NotesFAQContact Us
Search Tips
ERIC Number: ED547893
Record Type: Non-Journal
Publication Date: 2012
Pages: 294
Abstractor: As Provided
Reference Count: N/A
ISBN: 978-1-2674-2535-5
A Large Urban District's Implementation of Turnaround Policy and Practice at the High School Level
Freshwater, Ross
ProQuest LLC, Ph.D. Dissertation, The University of Wisconsin - Madison
The 2001 reauthorization of the Federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), otherwise known as No Child Left Behind, requires those schools which fail to make "adequate yearly progress" for five consecutive years to enter into "restructuring." Further clarified by the Obama administration's Blueprint for Reform, which describe the president's wishes for the next reauthorization of ESEA, the term restructuring translates into four "Turnaround" options for intervention: Turnaround Model, Restart Model, Transformation Model, and Closure Model. The Turnaround Model requires the removal and replacement of a majority of a school's staff, a practice which is also allowed under the Restart Model. Often termed "Reconstitution" in the literature, the application of this approach was not wide-spread in the United States until the latter 2000s. The studies of its effectiveness have revealed no sure-fire recipe for success - particularly at the high school level. This dissertation analyzes a large urban district's implementation of federal school turnaround policy at the high school level. It is a qualitative case study of four schools, two of which are engaged in the Turnaround Model and two of which are engaged in the Restart Model, as well as the two management organizations that run them. This dissertation asks the following research questions: How are the approaches to turnaround employed in two of the schools by the district and in two of the schools by an external management organization similar and different from one another? How are the approaches to turnaround similar and different between the two schools engaged in their first year of turnaround and the two schools engaged in their third year of turnaround? How do the approaches to turnaround employed within each of the four schools align or not align with recommendations for successful school turnaround put forward by members of the academy? Have the approaches to turnaround employed in each school resulted in improvements in student engagement and achievement? Are the turnaround efforts currently taking place in each school sustainable over the long term? Finally, how do the answers to these questions inform the conversation on the upcoming reauthorization of ESEA? [The dissertation citations contained here are published with the permission of ProQuest LLC. Further reproduction is prohibited without permission. Copies of dissertations may be obtained by Telephone (800) 1-800-521-0600. Web page:]
ProQuest LLC. 789 East Eisenhower Parkway, P.O. Box 1346, Ann Arbor, MI 48106. Tel: 800-521-0600; Web site:
Publication Type: Dissertations/Theses - Doctoral Dissertations
Education Level: High Schools; Secondary Education
Audience: N/A
Language: English
Sponsor: N/A
Authoring Institution: N/A
Identifiers - Laws, Policies, & Programs: Elementary and Secondary Education Act; No Child Left Behind Act 2001
IES Cited: ED565613