School Effectiveness and School Improvement

An International Journal of Research, Policy and Practice

ISSN: 0924-3453 (Print) 1744-5124 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/nses20

Planning for school turnaround in the United

States: an analysis of the quality of principal-
developed quick wins

Coby V. Meyers & Dallas Hambrick Hitt

To cite this article: Coby V. Meyers & Dallas Hambrick Hitt (2018): Planning for school turnaround
in the United States: an analysis of the quality of principal-developed quick wins, School
Effectiveness and School Improvement, DOI: 10.1080/09243453.2018.1428202

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1428202

Published online: 29 Jan 2018.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 45

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=nses20
SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT, 2018
https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2018.1428202

ARTICLE

Planning for school turnaround in the United States: an

analysis of the quality of principal-developed quick wins
Coby V. Meyers and Dallas Hambrick Hitt
Curry School of Education, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA

ABSTRACT ARTICLE HISTORY

Research suggests that high-quality school improvement planning Received 18 April 2017
reflective of the school’s needs and objectives is central to a Accepted 5 January 2018
principal’s success in leading a school. Some American scholars KEYWORDS
contend that successfully planned and executed “quick wins” are School improvement plan;
critically important to launching high-level organizational change school turnaround; quick
processes necessary to turn around low-performing schools. Yet, wins; school management
lack of research suggests that the concept of quick wins may be
built more on assumptions than evidence. In this study, we eval-
uate formal quick wins as planned by school principals participat-
ing in a turnaround leadership program in the United States. Our
results suggest that principals struggle to develop high-quality
quick wins despite their relative simplicity as an improvement
planning starting point, especially in comparison with the devel-
opment of traditional annual improvement or development plans.
Finally, we consider the implications of these results in relation to
traditional school improvement planning, especially in response to
low-performing school contexts.

Introduction: why quick wins?

Despite few formal guidelines on content, research has found many school
improvement plans to be quite similar in terms of structure and content, with a
typical plan consisting of a school’s mission and vision statements along with
listings of goals, objectives, and strategies for an academic year (Mintrop,
MacLellan, & Quintero, 2001). Perhaps this is to be expected given an increased
commitment to rational planning approaches (Davies, 2004; Reynolds, Teddlie,
Chapman, & Stringfield, 2016) that prioritize the setting of a compelling vision
with aligned goals, an especially fundamental leadership practice in the context
of low-performing schools where dramatic change is needed (Leithwood, 2012;
Meyers & Hitt, 2017). High-quality school improvement planning is further impli-
cated because developing a sense of where the organization wishes to go, why,
and how it will collectively get there undergirds all else that follows (Duke, 2015).
This is likely because the substance of the school improvement plan’s goals should
be aligned with the actual practices known or theorized to improve low-performing
schools (Chapman & Harris, 2004; MacGilchrist & Mortimore, 1997). In this vein,

CONTACT Coby V. Meyers cvm2x@virginia.edu

© 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
2 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

research suggests that high-quality school improvement planning reflective of the

school’s needs and objectives is central to a principal’s success in leading a school
(Strunk, Marsh, Bush-Mecenas, & Duque, 2016).
Within the bodies of research related to school improvement planning, their
importance, and their effectiveness, scholars have argued that successfully planned
and executed “quick wins” are critically important to enacting high-level organiza-
tional change processes necessary to turn around low-performing schools (Aladjem
et al., 2010). Quick wins are typically considered as specific, small-scale, reasonably
attainable outcomes by researchers and practitioners (Herman et al., 2008). Studies
have further characterized their usefulness as sources of efficacy and future motiva-
tion (Huberman, Parrish, Hannan, Arellanes, & Shambaugh, 2011), as well as being
aligned with or in support of other, larger organizational goals (Kowal & Ableidinger,
2011). In the United States, the idea of planning for quick wins has become a staple
of school improvement planning for turnaround, but no study on the quality of quick
wins, or their demonstrated importance, has been conducted. In this paper, we report
our findings from an analysis of approximately 320 planned quick wins submitted by
171 school principals participating in a school leadership training program focused on
systems leadership development, including strategic planning initiatives, for low-
performing schools.
This study is especially noteworthy because, overall, little research has been con-
ducted on the facets of improvement processes for low-performing schools (i.e., leading
the change process), specifically the critical processes of strategic planning aligned with
enactment and realization of the new school vision (for a brief review of school
improvement planning research and evaluation, see Strunk et al., 2016). The need for
high-quality school improvement planning is often amplified in these contexts because
student achievement is low, principals are frequently replaced, instructional quality is
weak, and expectations are depressed (Murphy & Meyers, 2008). However, the develop-
ment and implementation of a school improvement plan can often be slow, uninspiring,
and fall short of catalyzing forward momentum desperately needed in a low-performing
school. Thus, to combat these challenges, some American scholars contend that the
turnaround process and the planning for it should begin with quick wins. They assert
that by starting “with a goal that is important, can be achieved quickly, and will provide
visible improvement” (Herman et al., 2008, p. 9), the school principal can initiate change
that all recognize, support, and find motivating. Kowal and Ableidinger (2011) extend
this notion, pointing out that meaningful early wins connect to high-priority goals. That
is, a quick win should be visible and indicate change while setting the stage for that
change in areas critical to the context of the school.
School improvement planning, including quick wins, is surprisingly understudied
(Muijs, Harris, Chapman, Stoll, & Russ, 2004; Strunk et al., 2016), and this lack of research
suggests that the concept of quick wins may be built more on assumptions than on
evidence. For example, all major publications on school turnaround in the United States
since 2005 cite business literature focused on common planning practices, other school
turnaround literature that cites common business planning practices (e.g., Herman et al.,
2008), or both. In other words, all references to quick wins in school turnaround
literature originate in business literature. Thus, while the concept of quick wins has
become a foundational assumption in school turnaround initiatives, without any
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 3

evidence of its importance or even consideration of it in practice, further examination of

the process is implicated to better understand the construct and consider if and how
they launch and play into the larger organizational overhaul.
In this first school turnaround study that analyzes quick win data of any kind, we
evaluate formal quick wins as planned by school principals participating in a turnaround
leadership program. We determine whether the quick wins are quick, clear, aligned,
visible, meaningful, and connected to larger planning priorities. We provide examples of
planned quick wins to underscore their deficiencies and highlight exemplars to demon-
strate how, when well conceptualized, quick wins could launch school improvement
initiatives. However, overall, the quality of the quick wins appears to be low; accordingly,
we consider if the field’s emphasis on quick wins is advisable and how quick wins could
be more impactful in the future.

Relevant literature
The state of school improvement planning in low-performing schools
Planning for school improvement, whether formally or informally, is not a new idea, and
it endures as a lasting priority (Edmonds, 1979; Reynolds et al., 2016). The utilization of
school improvement plans (SIPs) is not limited to a guide for school- and district-level
leaders because in some cases, the formal development of the school improvement
plans, or school development plans, has been coupled with increased accountability,
including the Office for Standards in Education, Children’s Service and Skills (OfSTED)
inspections in the United Kingdom (Broadhead, Hodgson, Cuckle, & Dunford, 1998;
Cuckle, Hodgson, & Broadhead, 1998) and whole-school evaluations in the Republic of
Ireland (McNamara, O’Hara, & Aingléis, 2002).
Two paradoxical purposes of SIPs surface in the literature: On the one hand, SIPs
“serve as a tool for the accountability agency to direct schools toward rational manage-
ment of improvement and to translate external (i.e., state or district) expectations into
schools’ internal obligations” (Mintrop & MacLellan, 2002, p. 276). On the other hand,
researchers report SIPs as “unrealistically comprehensive, overloaded with activities, and
full of minutiae rather than being focused and strategic” (Mintrop et al., 2001, p. 200).
These two points raise questions about whether or not the current SIP process actually
leads toward genuine organizational growth and change, which should, in turn, lead to
increased student achievement, or if such plan creation is a perfunctory task grown from
a compliant response to increased accountability.
A number of publications suggest that high-quality SIPs are key for low-performing
schools to improve climate (e.g., Sugai & Horner, 2006) and student learning (Mintrop
et al., 2001). However, much of the initial literature argues a technical-rational position –
that of a linear approach in which increased professional knowledge results in improved
professional application (Schön, 1983). In it, improvement planning plays a critical role
(Bennett, Crawford, Levačić, Glover, & Earley, 2000; Broadhead et al., 1998; Davies, 2004)
and often derived from working backward from cases of substantial school improve-
ment to retrospectively identify the relevance of SIPs (O’Donoghue & Dimmock, 1996;
Wikeley, Stoll, Murillo, & De Jong, 2005).
4 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

