Chapter 1: Introduction: Debunking School Turnaround Myths

The concept of school turnaround—rapidly improving schools and increasing student achievement outcomes in a short period of time—has become politicized despite the relative newness of the idea (for initial conceptual framing of the concept, see Herman et al., 2008; Murphy & Meyers, 2008). Unprecedented funding levels for school improvement combined with few examples of schools substantially increasing student achievement outcomes has resulted in doubt about whether or not turnaround is achievable (Peck & Reitzug, 2014). Skeptics have enumerated a number of reasons to abandon school turnaround at this earlyjuncture. They contend that turnaround is not realistic (e.g., Smarick, 2010). There is little to no evidence that turnaround has worked (e.g., Stuit, 2012). The disruptive nature of turnaround results in greater human and social costs than the results warrant (Trujillo & Renee, 2015). In isolation, many of the points that skeptics make are reasonable. However, those making these arguments often seem to disregard the complexity of schools’ external and internal contexts, misunderstand the actual goal embedded in the idea of turnaround, have a commitment to a reform or position that is misaligned with turnaround, are driven by policy and/or available funding, or have some combination of the four.