An introduction to theory and methods. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve student achievement lies in our worst-performing schools. Boston, MA: Mass Insight Education.Google Scholar
  6. Charmaz, K. (2014). Constructing grounded theory. New York, NY: Sage.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Copeland, G., & Neeley, A. (2013). Identifying competencies and actions of effective turnaround principals. Cayce, SC: Southeast Comprehensive Center at SEDL.Google Scholar
  9. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative inquiry & research design: Choosing among five approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Cucchiara, M. B., Rooney, E., & Robertson-Kraft, C. (2015). “I’ve never seen people work so hard!” Teachers’ working conditions in the early stages of school turnaround. Urban Education, 50(3), 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cullen, J. B., Levitt, S. D., Robertson, E., & Sadoff, S. (2013). What can be done to improve struggling high schools? The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 27(2), 133–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. De la Torre, M., Allensworth, E., Jagesic, S., Sebastian, J., Salmonowicz, M., Meyers, C., & Gerdeman, R. D. (2013). Turning around low-performing schools. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Consortium on Chicago School Research & American Institute for Research.Google Scholar
  13. Dee, T. S. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 Stimulus. Cambridge, MA: Program on Education Policy and Governance, Harvard University.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Duke, D. L. (2012). Tinkering and turnarounds: Understanding the contemporary campaign to improve low-performing schools. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 9–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Glaser, B. G. (1978). Theoretical sensitivity. Mill Valley, CA: Sociology Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hallinger, P. (2014). Reviewing reviews of research in educational leadership: An empirical assessment. Educational Administration Quarterly, 50(4), 539–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hatch, J. A. (2002). Doing qualitative research in education settings. New York, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  18. Heissel, J. A., & Ladd, H. F. (2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Washington, DC: CALDER.Google Scholar
  19. Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing Schools. IES practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  20. Hess, F., & Gift, T. (2008). How to turn school around. American School Board Journal. Special Report. January/February.Google Scholar
  21. Hochbein, C. (2012). Relegation and reversion: Longitudinal analysis of school turnaround and decline. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 92–107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huberman, M., Parrish, T., Hannan, S., Arellanes, M., & Shambaugh, L. (2011). Turnaround schools in California: Who are they and what strategies do they use? Washington, DC: American Institute for Research.Google Scholar
  23. Humphrey, S. E., Nahrgang, J. D., & Morgeson, F. P. (2007). Integrating motivational, social, and contextual work design features: a meta-analytic summary and theoretical extension of the work design literature. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92(5), 1332–1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Jochim, A., & Murphy, P. (2013). The capacity challenge: What it takes for state education agencies to support school improvement. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.Google Scholar
  25. Johnson, A. W. (2013). “Turnaround” as shock therapy race, neoliberalism, and school reform. Urban Education, 48(2), 232–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kowal, J., & Ableidinger, J. (2011). Leading indicators of school turnaround: How to know when dramatic change is on track. Charlottesville, VA: Partnership for Leaders in Education.Google Scholar
  27. Kowal, J. M., & Hassel, E. A. (2005a). School restructuring options under No Child Left Behind: Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Washington, DC: Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.Google Scholar
  28. Kowal, J. M., & Hassel, E. A. (2005b). Turnarounds with new leaders and staff. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement. (43).Google Scholar
  29. Kutash, J., Nico, E., Gorin, E., Rahmatullah, S., & Tallant, K. (2010). The school turnaround field guide. Boston, MA: Foundational Strategy Group.Google Scholar
  30. Lawrence Public Schools. (2016). LPS turnaround: Turnaround and open access architecture model. Retrieved September 9, 2016, from
  31. Lotto, L. S., & Murphy, J. (1990). Cognition and sensemaking in schools. In L. S. Lotto & P. W. Thurston (Eds.), Advances in educational administration: Changing perspectives on the school. (Volume 1, Part B). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. (Reprinted in Resources in Education).Google Scholar
  32. Loveless, T. (2010). The 2009 Brown Center report on American education: How well are American students learning. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  33. Lubinski, D. (2016). From Terman to today: A century of findings on intellectual precocity. Review of Educational Research, 86(4), 900–944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Marsh, J. A., Strunk, K. O., & Bush, S. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround: Early implementation findings from the Los Angeles Public School Choice Initiative. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), 498–527.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mass Insight. (2010). School turnaround models emerging turnaround strategies and results. Boston, MA: Mass Insight.Google Scholar