More recent evidence about the importance of improvement planning is mixed. In a

study of an Italian in-service training program, Caputo and Rastellli (2014) report that
higher quality SIPs correlate with better school organizational outcomes, including the
ability to analyze context and prioritize the right elements to improve schools. Recent
studies in the United States demonstrate strong, positive associations between SIP
quality and student achievement in mathematics and reading (Fernandez, 2011; Huber
& Conway, 2015). However, more rigorous regression analyses indicate mixed results. For
example, Huber and Conway (2015) did not find any significant impact of plan quality on
student achievement. In a study of Los Angeles Unified Schools, Strunk and colleagues
(2016) determined that overall SIP quality was low and that the relationship between
high plan quality and implementation diminished over time. Given that all of these
studies compare outcomes based on plan quality, it is worth noting that researchers
found that low-performing schools developing SIPs in Jamaica did not outperform
comparable schools that did not develop SIPs (Lockheed, Harris, & Jayasundera, 2010).
This study suggests that SIPs may not make the difference they are intended to, and that
enactment and monitoring of them still lags, as noted in research in the United Kingdom
about 20 years ago (MacGilchrist & Mortimore, 1997).

The purpose of quick wins

Perhaps in recognition of some challenges associated with a traditional SIP, the field
began to reconsider how to launch and catalyze change. Herman and colleagues (2008)
identified quick wins as one of four turnaround recommendations in a federally funded
practice guide intended to support the rapid and dramatic improvement of the United
States’ lowest performing schools. In it, they define quick wins as making “visible
improvements early in the school turnaround process” (p. 8). Further, they suggest
conceiving quick wins as “a goal that is important, can be achieved quickly, and will
provide visible improvement” (p. 9). This suggestion aligns with one of the distinguish-
ing tenets of turnaround – that change be rapid and dramatic rather than paced and
incremental. Theoretically, quick wins could be a way to enact rapid and dramatic
change.
Subsequent research on successful school turnaround in some ways echoes the
importance of quick wins. For example, Aladjem and team (2010) interviewed principals
of schools with rapidly increased student achievement. Those principals consistently
communicated prioritizing improvement planning and incremental change, and also
highlighted steps taken to make clear that change was expected. Similarly, Huberman
and colleagues (2011) report on a case where they state that “the school’s turnaround
process began with a few visible improvements, or quick wins, which created a more
welcoming learning environment” (p. 17). This initial research suggests that turnaround
processes often begin with quick wins focused on the physical plant, or school building.
Issues of instructional time or student discipline also commonly comprise the substance
of quick wins (e.g., Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011). In both cases, principals choose these
focuses with the intention of communicating to the internal and external community
that the school is changing, and that positive change, progress, and a better school, are
each possible (Aladjem et al., 2010).
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 5

Other thought leaders and researchers have added some nuance to the concept,
which they refer to as early wins, by focusing on getting others to buy in quickly
while also connecting the wins to high-priority goals (Kowal & Hassel, 2005; Meyers
et al., 2017). These authors contend that quick wins should not be accomplished in
isolation but instead be an initial jolt of motivation in a change process with longer
term payoffs (Hitt & Meyers, 2017; Steiner, Hassel, & Hassel, 2008). For example, a
new principal adjusted schedules for teachers to have more time to collaborate and
plan. This motivational support was coupled with a clearly communicated expecta-
tion that instruction must improve school wide (Duke & Jacobson, 2011).

Research questions
Implicit in the development of quick wins is an assumption that they can matter, and
that they can signal and initiate rapid and dramatic improvement that builds momen-
tum and progress. Researchers have not tested this assumption empirically, but the
coalescence of research literature – including the emergence of quick wins as a separate
domain in our previously noted review of research on principals effectively leading
turnaround (Meyers & Hitt, 2017) – suggests that clear change signals are important
and should be planned. The extent to which principals attempting to lead turnaround
actually plan quick wins well, however, is a different issue. To our knowledge, no study
has been conducted to date that evaluates the quality of principals’ plans for quick wins.
If quick wins are important, both as planning mechanisms and as symbolic and enacted
representations of change, more formal consideration of their quality is warranted if the
field continues to assert their utility to practitioners engaged in the complex, and
already overwhelming, work of turnaround.
To better understand quick wins in turnaround settings, we analyze quick wins
developed by school principals in the United States as part of their initial short-cycle,
90-day plans to guide their school turnaround initiatives. Specifically, we answer the
following research questions:

(1) To what extent are the quick wins in formal turnaround plans quick (i.e., can be
completed within 30 days), clear, aligned, visible, meaningful, and relevant to
broader turnaround priorities?
(2) What do high-quality quick wins look like? Are there criteria-based exemplars to
guide practitioner, policymaker, and researcher understanding of the kinds of
quick wins actually worth developing?

Investigating these questions is a critical first step in (a) understanding how school
principals leading turnaround initiatives most frequently try to plan for and enact
change in the early stages of turnaround, (b) determining whether or not the quick
wins actually connect to larger priorities, and/or (c) considering if quick wins have the
potential to motivate stakeholders by signaling that change and improvement is
possible.
6 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

Data source
School principals leading a turnaround initiative in persistently low-performing schools
across the United States developed the quick wins analyzed for this study (see Table 1).
The preponderance of schools were located in western states such as Arizona, Colorado,
New Mexico, and Utah, but some were also in central (e.g., Oklahoma) and southeastern
(e.g., North Carolina) states. Because program partnerships occur above the local school
with the school district, schools often enter the program grouped in districts. Thus, a few
larger districts result in more schools from a certain geographic locale. This is true in this
sample, too, as although district distribution by geographic locale is relatively evenly
distributed, many more schools are located in urban or suburban settings (64%) than in
town or rural settings (36%). The enrollment size within schools (ranging from about 200
to 2,000 students and averaging approximately 600) reflects these geographic locale
differences, as well as differences in school type (e.g., 62% primary, 21% middle, and
17% high school). All of these schools enroll impoverished students – 80% of the
students enrolled in these schools are designated as students who receive free or
reduced-price lunch. In addition, with one district exception that received a slightly
modified program, state and/or district agencies designated schools as low performing,
resulting in their partnership with a university-based service provider focused on
improving systems leadership.
Due to our close working relationship with this university-based service provider, we
capitalize on an opportunity or convenience sample of quick win plans (Given, 2008;
Teddlie & Yu, 2007). That is, the sample of participants submitting quick win plans was
convenient because they submitted their plans as part of their programmatic partner-
ship, and we subsequently retrieved and analyzed those plans. There are inherent
disadvantages to this research approach, perhaps most notably the data could be biased
because the sample is not random or even clearly representative of all principal planning

Table 1. Quick wins coding scheme.

Component Criteria
Quick 0 = The quick win cannot reasonably be completed in 30 days.
1 = Aspects of the quick win can reasonably be completed in 30 days.
2 = All of the quick win can reasonably be completed in 30 days.
Clear 0 = There is no explicitly stated win.
1 = Aspects of the quick win are explicitly stated.
2 = All intended outcomes of the quick win are explicitly stated.
Aligned 0 = There is no clear connection or sequence among the steps necessary to achieve the quick
win.
1 = Some steps necessary to achieve the quick win are clearly connected or sequenced.
2 = All steps necessary to achieve the quick win are clearly connected or sequenced.
Visible 0 = The quick win would be evident only to the school principal.
1 = The quick win would be evident to teachers.
2 = The quick win would be evident to students and/or parents, but not teachers
3 = The quick win would be evident to teachers and students.
4 = The quick win would be evident to teachers and students and parents/community.
Meaningful 0 = Achieving the quick win would have little influence on the achievement of goals and/or
vision.
1 = Achieving the quick win would have considerable influence on the goals and/or vision.
Connected 0 = The quick win does not advance a priority area, objective, or goal identified elsewhere in the
short-cycle plan.
1 = The quick win advances a priority area, objective, or goal identified elsewhere in the short-
cycle plan.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 7

efforts. However, we contend that such concerns are minimized in the context of this
research. Study principals developed quick wins as part of a unique leadership program
focused primarily on turning around low-performing schools, which aligns with how the
concept of quick wins in education is primarily considered. Thus, in many ways, this
sample of principals and their quick win plans are likely representative. Nonetheless, we
recognize that certain principals – perhaps those who disagree or dislike the program or
who disagree that their schools are low-performing – do not participate in the program.
Furthermore, the program’s reach is limited, and some school principals might be
systematically excluded (e.g., the program only partners with a school district if at
least three schools are included in the partnership). Such limitations are worth remem-
bering when considering the results and implications of this study.
Unfortunately, the plans analyzed for this study consist of archived data not
initially intended for research purposes. Thus, although we know the schools for
which quick wins plans were submitted, we do not have descriptive data on the
school principals. We do know, however, that approximately 80% of principals at
schools partnering with this service provider are typically new to their schools. There
are no specific traits or characteristics such as gender or race/ethnicity promoted by
the service provider, although district hiring decisions are often influenced by an
interview process designed to reveal certain leadership competencies of the pro-
spective principals.
During their hiring process, new principals, or the other approximately 20% who
continue in their role as principal, were informed by district personnel that district
leadership and school principals would participate in a 2-year program focused primarily
on improving systems leadership capacity specifically for low-performing schools. As
part of their participation in the program, school principals completed multiple short-
cycle (or 90-day) improvement plans. The short-cycle plan functions as a central organiz-
ing instrument to focus the school on turnaround initiatives. Principals and their leader-
ship team identify their most important challenges, establish goals and objectives, detail
steps necessary to resolve those challenges, and identify instruments to measure
progress.

Quick wins plans

Program leadership encourages principals to develop quick wins in all short-cycle
improvement plans, which are to be submitted in each of the first three semesters
of the partnership. However, the program requires principals to submit quick wins
in their initial short-cycle plans. The program directed principals to develop quick
wins that, as suggested by turnaround scholarship, should be visible and attainable
within 30 days, as well as a symbol to motivate and assist them in scaffolding the
actions that would be necessary to realize the plan. Specifically, the program
template encourages school principals to provide information that addresses the
following categories: (a) Condition or matter that requires quick action; (b) Reason
the quick win is required or important; (c) Specific actions to be taken to achieve
the quick win; (d) Timeline for actions; (e) Responsible parties to complete the
actions; and (f) Evidence that the quick win would have been adequately addressed
once the actions were completed. The program did not set forth an expectation
8 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

about how many quick wins should be developed. The majority of study principals
submitted only one quick win while a few others submitted up to six. In total, we
reviewed 320 unique quick wins from 171 principals across four cohorts of districts
(42 districts total) from 12 states. It is worth noting that the number of quick wins
submitted by a principal might have been affected by a change in the short-cycle
improvement plan template that provided more structure and less space for the
last two cohorts.

Methods
As an initial step, we developed an a priori coding scheme based on plan components
established in quick win-related literature and/or emphasized programmatically to
determine whether each quick win was (a) quick – it could be completed within
30 days (as stated by the school improvement provider and endorsed by Duke &
Jacobson, 2011, as the first weeks); (b) clear – the intended outcome or “win” was
explicitly stated or tangible (Aladjem et al., 2010); (c) aligned – the steps to completing it
were sequential and clearly focused on the outcome of the win (Herman et al., 2008); (d)
visible – attaining the win would be visible to appropriate audiences (Huberman et al.,
2011; Rhim, Kowal, Hassel, & Hassel, 2007); (e) meaningful – achieving the win would
have considerable influence on the goals and/or vision (Herman et al., 2008); and (f)
connected – the win launches or builds on a priority area identified in the plan (Kowal &
Ableidinger, 2011; Steiner et al., 2008). See Table 1 for a brief description of the coding
scheme. To reach inter-rater reliability (IRR), both researchers coded a random sample of
four principals from Cohort 1 to calibrate (IRR = 0.70), followed by discussion and
resolution. Then, we coded a random sample of 16 principals (23 unique wins) selected
from Cohorts 2 through 4 (IRR = 0.82), followed again by discussion and resolution. One
author coded the remaining quick wins in the sample.
Then, based on the coding results, we reread the quick wins by category (i.e, quick,
clear, aligned, etc.) to identify examples of high- and low-quality quick wins for each. We
report results for each quick win category separately as well as provide some examples
of low- and high-quality plans therein. In addition, we report results by combining
categories (e.g., quick+clear followed by quick+clear+aligned, etc.). We recognize that
combining results like this will lower the percentage of quick win plans meeting criteria,
but we believe it is important to illustrate how many (or few) principals were able to
develop a good, comprehensive quick win plan.

