[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-602554-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-0-en-105":81,"doc-detail-602554-en":130},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","the-effects-of-school-turnaround-in-tennessees-achievement-school-district-and-innovation-zones-research-analysis","The Effects of School Turnaround in Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Innovation Zones - Research Analysis","","The study analyzes how Tennessee’s federally supported school turnaround strategies affect student achievement in chronically low-performing schools. Using Race to the Top and related incentives, it compares three governance-and-management approaches: ASD direct management, ASD management via charter organizations, and iZone operation with added autonomy and resources. Results show iZone schools substantially improved achievement, while ASD schools showed no improvement or decline, indicating district-governed reforms can work.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/","Document",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/research-report/","Research & Report",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/document/the-effects-of-school-turnaround-in-tennessees-achievement-school-district-and-innovation-zones-research-analysis/602554/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/the-effects-of-school-turnaround-in-tennessees-achievement-school-district-and-innovation-zones-research-analysis/602554.png","ImageObject",300,407,{"name":42,"@type":43},"pixelkiddo","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-10-15",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",5,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"What turnaround strategies did Tennessee implement in its Achievement School District (ASD) and Innovation Zones (iZone)?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"Tennessee implemented three strategies: placing schools under the ASD for direct management, placing schools under the ASD for management by a charter management organization, and placing schools under district Innovation Zones with added resources and autonomy.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"How did student achievement change under the iZone approach compared with ASD approaches?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"iZone schools substantially improved student achievement, while schools under ASD did not improve or worsened. This contrast highlights meaningful differences across governance and management models.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What policy implication does the study draw about improving low-performing schools?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"The findings suggest it is possible to improve schools without removing them from district governance, though the effectiveness depends on the specific turnaround approach.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},602554,1792192116,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,88,92,96,100,105,110,114,119,122,126],{"id":22,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":85,"show_sort_weight":86,"slug":87},"Story & Novel",90,"story-novel",{"id":26,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":89,"show_sort_weight":90,"slug":91},"Literature",80,"literature",{"id":33,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":93,"show_sort_weight":94,"slug":95},"Exam",70,"exam",{"id":55,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":97,"show_sort_weight":98,"slug":99},"Comic",60,"comic",{"id":101,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":102,"show_sort_weight":103,"slug":104},6,"Technology",50,"technology",{"id":106,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":107,"show_sort_weight":108,"slug":109},7,"Healthcare",40,"healthcare",{"id":111,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},8,30,"research-report",{"id":115,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":116,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":118},9,"Religion & Spirituality",20,"religion-spirituality",{"id":117,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":117,"slug":121},"World Cup","world-cup",{"id":123,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":124,"show_sort_weight":123,"slug":125},10,"Lifestyle","lifestyle",{"id":127,"doc_module":4,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":128,"show_sort_weight":55,"slug":129},19,"General","general",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":131},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":132,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":133,"doc_module":4,"category_id":111,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":134,"file_id":135,"file_url":136,"file_type":137,"file_size":138,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":139,"language":140,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":141,"faqs":142,"seo_title":143,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":144,"read_time":145},962090883892,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/avatar/e00115db34f3e0f11b?x-image-process=image/resize,m_fixed,w_180,h_180&k=1790152879550218658","Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis December 2017, Vol. 39, No. 4, pp. 670–696 DOI: 10.3102/0162373717705729  \n© 2017 AERA. [http://eepa.aera.net](http://eepa.aera.net)  \nThe Effects of School Turnaround in Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Innovation Zones  \nRon Zimmer  \nUniversity of Kentucky  \nGary T. Henry  \nAdam Kho  \nVanderbilt University  \nIn recent years, the federal government has invested billions of dollars to reform chronically lowperforming schools. To fulfill their federal Race to the Top grant agreement, Tennessee implemented three turnaround strategies that adhered to the federal restart and transformation models: (a) placed schools under the auspices of the Achievement School District (ASD), which directly managed them;(b) placed schools under the ASD, which arranged for management by a charter management organization; and (c) placed schools under the management of a district Innovation Zone (iZone) with additional resources and autonomy. We examine the effects of each strategy and find that iZone schools, which were separately managed by three districts, substantially improved student achievement. In schools under the auspices of the ASD, student achievement did not improve or worsen. This suggests that it is possible to improve schools without removing them from the governance of a school district.  \nKeywords: school turnaround, school reform, charter schools, school governance and management, education policy  \nA SteAdfASt but elusive goal of policymakers is to improve the performance of chronically low-performing schools. Awareness of the plight of these low-performing schools was heightened in the late 20th and early 21st centuries by the number of schools that fail to meet academic standards set by state accountability policies and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) . In response, the federal government encouraged states and districts to adopt federally approved reforms for low-performing schools that can be broadly characterized as “turnaround” policies by providing more than US$7 billion in resources through Race to the Top (RttT) and School Improvement Grants (SIGs) . In addition, the federal government put into place other federal policies such as NCLB waivers to increase state accountability pressures on persistently low-performing schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) .  \nThe turnaround policies adopted through RttT, SIGs, and NCLB waivers are rooted in a  \nbelief that reforming the teaching and learning processes, often referred to as the “technical core of schooling,” would not be sufficient to produce swift and dramatic increases in student performance (Herman et al., 2008) . The “theory of change” for federal school turnaround suggests more fundamental and disruptive changes such as personnel replacement and the removal of chronically low-performing schools from districts that seem to lack the capacity and/or will to improve them (Chubb & Moe, 1990) . These changes to governance, management, staffing, and operations along with the additional resources provided are presumed to lay the groundwork for establishing the educational infrastructure necessary for meaningful improvement in these schools (Peurach & Neumerski, 2015). The federally prescribed turnaround models include replacing principals and all or most of the teachers as well as fundamental changes to the political authority traditionally vested in local  \nThe Effects of School Turnaround in Tennessee  \nschool districts, which may take the form of state takeover or restarting the schools managed by a charter management organization (CMO) .  \nIn this study, we examine the effects of turnaround that changed the governance of schools from local to state and management of schools from public to private. In addition to these types of reform, we examine a group of schools that remained under the governance of their local district and implemented turnaround models that brought them under the management of a special district—a d","cbCaioh7Ecn0KtkV","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaioh7Ecn0KtkV","pdf",1146492,27,"English","# Introduction\n## Background on federal turnaround policies\n# Study design and turnaround strategies\n## ASD and charter management vs. iZone approaches\n# Findings and implications for education policy","[{\"question\":\"What turnaround strategies did Tennessee implement in its Achievement School District (ASD) and Innovation Zones (iZone)?\",\"answer\":\"Tennessee implemented three strategies: placing schools under the ASD for direct management, placing schools under the ASD for management by a charter management organization, and placing schools under district Innovation Zones with added resources and autonomy.\"},{\"question\":\"How did student achievement change under the iZone approach compared with ASD approaches?\",\"answer\":\"iZone schools substantially improved student achievement, while schools under ASD did not improve or worsened. This contrast highlights meaningful differences across governance and management models.\"},{\"question\":\"What policy implication does the study draw about improving low-performing schools?\",\"answer\":\"The findings suggest it is possible to improve schools without removing them from district governance, though the effectiveness depends on the specific turnaround approach.\"}]","The Effects of School Turnaround in Tennessee’s Achievement School District and Innovation Zones - Research Analysis | PDF",1792094867,68]