  36. McMurrer, J., & McIntosh, S. (2012). State implementation and perceptions of Title I School Improvement Grants under the Recovery Act: One year later. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  37. Meyers, C. V., & Murphy, J. (2007). Turning around failing schools: An analysis. Journal of School Leadership, 17(5), 631–659.Google Scholar
  38. Meyers, C., Lindsay, J., Condon, C., & Wan, Y. (2012). A statistical approach to identifying schools demonstrating substantial improvement in student learning. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 70–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  40. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13, 48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  42. Newmann, F. M., & Wehlage, G. G. (1995). Successful school restructuring: A report to the public and educators. Madison, WI: Center on Organization and Restructuring of School.Google Scholar
  43. Peck, C., & Reitzug, U. C. (2014). School turnaround fever: The Paradoxes of a historical practice promoted as a new reform. Urban Education, 49(1), 8–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Peurach, D. J., & Neumerski, C. M. (2015). Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change, 16(4), 379–420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Player, D., & Katz, V. (2016). Assessing school turnaround: Evidence from Ohio. The Elementary School Journal, 116(4), 675–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Popay, J., Roberts, H., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Rodgers, M., & Duffy, S. (2006). Guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews. A product from the ESCR methods programme Version, 1, b92.Google Scholar
  47. Potter, D., Reynolds, D., & Chapman, C. (2002). School improvement for schools facing challenging circumstances: A review of research and practice. School Leadership & Management, 22(3), 243–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Redding, S., & Rhim, L. M. (2013). Evolution of school turnaround. In L. Rhim & S. Redding (Eds.), The state role in school turnaround: Emerging best practices (pp. 19–28). San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  49. Rhim, L. M. (2011). Engaging families and communities in school turnarounds when students can’t wait. In M. Murphy & P. Sheley (Eds.), Handbook on Family and Community Engagement (pp. 29–35). Lincoln, IL: Academic Development Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Rhim, L. M., Kowal, J. M., Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A. (2007). School turnarounds: A review of the cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.Google Scholar
  51. Rhim, L. M., & Redding, S. (2014). The state role in school turnaround: Emerging best practices. San Francisco, CA: WestEd.Google Scholar
  52. Rice, J. K., & Malen, B. (2003). The human costs of education reform: The case of school reconstitution. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(5), 635–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Rodgers, M., Sowden, A., Petticrew, M., Arai, L., Roberts, H., Britten, N., & Popay, J. (2009). Testing methodological guidance on the conduct of narrative synthesis in systematic reviews: effectiveness of interventions to promote smoke alarm ownership and function. Evaluation, 15(1), 49–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Schueler, B. E., Goodman, J., & Deming, D. J. (2016). Can states take over and turn around school districts? Evidence from Lawrence, Massachusetts. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Scott, C. (2009). Improving low-performing schools: Lessons from five years of studying school restructuring Under No Child Left Behind. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.Google Scholar
  56. Smarick, A. (2010). The turnaround fallacy. Education Next, 10(1), 20–26.Google Scholar
  57. Stanton, L., & Segal, A. (2013). Setting the bar for school turnaround. Boston, MA: Mass Insight.Google Scholar
  58. Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Hashim, A. K., Bush-Mecenas, S., & Weinstein, T. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 251–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Stuit, D. (2010). Are bad schools immortal? The scarcity of turnarounds and shutdowns in both charter and district sectors. Washington, DC: Thomas Fordham Foundation.Google Scholar
  60. Stuit, D. (2012). Turnaround and closure rates in the charter and district sectors. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk (JESPAR), 17(1–2), 40–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Trujillo, T., & Renee, M. (2015). Irrational exuberance for market-based reform: How federal turnaround policies thwart democratic schooling. Teachers College Record, 117(6), 1–34.Google Scholar
  62. Webber, A., Troppe, P., Milanowski, A., Gutmann, B., Reisner, E., & Goertz, M. (2014). State implementation of reforms promoted under the Recovery Act. A report from charting the progress of education reform: An evaluation of the Recovery Act’s role. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.Google Scholar
  63. Weick, K. E. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph F. Murphy
    • 1
  • Joshua F. Bleiberg
    • 1
  1. 1.Peabody CollegeVanderbilt UniversityNashvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations