Understanding turnaround leadership research: Continuity and change (2009

Abstract

This review paper describes the development of turnaround leadership research in educational settings to understand its trends and future directions. The review uses an established research process to make sense of the turnaround leadership literature. It identifies the continuities and discontinuities in this research area, which have strong implications for researchers in different fields. This study contributes to the research on school turnaround and provides practical guidance.

Introduction

Although turnaround leadership has been widely explored in academia, no one has delineated a comprehensive understanding of this area since Murphy (2008) published the first comprehensive review. This paper explores patterns of continuity and change in turnaround leadership research by comprehensively reviewing the related literature in the education context. The conceptual framework used in this review was derived from Murphy (2008) and includes a number of dimensions that he examined. Following Murphy, this review looks at turnaround as a concept, a condition, a process, and a consequence. It examines leadership as a key to reintegration. It considers changes in leadership as key to recovery and examines the rationale for leadership change. It investigates the approach to turnaround that regards managers as the cause of the problem. It looks at how managers are restrained by the current culture, their inability to reform, and the replacement of managers as “signaling.” It also studies the types of leadership that have emerged in turnaround schools and the creation of a collaborative school culture and structure. Two other elements not present in Murphy but identified in the literature—turnaround management strategies and the antecedents and effects of turnaround—are also included in this paper. Areas of continuity and change are identified based on this comprehensive review.

Methods

Hallinger (2013) identified the most common questions in literature reviews of leadership as follows.

What are the central topics of interest, guiding questions, and goals?

What conceptual perspective guides the reviewer’s selection, evaluation, and interpretation of the studies?

What sources and types of data are adopted in the review?

How are data evaluated, analyzed, and synthesized in the review?

What are the major results, limitations, and implications of the review?

This paper follows Murphy’s (2008) method to explore and restructure the literature systematically, and also responds to Hallinger’s (2013) suggestion that the data analysis process should be clearly described in a review. An initial analysis framework was formed for this literature review based on the themes identified in Murphy’s (2008) research. These themes were identified with codes using capital letters from A to K. The formal analysis was done using the following procedures.

Coding started at the most detailed level. For example, “teachers’ willingness” was initially coded as “L3,” where the letter “L” indicated the theme of “Antecedents and Effect Factors of Turnarounds” and the number “3” indicated a specific antecedent of turnarounds. The letters from A to K had already been assigned to Murphy’s themes, so one new theme was coded as “L.”

These initial codes were then grouped with other similar codes to form larger categories. For example, as mentioned above, “teachers’ willingness” (L3) was grouped with other codes like “parent participants” (L4) to form the larger theme of “Antecedents and Effect Factors of Turnarounds” (L). This allowed the researcher to examine the specific elements in “Antecedents and Effect Factors of Turnarounds.”

A “story” of the research developments in turnaround leadership was depicted based on each of the smallest units, such as L3.

New themes were allowed to emerge during the coding and analysis process, in addition to the main elements of Murphy’s (2008) framework. Finally, two new themes were identified beyond the original analysis framework.

Conceptual framework and central focus

Reviews can be delimited to a specific period for both historical and pragmatic reasons (Hallinger, 2013; Hallinger and Bryant, 2013). Although some schools in the USA in the 1970s and 1980s experienced successful turnaround, empirical research on turnaround in the education field emerged after Murphy’s (2008) publication. At that time, scholars began to highlight the development of turnaround in the educational context. Thus, this review focused on the relevant literature from 2009 to 2016.

Data sources

This review incorporated literature on turnaround leadership in educational settings published between 2009 and 2016 in international English-language refereed journals and books. On-line databases including ERIC, ProQuest, Google Scholar, and Educational Abstracts FTX were used to identify literature relevant to this study. Following Murphy’s (2008) literature search method and Hallinger’s (2013) suggestion that data sources should be defined clearly, key words including “Turnarounds,” “Turnaround leaders,” “Turnaround organization,” “Turnaround leadership,” and “Principal in turnaround schools” were used to obtain literature from the education sector. There were two reasons for this decision. First, the priority of this review was to understand the continuous and discontinuous patterns of turnaround leadership since Murphy (2008) published the first comprehensive review of this area. Second, it was hoped that the review would provide sufficient information for researchers in this field to explore turnaround leadership phenomena further.

The following international journals in the leadership field were the main sources of turnaround leadership articles (see Table 1): the Journal of Educational Administration, Educational Management Administration & Leadership, the Educational Administration Quarterly, and The International Journal of Educational Management. Trends in the publication of turnaround leadership research in different periods were also identified. In the 2009–2016 period, 62 works from high-quality sources such as peer-reviewed journals and academically respected publishers and institutions were identified in the field of turnaround leadership, including 43 journal articles, 15 books, and four book chapters. In particular, during this period, a number of scholars published books on turnaround leadership. The notable work by Leithwood, Harris and Strauss (2010) analyzed how successful leadership influences turnaround in low-performing schools, including what turnaround leaders do and how they do it. Duke (2009), on the other hand, examined the practical challenges faced by leaders to preventing school decline, turning around low-performing schools, sustaining school improvement, and creating new schools. Duke (2015) expanded the applicability of his research by creating a step-by-step guide for leaders to use during the school turnaround process. The guide examined protocols including short- and long-term plans, strategies for first- and second-order changes, and cooperation with district leaders.

Table 1.

The main international journals in leadership reviewed in this article.

Journal name	2009–2016
Journal of Educational Administration	8
Educational Management Administration & Leadership	2
Educational Administration Quarterly	3
The International Journal of Educational Management	3

The number in the second column represents the total number of published papers from these main international journals in educational leadership.

Other scholars have also made significant contributions to the field. Scholars have combined turnaround leadership theories with local contexts and discussed the policies essential for turnaround leaders (Fairchild and DeMary, 2011; Muhammad, 2009). Actual school cases have been analyzed in a number of books that have touched on topics including the development of school culture, empowering teachers and students, and building a community of scholars. The US government and various research institutes have also studied the context of low-performing schools in the USA and related policies (Rhim and Redding, 2011; Therriault, 2016) through, for example, the US Department of Education’s School Improvement Grant program and charter school operators who have turned around schools in selected districts in the USA. Very few studies on this topic have been conducted specifically in the Hong Kong context, but Chan (2013) did examine a successful school revival case in Hong Kong in which the school avoided closure, built a constructive environment for students’ academic growth and mental health, and empowered teachers to implement small class teaching.

Findings and discussion

The term “turnaround” has been used in different ways by different researchers. The findings presented here begin by discussing turnaround as a general concept. They then turn to the conditions of schools in need of turnaround, followed by the process by which such schools are turned around and the consequences of school turnaround. After this overview of the topic, the discussion turns to the importance of turnaround leadership, the problems facing leaders in underperforming schools, and the trend toward replacing them. Finally, it looks at factors affecting turnaround.

Turnaround as a concept

The term “turnaround” is goal-directed in its usage in an educational context, as it proposes that a school’s entire population, including students, faculty, and staff, must shift to roles that are nourishing and helpful (Graham, 2013). Since the 1990s, a rapid improvement of turnaround in underperforming schools has occurred (Peurach and Neumerski, 2015). Turnaround schools have replaced the old business-inspired schools, and this trend has been growing (Peck and Reitzug, 2012). Turnaround schools are now an initiative used to close the academic performance gap between groups of students (Graham, 2013). The United Kingdom has attempted to identify declining schools that need to be transformed and improved (Malakolunthu, McBeath and Swaffield, 2014). In the USA, the effective schools and school improvement movements have successfully utilized the concept of turnaround schools (Bryk, Sebring, Allensworth et al., 2010; Clark, 2014; Duke and Jacobson, 2011; Segler-Zender, 2013). In mainland China, the turnaround program in Shanghai has achieved considerable success and expanded across school districts and to other areas (Dillon, 2010; Jensen and Famer, 2013).

This review identified continuities between research on the concept of turnaround in an educational context and previous research on turnaround in other contexts. For example, turnaround is a ruling management concept (Peck and Reitzug, 2012). Many scholars have studied turnaround as a concept to learn more about situations of economic and political decline (external challenges), internal flaws, or a combination of both.

A new trend was also identified in the research in this area. The concept of turnaround has been further used to find solutions to school decline through comprehensive educational reform and related strategies (Salazar, 2015; Strunk, Marsh, Hashim et al., 2016; Therriault, 2016). In addition, some researchers have explored how the concept can be adapted from business to schools (Leithwood et al., 2010). It has been argued that turning schools around is more about how a society conducts public education in a democratic way from generation to generation than about attempting school improvement for its own sake (Bogotch, Reyes-Guerra and Freeland, 2016). There has been a lack of sufficient attention to the definition of turnaround across different cultures.

Turnaround as a condition

Turnaround as a condition arises both from long-term trends in the higher education marketplace and dramatic economic crisis (Martin and Samels, 2009). Schools under turnaround conditions have limited resources and have a high percentage of students in poverty (Duke and Jacobson, 2011; Manwaring, 2011, as cited in Segler-Zender, 2013). Turnaround efforts may reflect negative forces influencing the survival of an organization, including insufficient resources and huge time pressures. In these circumstances, leaders must be motivated by the necessity that the school improve, change drastically, or shut down (Salazar, 2015).

Additionally, Robinson and Buntrock (2011) stated that teachers, administrators, and community members should consider a turnaround situation a positive opportunity to change and improve their schools rather than a time to place blame for low performance. Turnaround initiatives positively influence both the culture of a school and student performance trends; school leaders, staff, and faculty may turn out to have a receptive and optimistic attitude toward changes and ongoing improvement (Clark, 2014).

Some research on turnaround situations has focused on dips in an organization’s performance or a period when the organization faced a critical situation. Turnaround can also require strategies for maintaining an organization’s sustainability under low performance situations, as Mihail et al. (2013) argued. Schools and colleges in turnaround situations need to overcome a variety of financial and leadership challenges if they are to survive and thrive (Whelan, 2011). Schools in a turnaround situation often require important additional resources and are expected to reach particular completion goals or else be sanctioned for failure (Leithwood et al., 2010). Similar efforts have been made in the UK (such as the zero-tolerance program) and Canada (Leithwood et al., 2010).

The literature review identified certain consistent patterns in the research on turnaround as a condition. Turnaround is a condition/situation that points to negative forces such as insufficient resources and huge time pressures (Martin and Samels, 2009; Mihail et al., 2013; Peurach and Neumerski, 2015; Whelan, 2011). Turnaround also describes a situation in which a school suffers a decline for a certain period, and serious efforts to improve and revitalize it must be made (Robinson and Buntrock, 2011). Studies in this vein have tended to discuss specific methods and timing for improving turnaround schools.

Turnaround has been conceptualized in some detail in the education context. When schools are in a turnaround situation, they often have limited resources and have a high percentage of students from families in poverty (Duke and Jacobson, 2011; Manwaring, 2011; Salmonowicz, 2009, as cited in Segler-Zender, 2013). Comprehensive instructional reform and related strategies have been used to improve low student achievement on standardized tests (Therriault, 2016). For example, Mass Insight Education (MIE) (2011) described turnaround as a dramatic and synthetic medium in a low-performing school that could bear fruit within two years and prepare the school for the longer process of becoming a high-performing school. Research along this line has investigated specific strategies at different levels to transform turnaround schools, but the effects and process of these strategies need to be explored further.

Turnaround as a process and a consequence

Turnaround as a process refers to the transformation of underperforming schools into efficient schools (Chapman and Muijs, 2013; Deaton, 2009; Ong, 2015). This process is most consistently a focus of leadership, and can totally renovate conditions if practiced in the lowest-achieving schools (Jensen and Farmer, 2013; Salazar, 2015). Turnaround is the process of quickly improving student achievement in a long-term low-performing school (Graham, 2013). It is a process through which a school transitions from difficulty to stability and then to success, as reflected by a higher level of student performance and academic achievement (Whelan, 2011). Leithwood et al. (2010) described a four-stage school turnaround process: developing environments for initial improvement instead of decline, guaranteeing the survival of the organization, achieving early performance improvement, and accomplishing acceptable performance that will lead to more improvement. Research along this line has delineated paths to turning schools around, but more specific measures for transforming schools are needed. Turnaround can also be defined as a consequence (Murphy, 2008)—a dramatic improvement in performance created by changes within schools (Peck and Reitzug, 2012; Stadalis, 2015).

In contrast to previous research, recent studies have depicted turnaround as a process of strategic change, which can totally renew conditions if practiced in the lowest-achieving schools (Fullan and Scott, 2009; Jensen and Famer, 2013; Ong, 2015; Salazar, 2015; Segler-Zender, 2013). This trend is consistent with Murphy’s (2008) findings.

One important development in this line of research is that turnaround has been defined more often as a process than as a consequence. Another is that studies have focused more on detailed efforts in the change process, including distributing power among school staff, increasing technology investments, giving signing bonuses and performance-based compensation, and improving scheduling, budgeting, and re-staffing (Henry, Campbell, Thompson et al., 2014; Salazar, 2015). However, the effects of these measures on student achievement have not been sufficiently explored.

Leadership as a key to reintegration

Just as in the business field, effective leadership and skilled leaders have been found to be important to school turnaround (Ratner and Neill, 2010). Leadership is key to school improvement because strong leaders prepare for change at the organizational level, empower the leadership of others with a shared vision for local reform, and help sustain a coherent program of school-wide development (Hill, 2016; Jensen and Farmer, 2013; Klar and Brewer, 2013).

The research along this line has regarded leadership as key to organizational turnaround and reintegration. It has focused on enhancing coordination, strengthening moral values, and providing further support to an organization facing difficulties. Turnaround school leadership is a typical example of mixing both transformational and heroic leadership with business models of accountability (Bogotch et al., 2016), which provides strong leadership on-site to support recovery (Jensen and Farmer, 2013). However, the process and effects of these leadership models in school turnaround are not clear, and cross-cultural understanding of turnaround leadership is also lacking.

The amount of literature on successful turnaround schools began to increase after 2003. At that time, the focus was on applying business concepts to dealing with underperforming schools (Neil, 2012). According to the National Association of Secondary School Principals and the National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) (2013), leadership has been regarded as the catalyst with the greatest effect on struggling or poorly performing schools. Other studies have emphasized leadership’s influence on the success of school turnaround, including the importance of developing appropriate models of school leadership for different circumstances (Martin and Samels, 2009; Ong, 2015) and the significance of powerful instructional leaders in distributing leadership among school staff (Bonda and Mitchell, 2015). Further identification of paths to realizing organizational identification and integration and future developments of turnaround leadership models may be necessary to deepen the understanding of the turnaround process.

Changing leadership as a key to recovery

Turnaround schools must be staffed with leaders who are willing and able to make essential changes; accordingly, some leaders must be redeployed for successful reform (Player, Hambrick Hitt and Robinson, 2014). Chan (2013) found that a change of principal can transform a declining school, based on a turnaround case in Hong Kong, but the effect of these leadership actions differs according to actual school situations (Center on Education Policy, 2012).

Leadership change has consistently been regarded as a key factor and is a dominant topic in the turnaround literature. The entire staff of a school may not need to be replaced, but it is often essential to bring in a new leader for recovery (Hassel and Hassel, 2009). However, whether changing leadership can guarantee successful turnaround requires further exploration, as the turnaround process is affected by various factors.

The progress in this line of research has focused primarily on replacing existing principals with new principals equipped with the knowledge, skills, and disposition to lead transformation (Brown, 2016; Chan, 2013). Case studies on educational officials in the USA have further shown that not only principals but also teachers can be obstacles to turning around failing schools (Center on Education Policy, 2012), which indicates that this area needs to be explored more deeply. Further exploration of the antecedents of successful turnaround leaders and how they empower teachers in the turnaround process should help to improve school turnarounds, as the research to date has lacked sufficient discussion of how turnaround leaders can be more successful.

Rationale for leadership changes

Replacing the leader in a turnaround school with a more capable and committed one is a fundamental component of turnaround policy (Olson, 2013). This change encourages teachers to believe they can make changes in their practices and in the system’s practices (i.e., regulations and procedures) (Reyes-Guerra and Bogotch, 2011).

A turnaround school, which is obligated to adopt new modes of management, innovate curricula, improve student testing, and implement accountability measures, is influenced strongly by school leadership (Butler, 2012). For instance, the influence of effective school leaders and quality staff can account for 60% of a school’s overall student achievement (Marzano, Waters and McNulty, 2005). The restructuring of a turnaround school requires that the school’s principal and at least one-half of the faculty be replaced (Bryk et al., 2010; Graham, 2013).

Research has consistently shown that school decline is caused by current leaders and their inability to solve problems (Schoenberg, Collier and Bowman, 2013). This finding is the basis of the reform model (Chambers, 2013; US Department of Education, 2011). As poor leadership has been shown to cause school decline, replacing the school principal is regarded as an effective strategy, although its effect is debatable.

Research has identified that changing principals should be done carefully and with help from the government (Duina, 2013; McLester, 2011). A specific restructuring option recognized by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation requires that school principals and at least one-half of the teaching staff be replaced (Bryk et al., 2010; Segler-Zender, 2013). The patterns indicate that cautious leadership replacement, supplemented with external support and internal staffing, is important for turnaround practice, but the best combination of these strategies needs further exploration.

Leaders as the cause of the problem

Apart from instructional quality, school leadership is the most critical school-related contributor to students’ performance and it is essential to the success of a turnaround (Bryk et al., 2010; Floyed, 2011; King and Bouchard, 2011; Murphy, 2010; Olson, 2013). The leadership of turnaround principals is vital to changing the current culture, implementing structural change in schools, and encouraging the concept of system thinking instead of output management (Hill, 2016; Jensen and Farmer, 2013; Ratner and Neill, 2010). Some principals who position themselves as a buffer to external forces can derail the turnaround process (Airola, Bengtson, Davis et al., 2014; Bryk et al., 2010). Also, researchers have pointed out that school leaders are pressured to balance accountability with fostering teacher’s commitment in the turnaround process (Airola et al., 2014). This requires principals to take holistic views and engage all stakeholders in the improvement process (Murakami-Ramalho and Wilcox, 2012). Model school leaders may be continually criticized as weak and disconnected from the challenges of current practice (Peurach and Neumerski, 2015). However, Kowal, Hassel and Hassel (2009) stressed that districts should support the turnaround work of principals by emphasizing current policy and superintendents’ assistance, as a successful turnaround cannot be achieved by an individual leader or just a few people (Murphy, 2008).

Various studies have reported that school leaders contribute to management problems during the turnaround process. Discussion of this idea has continued with the exploration of the impact of leadership characteristics, such as the risk-averseness and self-centeredness of organizational leaders (Meyers and Hitt, 2016; Møller and Vedøy, 2009). This suggests the importance of leadership coaching for school improvement (King and Bouchard, 2011). The traits or characteristics of turnaround leaders and methods for effective leadership coaching need to be further explored.

Recent research has suggested that the turnaround process needs to include not only principals but also teachers. It is problematic when principals are the main force in the change process while teachers are only partially included (Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010; Kowal et al., 2009). The most recent research indicates the need to understand better how a principal’s leadership can interact effectively with district support and how teachers can be engaged in the change process to further improve practice.

Leaders restrained by existing culture

Studies have confirmed that a school’s culture is crucial in the turnaround process. If the current culture is unhealthy, school leaders must assume responsibility for changing it (Deaton, 2009). Researchers have indicated that many problems faced by school administrators are due to their inability to set clear criteria for the acceptability of a solution (Duke and Salmonowicz, 2010; Jacobson, 2011). Although current leaders may be successful in the short term, they often fail in the long term, as staff members return to previously unsuccessful but automatized practices (Fullan, 2010; Hargreaves and Fullan, 2009). Furthermore, the leadership, influence, moral values, and spiritual needs of principals can affect the development of a school’s culture.

The recent research has been consistent with Murphy’s (2008) finding that existing leaders may be unwilling to make big changes, whereas new leaders are more objective in changing systemic structures and altering organization members’ actions, beliefs, and perceptions—concepts found to contribute to successful turnaround (Fullan, 2010; Schoenberg et al., 2013).

Recent studies have shown that if principals want to achieve school improvements, they must respect school staff and engage them in management (Butler, 2012), design development directions and organizational strategies, and motivate followers by creating a positive culture (Lawrence, 2016). However, the effects of the identified methods and other methods of building positive culture are unclear and require further exploration.

Inability to perform

The capabilities of turnaround leaders are unique, differing from those of regular school administrators (Kowal and Hassel, 2011), and an effective principal in a school that is already successful may not have the ability to be a leader in a turnaround situation (Meyers and Hitt, 2016). In Peurach and Marx’s (2010) case study, the district office never improved its ability to offer professional assistance to turnaround schools. Turnaround school leaders should be sufficiently prepared with not only critical theoretical elements, but also practical experience to effect positive change (Marzano, 2013).

Steiner, Hassel, Hassel et al. (2008) suggested four core competencies of successful turnaround principals: motivation to achieve the end results, strong influence on others to achieve these results jointly, strong capacity in problem solving, and high confidence in leading. Moreover, successful turnaround principals are able to articulate their vision to staff clearly and develop a perception of urgency (Neil, 2012). Furthermore, Cai (2011) stressed the role of the emotional intelligence of school principals in the process of school turnaround. Airola et al. (2014) also emphasized the role of leadership efficacy in school turnaround and the positive function of programs supporting leadership in developing this efficacy.

The current research is consistent with previous studies (Murphy, 2008; Whelan, 2011) showing that current systems or organizational conditions, such as policy conditions and executional capacity, are external causes that contribute to school leaders’ inability to lead their organizations successfully through a turnaround (Olson, 2013). However, exactly how these conditions influence school leaders’ ability to lead is still unclear.

Recent research has considered the competencies and skills of required for turnaround. Scholars have listed a wide variety of leader competencies and investigated the actions of leaders in successful turnarounds (Neil, 2012; Steiner and Hassel, 2011). Martin and Samels (2009) attached importance to five elements of turnaround success: clarity of tasks, fiscal stability, infrastructure health, trust transparency management, and shared leadership at all levels. The influencing mechanisms of these factors need to be further explored. Future research could focus on specifying the elements of leadership capacity required in different stages of change and their effects on indicators of school effectiveness. Additionally, antecedent factors, including emotional intelligence and efficacy beliefs, need further exploration.

Replacement as “signaling”

The turnaround literature stresses the significance of effective leadership to successful turnarounds (Mette, 2013; Neil, 2012). An important change can be made in schools by selecting the right principal (Floyd, 2011). If principals are to fulfil their schools’ responsibility to satisfy the educational and developmental demands of their students, they must constantly initiate action and respond to problems (Olsen, 2013). Therefore, changing the school principal is a classic approach to turning around failing schools (Floyed, 2011; Ratner and Neill, 2010). This approach helps to develop recognition of the areas that need to be improved and quickly initiates the turnaround process.

Changing leaders in failing schools has symbolic importance: organizations cannot undergo turnaround without appropriate and competent leaders (Kowal et al., 2009). The starting point for school turnaround is an experienced, stable, and responsible principal who serves as the activator for change (Ratner and Neill, 2010).

Turnaround as “signaling” has been discussed extensively throughout the turnaround school literature. Some scholars have stressed the significance of a principal’s role as a change agent in the turnaround process (Olsen, 2013; Tracy, 2013). Other researchers have discussed the ways in which strong and capable leadership can act as a catalyst for transformation (Ratner and Neill, 2010) and how this signals the need for culture change in school management, teaching, and attitudes. However, the effects of these changes on relevant organizational and teaching factors need to be explored further.

Types of leadership

There have been over 350 conceptualizations of leadership types; thus, a single definition of turnaround leadership is elusive, and no single model is appropriate for every situation (Martin and Samels, 2009; Whelan, 2011).

Nevertheless, research into turnaround school principals’ leadership in various countries (e.g., Australia, Canada, England, and Sweden) has shown that most principals have adopted distributed leadership and support the use of open communication, joint decision-making, and critical inquiry (Day, 2009; Meyers and Hitt, 2016; Møller and Vedøy, 2009, as cited in Bennett, 2012). Other researchers have concluded that a successful school leader creates a shared vision of the future, motivates others to work collectively to achieve goals, and organizes overall objectives into essential tasks (Deal and Peterson, 2009; Duke, 2009; Leithwood et al., 2010).

Bogotch et al. (2016) provided several recommendations about leadership practices effective for school turnaround. New educational leaders must shift leadership from a management-centered to an instructional model. The vision and dimensions of transformational leadership must be implemented by all school leaders. The school itself must be restructured to allow for new allocations of time and the development of human resources capacity. Professional learning communities need to be nurtured, modeled, and guided. Data need to be collected and analyzed to promote change and provide direction. Bogotch et al. (2016) agreed with other scholars that distributed leadership is needed in school turnaround situations. Finally, they noted that it is important for turnaround school leaders to achieve quick successes to prove that the situation is under control.

Many scholars have tried to identify an ideal turnaround leadership style, but none has been found because the requirements of each turnaround situation vary. However, it has been shown that successful turnaround leaders share some common characteristics. Fullan and Scott (2009) concluded that three basic characteristics were vital to turnaround leadership: listening, linking, and leading. These characteristics form a linear relationship that requires a combination of emotional quotient and cognitive competence to effect meaningful change (Whelan, 2011). The literature suggests that turnaround leaders should focus more on the interpersonal dimensions of their leadership approach (Martin and Samels, 2009; Whelan, 2011).

Aside from merely identifying turnaround leaders’ characteristics, later research has found that leadership characteristics can be good predictors of organizational outcomes (Reeves, 2009). Dial (2011) concluded from his research that, regardless of the level of distributed leadership practices, sharing accountability and encouraging teachers to utilize data analysis are important leadership practices in turnaround schools. Moreover, scholars have revealed that the capacity of leadership for learning is an important characteristic that lets people, separately and corporately, routinely learn from their environments and apply this learning to new circumstances. This capacity to learn enables people to keep on a path toward their targets under ever-changing conditions (Malakolunthu et al., 2014). Further analysis of the antecedents of turnaround leadership and their paths and effects on improving school effectiveness is important because it will provide knowledge for effective leadership training. In addition, an integrated leadership model is required for further understanding turnaround leadership practices and their contribution to effective change.

Antecedents and effect factors of turnarounds

Several external and internal factors can have significant effects on turnarounds (Martin and Samels, 2009). External factors such as market or fiscal forces can create stresses in a turnaround process, due to increased competition in academic delivery methods and the interference of opponents (Whelan, 2011). In a study of the San Francisco Unified School District, Lawrence (2016) identified the following factors influencing school turnaround: the effects of a failure of legacy, the re-establishment of a reconstructed school that required leadership and resources, reconstruction that required lead time to recruit and train teachers and staff, and school reform that required vision and a continuous strategy. Another factor influencing the process of turnaround is teachers’ willingness to re-examine and change all parts of school life: attitudes, culture, leadership models, parent participants, facilities, and finances (Rhim and Redding, 2011). Other scholars have found that, although different turnaround school processes have different focuses, they are influenced by many of the same factors: professional development, high academic criteria, continued evaluation, parent participation, access to resources, and external support (Segler-Zender, 2013). An additional factor that influences school turnaround is the level of teachers’ isolation and support at the district and community levels; teachers who are unsuccessful at implementing a turnaround have a less developed actor network within their district and so are unable to identify with and profit from policy completion (Mette, 2013).

School climate is an antecedent rather than an outcome of school reform. It comprises the overall atmosphere within a given school building (Butler, 2012). Furthermore, minority populations and fiscal states can be antecedents of turnaround (Graham, 2013). Research has shown that, although minority student enrollment is high, minority student performance remains low (Ramani, Gilbertson and Fox, 2007). Eighth-grade NAESP data have shown that 60% of the nation’s Latino eighth graders’ performances were below a basic level in math compared with 23% of the nation’s white eighth graders (Reyes and Garcia, 2014). Further antecedents of turnaround include improvements in student performance, teachers’ ability to narrow their curricula, and attention to test preparation (Olson, 2013).

Based on previous findings of external and internal events and situations that influence turnarounds, effect factors such as national economic crisis or improvement, demographic shifts, employment problems, and leadership or political shake-ups may influence the turnaround process (Whelan, 2011). Recent research has focused on the socioeconomic status of low-income students. Consistently low-performing schools are mostly populated with high concentrations of low-income students from poor environments and have higher-than-average numbers of minority students (Reyes and Garcia, 2014).

Creating a collaborative school culture and structure

Community involvement benefits educators and helps them to meet the challenges of ongoing change (Cosner and Jones, 2016; Duke and Landahl, 2011; King and Bouchard, 2011). School turnaround is a collaborative process rather than a mechanism for a single organizational change (Chapman and Muijs, 2013). The school culture and structure that turnaround leaders create and nurture influences the expectation that teachers and administrators will grow and advance (Clark, 2014; Deal and Peterson, 2009; Meyers and Hitt, 2016). Thus, school leaders, teachers, and students need to be involved and engaged to form communities of practice and teamwork that provide an environment for collaboration and shared meaning (Jacobson, 2011; Muhammad, 2009; Neil, 2012).

Building a collaborative school culture and structure is an effective approach to maintaining long-term turnaround success. Successful turnaround efforts (Mette and Scribner, 2012) involve transforming the intentions of school policy by encouraging cultural changes, which to an extent come from the schools’ environments. These efforts involve collaboration between school leaders and staff, who must make great efforts to enhance student learning and their own instructional practices (Hill, 2016; National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), 2014). Consequently, a collaborative school culture with shared leadership and ownership is needed, rather than new policies and approaches forced on staff from above (Coggins and Diffenbaugh, 2013).

Research on school turnaround within high-need or high-poverty school communities that experience changing personnel flow or have a large minority population has principally focused on culturally sensitive collaboration and collaborative networks (e.g., Murakami-Ramalho, Garza and Merchant, 2010; Pashiardis, Savvides, Lytra et al., 2011). School principals in the US context have strongly encouraged parents from diverse cultural backgrounds to become involved in schools through different channels, including volunteer work and participating in decision-making (Johnson, Møller, Pashiardis et al., 2011; Murakami-Ramalho et al., 2010, as cited in Bennett, 2012). In Cyprus, principals have also established cooperative systems such as connecting schools to the community and involving the community in school decision-making (Pashiardis et al., 2011, as cited in Bennett, 2012).

Recent studies have shown that strengthening a sense of collective vision among staff and improving communications between schools in a community is important (Cosner and Jones, 2016; Jacobson, 2011; Murphy and Meyers, 2009; Player et al., 2014). Collaboration is not an end in itself but a means of dealing productively with the need for accountability; principals should therefore have the ability to shift leadership styles from directive to facilitative and back again (Floyed, 2011). Research in this area requires a focus on the antecedents, process, and consequences of collaboration, which is crucial for the effective transformation of practice.

Conclusions and implications

This paper reviewed the literature on school turnaround leadership and extended Murphy’s (2008) scope by exploring the turnaround literature from 2009 to 2016. Both continuity and change were described based on the elements of Murphy’s (2008) framework. Two elements were added to this framework: types of turnaround management strategies, and the antecedents and effect factors of turnarounds. The findings of the review are enumerated below:

Murphy’s (2008) review conceptualized turnarounds as having three features: a negative condition/situation (e.g., Mihail et al., 2013; Whelan, 2011), a process of strategic change and condition transfer (e.g., Ong, 2015; Peurach and Neumerski, 2015), and a consequence of significant improvement or recovery (e.g., Murphy, 2008). However, this review found that the literature published after 2008 extended the definition of turnaround to describe school decline (e.g., Windhorst, 2011), a more specific change process with several divided periods (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2010), and a more concrete consequence of existence-threatening decline (e.g., Henry et al., 2014).

Leadership is the most critical school-related contributor to student performance and a key component of schools’ success (e.g., Bogotch et al., 2016; Webster, 2012). More attention has been paid to school turnaround since 2003, following the implementation of NCLB in the USA in early 2002. Business turnaround concepts or strategies have been increasingly applied to school improvement, and successful turnaround has been explored in depth (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2010).

Leadership change has been regarded as a key means by which schools can redevelop their educational culture (e.g., Murphy, 2008). The importance of changing turnaround leadership into effective leadership has generally been emphasized in the education context. Thus, what has attracted academics’ widespread attention is how to cultivate and maintain effective turnaround leadership among principals and faculty within diverse declining conditions in schools (Brown, 2016; e.g., Center on Education Policy, 2012).

In terms of the rationale for leadership change, continuities can be seen in four main areas: school leaders as the cause of the problem (e.g., Peurach and Neumerski, 2015), school leaders being restrained by the existing culture (e.g., Fullan, 2010), and school leaders being unable to perform (e.g., Olson, 2013).

Turnaround school improvement requires various types of leadership (e.g., Bogotch et al., 2016). Turnaround leadership is universally thought to have the following characteristics: it is opportunity-oriented, proactive and intentional, committed and enduring, resilient, optimistic/positive, enthusiastic/passionate, confident, decisive, and dedicated (e.g., Murphy, 2009). Furthermore, research has shown that school leaders should focus more on the interpersonal dimensions of their leadership approach (Martin and Samels, 2009). Mixed research methods could further explore the effect of leadership in the turnaround process (Sammons, Davis, Day et al., 2014).

There are several antecedents of turnarounds and factors influencing the turnaround process. School climate, the number of minority students, and poverty have been found to be antecedents of school reform (e.g., Whelan, 2011). Both internal and external factors, for example, internal training objectives, significantly influence the turnaround process (e.g., Lawrence, 2016).

A complementary review of the literature on creating a collaborative school culture and structure was provided in this study. A school’s situation can be improved by setting directions (e.g., Leithwood et al., 2010), sustaining constant communication channels (e.g., Neil, 2012), respecting school members and involving them in school management activities (Player et al., 2014), and improving inter-school communications within a community (Bogotch et al., 2016).

A policy-centered focus on improving low-performing schools is currently increasing and will continue to do so in the near future (Leithwood et al., 2010). To gain better measurements to help low-performing schools, it is necessary to collect and analyze more data on how leadership is related to other aspects of turnaround efforts, such as changes in the instructional program, the faculty team effort, and community support.

This study surveyed formal English publications, but turnaround leadership research may be published in languages other than English. The generalizability of the findings of this study may thus be limited. A comparison between this study’s findings and those from turnaround leadership research in other fields should facilitate further research on turnaround leadership. It is hoped that this review will inspire further exploration in this field.

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

The author wishes to offer their thanks for the funding support from the Higher Education and Regional Development Institute of Yunnan Normal University.

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research received no specific grant from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

References

Airola

Bengtson

Davis

Peer

(2014) Principals’ sense of efficacy: The influence of the Arkansas Leadership Academy. Journal of Educational Administration 52(6): 754–774.

Bennett

(2012) “Democratic” collaboration for school turnaround in Southern Arizona. International Journal of Educational Management 26(5): 442–451.

Bogotch

Reyes-Guerra

Freeland

(2016) Turnaround school leadership: From paradigms to promises. In: Johnson

Dempster

(eds), Leadership in Diverse Learning Contexts. Cham, CH: Springer, pp. 35–58.

Bonda

Mitchell

(2015) School district turnaround: Leadership development as the nexus of change. European Journal of Educational Sciences 2(1): 55–72.

Brown

(2016) “Racing to the top” to prepare turnaround principals in North Carolina: Homegrown regional leadership academies. Educational Leadership and Administration 27: 101–144.

Bryk

Sebring

Allensworth

Easton

Luppescu

(2010) Organizing Schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

Butler

(2012) In what ways do principals impact school climate in “turnaround” successful high-poverty middle schools? Doctoral Dissertation. Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3490744).

Cai

(2011) Can principals’ emotional intelligence matter to school turnarounds? International Journal of Leadership in Education 14(2): 151–179.

Center on Education Policy (CEP) (2012) Homepage. Available at: https://www.cep-dc.org/ (accessed 23 October 2018).

10.

Chambers

(2013) The Principal. School Leadership in Real Time: An Interactive Look at Being the Principal in an Elementary Public School. North Charleston, NC: Create Space Independent Publishing Platform.

11.

Chan

KWP

(2013) Small class teaching in Hong Kong: A Hong Kong case of school revival. In: Law

EHF

(eds) Curriculum Innovations in Changing Societies: Chinese Perspectives from Hong Kong, Taiwan and Mainland China. Rotterdam, NL: Sense Publishers, pp. 321–332.

12.

Chapman

Muijs

(2013) Collaborative school turnaround: A study of the impact of school federations on student outcomes. Leadership and Policy in Schools 12(3): 200–226.

13.

Clark

(2014) A case study of a priority middle school involved in the North Carolina turnaround initiative. Doctoral Dissertation, Gardner-Webb University. Available at: https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/53025983.pdf (accessed 23 October 2018).

14.

Coggins

Diffenbaugh

(2013) Teachers with drive. Educational Leadership 71(2): 42–45.

15.

Cosner

Jones

(2016) Leading school-wide improvement in low-performing schools facing conditions of accountability. Journal of Educational Administration 54(1): 41–57.

16.

Day

(2009) Capacity-building through layered leadership: Sustaining the turnaround. In: Harris

(ed), Distributed Leadership: Different Perspectives, Studies in Educational Leadership. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, pp. 121–137.

17.

Deal

Peterson

(2009) Shaping School Culture: Pitfalls, Paradoxes, and Promises. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

18.

Deaton

(2009) Comeback college: A case study of North Greenville University, 1991–2007—a turnaround from a struggling junior college to a thriving university. Doctoral Dissertation, Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database. (UMI No. 3364081).

19.

Dial

(2011) An examination of improvement paths taken by two previously underperforming schools to improve student outcomes. Doctoral Dissertation, University of California. Available at: https://escholarship.org/uc/item/1hm5g7zf (accessed 23 October 2018).

20.

Dillon

(2010, December). Top test scores from Shanghai stun educators. The New York Times, p. A1.

21.

