IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/edfpol/v11y2016i3p251-282.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Impact of Turnaround Reform on Student Outcomes: Evidence and Insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District

Author

Listed:
  • Katharine O. Strunk

    (Rossier School of Educationand Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles)

  • Julie A. Marsh

    (Rossier School of Educationand Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles)

  • Ayesha K. Hashim

    (Rossier School of Educationand Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles)

  • Susan Bush-Mecenas

    (Rossier School of Educationand Price School of Public Policy University of Southern California Los Angeles)

  • Tracey Weinstein

    (Students First Sacramento, CA)

Abstract

We examine the Los Angeles Unified School District's Public School Choice Initiative (PSCI), which sought to turnaround the district's lowest-performing schools. We ask whether school turnaround impacted student outcomes, and what explains variations in outcomes across reform cohorts. We use a Comparative Interrupted Time Series approach using administrative student-level data, following students in the first (1.0), second (2.0), and third (3.0) cohorts of PSCI schools. We find that students in 1.0 turnaround schools saw no significant improvements in outcomes, whereas students enrolled in 2.0 schools saw significant gains in English Language Arts in both years of the reform. Students in 3.0 schools experienced significant decreases in achievement. Qualitative and survey data suggest that increased support and assistance and the use of reconstitution and restart as the sole turnaround methods contributed to gains in 2.0, whereas policy changes in 3.0 caused difficulties and confusion in implementation, leading to poor student performance.

Suggested Citation

  • Katharine O. Strunk & Julie A. Marsh & Ayesha K. Hashim & Susan Bush-Mecenas & Tracey Weinstein, 2016. "The Impact of Turnaround Reform on Student Outcomes: Evidence and Insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 11(3), pages 251-282, Summer.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:251-282
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Robert Bifulco & William Duncombe & John Yinger, 2005. "Does whole-school reform boost student performance? The case of New York City," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 24(1), pages 47-72.
    2. Robert Bifulco & Helen F. Ladd, 2006. "The Impacts of Charter Schools on Student Achievement: Evidence from North Carolina," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 1(1), pages 50-90, January.
    3. Thomas S. Dee & Brian Jacob, 2011. "The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 418-446, June.
    4. Thomas Dee, 2012. "School Turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 Stimulus," NBER Working Papers 17990, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Mark Cimiluca & Brian Hill, 2023. "District‐wide school reform and student performance: Evidence from Montgomery County, Maryland," Bulletin of Economic Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 75(4), pages 813-827, October.
    2. Harbatkin, Erica & Strunk, Katharine O. & McIlwain, Aliyah, 2023. "School turnaround in a pandemic: An examination of the outsized implications of COVID-19 on low-performing turnaround schools, districts, and their communities," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 97(C).
    3. Mark Chin & Thomas J. Kane & Whitney Kozakowski & Beth E. Schueler & Douglas O. Staiger, 2019. "School District Reform in Newark: Within- and Between-School Changes in Achievement Growth," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 72(2), pages 323-354, March.
    4. Caitlin Kearns & Douglas Lee Lauen & Bruce Fuller, 2020. "Competing With Charter Schools: Selection, Retention, and Achievement in Los Angeles Pilot Schools," Evaluation Review, , vol. 44(2-3), pages 111-144, April.
    5. Hashim, Ayesha K. & Strunk, Katharine O. & Marsh, Julie A., 2018. "The new school advantage? Examining the effects of strategic new school openings on student achievement," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 254-266.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven W. Hemelt & Brian Jacob, 2017. "Differentiated Accountability and Education Production: Evidence from NCLB Waivers," NBER Working Papers 23461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Sade Bonilla & Thomas S. Dee, 2020. "The Effects of School Reform under NCLB Waivers: Evidence from Focus Schools in Kentucky," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 75-103, Winter.
    3. Steven W. Hemelt & Brian A. Jacob, 2020. "How Does an Accountability Program that Targets Achievement Gaps Affect Student Performance?," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 45-74, Winter.
    4. Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann, 2011. "How much do educational outcomes matter in OECD countries? [‘Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 26(67), pages 427-491.
    5. Hugh Macartney, 2014. "The Dynamic Effects of Educational Accountability," NBER Working Papers 19915, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Burgess, Simon, 2016. "Human Capital and Education: The State of the Art in the Economics of Education," IZA Discussion Papers 9885, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    7. Thomas Dee & Elise Dizon-Ross, 2017. "School Performance, Accountability and Waiver Reforms: Evidence from Louisiana," NBER Working Papers 23463, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Brian P. Gill & Jennifer S. Lerner & Paul Meosky, "undated". "Re-Imagining Accountability in K-12 Education: A Behavioral Science Perspective," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d0c19d0709b641259fe391b2e, Mathematica Policy Research.
    9. Lisa Dragoset & Susanne James-Burdumy & Kristin Hallgren & Irma Perez-Johnson & Mariesa Herrmann & Christina Tuttle & Megan Hague Angus & Rebecca Herman & Matthew Murray & Corutney Tanenbaum & Cheryl , 2015. "Usage of Policies and Practices Promoted by Race to the Top," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 4b296d4310f843acad1f80b5a, Mathematica Policy Research.
    10. Hugh Macartney, 2016. "The Dynamic Effects of Educational Accountability," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 34(1), pages 1-28.
    11. KAMKOUM, Arnaud Cedric, 2023. "The Federal Reserve’s Response to the Global Financial Crisis and its Effects: An Interrupted Time-Series Analysis of the Impact of its Quantitative Easing Programs," Thesis Commons d7pvg, Center for Open Science.
    12. Scott A. Imberman, 2011. "Achievement and Behavior in Charter Schools: Drawing a More Complete Picture," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(2), pages 416-435, May.
    13. Richardson, J.T., 2015. "Accountability incentives and academic achievement: Distributional impacts of accountability when standards are set low," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-16.
    14. Daphna Bassok & Thomas S. Dee & Scott Latham, 2019. "The Effects of Accountability Incentives in Early Childhood Education," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 38(4), pages 838-866, September.
    15. Seth Gershenson, 2016. "Performance Standards and Employee Effort: Evidence From Teacher Absences," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(3), pages 615-638, June.
    16. David Card & Martin D. Dooley & A. Abigail Payne, 2010. "School Competition and Efficiency with Publicly Funded Catholic Schools," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 2(4), pages 150-176, October.
    17. Pierre Koning & Karen Wiel, 2012. "School Responsiveness to Quality Rankings: An Empirical Analysis of Secondary Education in the Netherlands," De Economist, Springer, vol. 160(4), pages 339-355, December.
    18. Aucejo, Esteban & Romano, Teresa & Taylor, Eric S., 2019. "Does evaluation distort teacher effort and decisions? Quasi-experimental evidence from a policy of retesting students," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 102689, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    19. repec:mpr:mprres:8005 is not listed on IDEAS
    20. Sorensen, Lucy C. & Holt, Stephen B., 2021. "Sorting it Out: The Effects of Charter Expansion on Teacher and Student Composition at Traditional Public Schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    21. Mark Chin & Thomas J. Kane & Whitney Kozakowski & Beth E. Schueler & Douglas O. Staiger, 2019. "School District Reform in Newark: Within- and Between-School Changes in Achievement Growth," ILR Review, Cornell University, ILR School, vol. 72(2), pages 323-354, March.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:11:y:2016:i:3:p:251-282. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: The MIT Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.