Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround

• Published in: Journal of educational change 2015-11, Vol.16 (4), p.379-420
• Main Authors: Peurach, Donald J., Neumerski, Christine M.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Academic Achievement; Achievement Gains; Administration; Agency Cooperation; Capacity Building; Change Strategies; Criticism; Education; Educational Change; Educational Facilities Improvement; Educational Improvement; Educational Policy; Educational Policy and Politics; Educational Practices; Infrastructure; Innovations; Instructional Leadership; Leaders; Learning Activities; Low Achievement; Metaphor; Numbers; Organization and Leadership; Partnerships in Education; Quality of education; School Buildings; School Districts; School Turnaround; State Departments of Education; Student Improvement; Success
• ISSN: 1389-2843; 1573-1812; 1573-1812
• DOI: 10.1007/s10833-015-9259-z

The purpose of this analysis is to increase understanding of the possibilities and challenges of building educational infrastructure—the basic, foundational structures, systems, and resources—to support large-scale school turnaround. Building educational infrastructure often exceeds the capacity of schools, districts, and state education agencies and, thus, requires collaborating with “lead turnaround partners” with specialized capabilities for such work. However, there is little research to guide the selection or operation of lead turnaround partners. The analysis uses a descriptive case study of one organization with success operating as a lead turnaround partner (Success for All) to develop a framework to guide the selection of lead turnaround partners, support their operations, and structure further research. While base level achievement gains can be realized within 3 years, the analysis suggests that fully establishing school-level infrastructure is estimated conservatively as a 7 years process, and fully establishing system-level infrastructure has been an on-going, 40 year process. The analysis suggests a strong need to balance the rhetorical urgency of “turnaround” with the understanding that building educational infrastructure to improve large numbers of underperforming schools will likely require massive, sustained technical, financial, policy, and political support.