Duina

(2013) A mixed-methods study of the transformation model for rapid improvement of low achieving rural schools. Doctoral Dissertation, Available from ProQuest Dissertation and theses database . (UMI No. 3575281).

22.

Duke

(2009) Differentiating School Leadership: Facing the Challenges of Practice. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

23.

Duke

(2015) Leadership for Low-Performing Schools: A Step-by-Step Guide to the School Turnaround Process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.

24.

Duke

Jacobson

(2011) Tackling the toughest turnaround: Low-performing high schools. Phi Delta Kappan 92(5): 34–38.

25.

Duke

Landahl

(2011) Raising test scores was the easy part: A case study of the third year of school turnaround. International Studies in Educational Administration 39(3): 91–114.

26.

Duke

Salmonowicz

(2010) Key decisions of a first-year “turnaround” principal. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 38(1): 33–58.

27.

Fairchild

DeMary

(2011) The Turnaround Mindset: Aligning Leadership for Student Success. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.

28.

Floyed

(2011) A study of perceptions of the turnaround process of two low performing middle schools in small Virginia divisions. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation , University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA.

29.

Fullan

(2010) All Systems Go: The Change Imperative for Whole System Reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

30.

Fullan

Scott

(2009) Turnaround Leadership for Higher Education. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

31.

Graham

(2013) California turnaround schools: An analysis of school improvement grant effectiveness. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Kentucky. Available at: https://uknowledge.uky.edu/edl_etds/6/. (accessed 23 October 2018).

32.

Hallinger

(2013) A conceptual framework for systematic reviews of research in educational leadership and management. Journal of Educational Administration 51(2): 126–149.

33.

Hallinger

Bryant

(2013) Mapping the terrain of educational leadership and management in East Asia. Journal of Educational Administration 51(5): 618–637.

34.

Hargreaves

Fullan

(2009) Change Wars. Cheltenham, AU: Hawker Brownlow Education.

35.

Hassel

(2009) The big U-turn: How to bring schools from the brink of failure to stellar success. Education Next 9(1): 21–27.

36.

Henry

Campbell

Thompson

Townsend

(2014) Evaluation of District and School Transformation School-Level Coaching and Professional Development Activities. Chapel Hill, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation, pp. 1–56.

37.

Hill

(2016) Assessing school turnarounds: Using an integrative framework to identify levers for success. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania. Available at: http://repository.upenn.edu/edissertations/1762 (accessed 23 October 2018).

38.

Jacobson

(2011) Leadership effects on student achievement and sustained school success. International Journal of Educational Management 25(1): 33–44.

39.

Jensen

Farmer

(2013) School Turnaround in Shanghai: The Empowered-Management Program Approach to Improving School Performance. Washington, DC: The Center for American Progress.

40.

Johnson

Møller

Pashiardis

Vedøy

Savvides

(2011) Culturally responsive practices. In: Ylimaki

Jacobson

(eds) US and Cross-National Policies, Practices, and Preparation: Implications for Successful Instructional Leadership, Organizational Learning, and Culturally Responsive Practices. Dordrecht, NL: Springer, pp. 75–102.

41.

King

Bouchard

(2011) The capacity to build organizational capacity in schools. Journal of Educational Administration 49(6): 653–669.

42.

Klar

Brewer

(2013) Successful leadership in high-needs schools: An examination of core leadership practices enacted in challenging contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly 49(5): 768–808.

43.

Kowal

Hassel

(2011) Importing leaders for school turnarounds: Lessons and opportunities. Available at: http://www.schoolturnaroundsupport.org/sites/default/files/resources/Importing_Leaders_for_School_Turnarounds.pdf (accessed 23 October 2018).

44.

Kowal

Hassel

(2009) Successful School Turnarounds: Seven Steps for District Leaders. Washington, DC: The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and improvement.

45.

Lawrence

(2016) Turning around the culture of teaching and learning: A turnaround school success story. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst. Available at: http://lib.hpu.edu.vn/handle/123456789/25199 (accessed 23 October 2018).

46.

Leithwood

Harris

Strauss

(2010) Leading School Turnaround: How Successful Leaders Transform Low-Performing Schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

47.

Malakolunthu

McBeath

Swaffield

(2014) Improving the quality of teaching and learning through leadership for learning: Changing scenarios in basic schools of Ghana. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 42(5): 701–710.

48.

Manwaring

(2011) School turnaround success: Focus on implementation. Principal 90(4): 10–13.

49.

Martin

Samels

(2009) Turnaround: Leading Stressed Colleges and Universities to Excellence. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

50.

Marzano

(2013) Marzano School Leadership Evaluation Model. Palm Beach Gardens, FL: Learning Sciences Marzano Center for Teacher and Leadership Evaluation.

51.

Marzano

Waters

McNulty

(2005) School Leadership that Works: From Research to Results. Aurora, CO: Mid-Continent Research for Education and Learning.

52.

Mass Insight Education (MIE) (2011) Homepage. Available at: http://www.massinsight.org/ (accessed 23 October 2018).

53.

McLester

(2011) Turnaround principals. District Administration 47(5): 40–42.

54.

Mette

(2013) Turnaround as reform: Opportunity for meaningful change or neoliberal posturing? Interchange 43(4): 317–342.

55.

Mette

Scribner

(2012) Turnaround school policy: A lesson in the transformation of intentions. Paper presented at UCEA, Denver.

56.

Meyers

Hitt

(2016) School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature suggest they are doing to be successful? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk 22(1): 38–56.

57.

Mihail

Myra

Sofoklis

(2013) High performance work systems in corporate turnaround: a German case study. Journal of Organizational Change Management 26(1): 190–216.

58.

Møller

Vedøy

(2009) Successful principalship in Norway: Sustainable ethos and incremental changes? Journal of Educational Administration 47(6): 731–741.

59.

Muhammad

(2009) Transforming School Culture. Bloomingdale, IN: Solution Tree.

60.

Murakami-Ramalho

Garza

Merchant

(2010) Successful school leadership in socio-economically challenging contexts: School principals creating and sustaining successful school improvement. International Studies in Educational Administration 32(3): 35–55.

61.

Murakami-Ramalho

Wilcox

(2012) Response to intervention implementation: A successful principal’s approach. Journal of Educational Administration 50(4): 483–500.

62.

Murphy

(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.

63.

Murphy

(2009) Closing achievement gaps: Lessons from the last 15 years. Phi Delta Kappan 91(3): 8–12.

64.

Murphy

(2010) Turning around failing organizations: Insights for educational leaders. Journal of Educational Change 11: 157–176.

65.

Murphy

Meyers

(2009) Rebuilding organizational capacity in turnaround schools: Insights from the corporate, government and non-profit sectors. Educational Management Administration & Leadership 37(1): 9–27.

66.

National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) (2013) The homepage. Available at: https://www.naesp.org/ (accessed 23 October 2018).

67.

National Board of Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS) (2014) The homepage. Available at: http://www.nbpts.org/ (accessed 23 October 2018).

68.

Neil

(2012) A turn from the worst: Leadership influences on the successful turnaround of a high-poverty school. Doctoral Dissertation, Capella University. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/992985805? accountid=14548 (accessed 23 October 2018).

69.

Olsen

(2013) Leadership for school turnarounds. Doctoral Dissertation, San Diego State University. Available at: https://search. proquest. com/docview/1497967256? accountid=14548 (accessed 23 October 2018).

70.

Olson

(2013) Student voices: Implications for school turnaround in urban high schools. Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: http://indigo.uic.edu/handle/10027/10007 (accessed 23 October 2018).

71.

Ong

(2015) Challenges and processes in school turn-around a Singapore secondary school principal’s perspective. Procedia – Social and Behavioral Sciences 186: 169–173.

72.

Pashiardis

Savvides

Lytra

Angelidou

(2011) Successful school leadership in rural contexts: The case of Cyprus. Educational Management Administration and Leadership 39(5): 536–553.

73.

Peck

Reitzug

(2012) How existing business management concepts become school leadership fashions. Educational Administration Quarterly 48(2): 347–381.

74.

Peurach

Marx

(2010) Leading systemic improvement: Confronting complexity in turnaround schools. Journal of Cases in Educational Leadership 13(13): 26–36.

75.

Peurach

Neumerski

(2015) Mixing metaphors: Building infrastructure for large scale school turnaround. Journal of Educational Change 16(4): 379–420.

76.

Player

Hambrick Hitt

Robinson

(2014) District Readiness to Support School Turnaround: A Users’ Guide to Inform the Work of State Education Agencies and Districts. San Francisco, CA: Center on School Turnaround at WestEd.

77.

Ramani

Gilbertson

Fox

(2007) Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Washington, DC: National Center for Education.

78.

Ratner

Neill

(2010) Common elements of successful school turnarounds: Research and experience. Available at: http://68.77.48.18/RandD/FEA/FEA%20Common%20Elements%20of%20Successful%20School%20Turnarounds. pdf (accessed 23 October 2018).

79.

Reeves

(2009) Leading Change in your School. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

80.

Reyes

Garcia

(2014) Turnaround policy and practice: A case study of turning around a failing school with English-language-learners. The Urban Review 46(3): 349–371.

81.

Reyes-Guerra

Bogotch

(2011) Curriculum inquiry as a transformative leadership skill. In: Shields

(ed) Transformative Leadership: A Reader. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishers, pp. 133–151.

82.

Rhim

Redding

(2011) Fulcrum of Change: Leveraging 50 States to Turnaround 5000 Schools. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation & Improvement.

83.

Robinson

Buntrock

(2011) Turnaround necessities. School Administrator 68(3): 22–27.

84.

Salazar

(2015) An exploration of the leadership skills and traits of effective school turnaround leaders in West Texas schools. Doctoral Dissertation. Available at: https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/ttu-ir/handle/2346/63763 (accessed 23 October 2018).

85.

Salmonowicz

(2009) Meeting the challenge of school turnaround. Phi Delta Kappan 91(3): 19–24.

86.

Sammons

Davis

Day

(2014) Using mixed methods to investigate school improvement and the role of leadership. Journal of Educational Administration 52(5): 565–589.

87.

Schoenberg

Collier

Bowman

(2013) Strategies for business turnaround and recovery: A review and synthesis. European Business Review 25(3): 243–262.

88.

Segler-Zender

(2013) A high school turnaround school initiative: Effects on students’ math and reading proficiency. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Nevada. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1466666068?accountid=14548 (accessed 23 October 2018)

89.

Stadalis

(2015) Development of a conceptual model and instrument for sustaining successful school reculturing and reform efforts. Doctoral Dissertation, University of Louisiana at Lafayette. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/1709010787?accountid=14548 (accessed 23 October 2018).

90.

Steiner

Hassel

(2011) Using Competencies to Improve School Turnaround Principal Success. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.

91.

Steiner

Hassel

Valsing

(2008) School Turnaround Leaders: Competencies for Success. Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact.

92.

Strunk

Marsh

Hashim

Bushmecenas

Weinstein

(2016) The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles unified school district. Education Finance & Policy 11(4): 1–32.

93.

Therriault

(2016) A new approach to school turnaround: Charter operators managing district schools. Available at: https://masscharterschools.org/sites/default/files/docs/resources/mcpsa_lawrence_charteropmanagedistrictschools_june_2016.pdf (accessed 23 October 2018)

94.

Tracy

(2013) Unveiling a path to head start turnaround: Investigating how head start directors transform low-performing programs into high-performing programs. Doctoral Dissertation, St. John Fisher College. Available at: https://fisherpub.sjfc.edu/education_etd/172/ (accessed 23 October 2018).

95.

US Department of Education (2011) An overview of school turnaround. Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigoverviewppt.pdf (accessed 23 October 2018).

96.

Webster

(2012) The possibilities for school leadership discourse with the dominant discourse of public education: A critical autoethnography. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, Florida.

97.

Whelan

(2011) A case study in academic turnaround and presidential leadership at Notre Dame College of Ohio: 1990–2010. Doctoral Dissertation, Dowling University. Available at: https://search.proquest.com/docview/880288657?accountid=14548 (accessed 23 October 2018).

98.

Windhorst

(2011) The Death and Life of the Great American School System: How Testing and Choice are Undermining Education. New York, NY: Basic Books.

Understanding turnaround leadership research: Continuity and change (2009–2016)

Abstract

Introduction

Methods

Conceptual framework and central focus

Data sources

Findings and discussion

Turnaround as a concept

Turnaround as a condition

Turnaround as a process and a consequence

Leadership as a key to reintegration

Changing leadership as a key to recovery

Rationale for leadership changes

Leaders as the cause of the problem

Leaders restrained by existing culture

Inability to perform

Replacement as “signaling”

Types of leadership

Antecedents and effect factors of turnarounds

Creating a collaborative school culture and structure

Conclusions and implications

Footnotes

Acknowledgment

Declaration of conflicting interests

Funding

References