Results
We provide results by components (e.g., quick, clear, aligned, etc.) in Figure 1 along with
examples of quick wins to highlight common strengths and deficiencies. We then report
the results of quick win quality once components are considered collectively (e.g., Is the
quick win simultaneously quick, clear, and aligned?), again providing exemplars for
strengths and deficiencies across the sample.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 9

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Quick Clear Aligned Visible Meaningful Connected

Figure 1. Percentage of quick wins meeting expectations by component.

Components of quick wins

Quick
Quick wins should be rapid, often defined as achievable within the first 30 days of the
planning period. Just over 50% of quick wins could reasonably be accomplished within
the first 30 days. Quick wins in this sector of the sample were concrete and compart-
mentalized, with outcomes that were clear and easily understood when enacted or met.
In one representative example, the principal identified student tardiness from the
previous academic year as a persistent problem that decreased the quality of students’
instructional experiences, which was exacerbated by the school’s lack of school policy on
tardiness. Thus, she determined that she and school staff would develop and implement
a school tardy policy by the beginning of the academic year.
About 35% of the quick win plans had both elements that could and elements that
could not be reasonably accomplished within the first 30 days, In many of these
instances, the ambition of the quick win exceeded the purpose of launching initial
successes. For example, an elementary school principal identified 10 actions to pursue
as a set of quick wins to begin a campaign to increase literacy. Many of the actions were
easily achievable and slated for the first 30 days of the academic year, but the seventh
and eighth actions – a teacher survey and sharing out survey results – were slated two
months after the start of the academic year and the last action – bi-weekly pacing
updates – for the entire academic year.
Of the approximately 14% of quick wins that were not scored as at least partially
quick, most had actions that could be accomplished quickly but the focus of the quick
win was on something requiring considerably more time. In a representative example, a
principal identified the quick win as increasing test scores in mathematics. Amongst the
10 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

actions to achieve this, she identified posting bulletin boards to recognize achievement,
recognizing class-level spirit day winners monthly, ability grouping, flexible grouping,
math camps, and many other initiatives, all of which were to last all academic year and
were not directly related to the quick win. Although on occasion such a plan could be a
reporting issue (i.e., placing a larger objective into the quick win area of the plan), the
broader improvement plans are short-cycle or 90-day plans, instead suggesting in many
of these instances a lack of recognition of the purpose and scope of quick win.
In a few other cases, it is conceivable that principals overestimated how quickly
wins can be achieved. In another example, a principal indicated that frequent leader-
ship turnover resulted in a backlog of teacher requests and needs. As a quick win
intended to address this issue, this principal indicated that she would record all
teacher requests and needs and appropriately address them within a month. In this
example, we classified this quick win as unfeasible because there is no way for the
principal to know what the teacher requests or needs will be, and any number of
possibilities – for example, externally provided professional development – might
take months to schedule. While well intended, quick wins in this portion of the
sample lacked strategy in that timely execution of quick win was either impossible or
would likely overwhelm the principal or leadership team and fall short of providing
forward momentum, instead exemplifying another instance of failure in an already
failing organization.

Clear
Forty-six percent of quick wins were clear, or the intended outcomes of the quick win
were explicitly stated. An elementary school principal recognized that there had been
too many student referrals to the office in part due to a “lack of clarity around a
schoolwide system approach to discipline,” so identifying and selecting a schoolwide
office referral process from examples at a national conference on student discipline
would be an initial step to improve discipline. In the same school’s plan, another quick
win was only partially clear. School leadership also wanted to implement a schoolwide
instructional plan focused on increasing reading achievement scores, but in addition to
establishing times for professional learning communities to collaborate on literacy
challenges, the principal included goals specific to an intervention of care. The inter-
vention of care was never tied to advancing the quick win specific to reading. We found
these types of contradictory or obfuscating steps as relatively common because only
35% of quick wins were only partially clear.
The remaining 19% of quick wins did not have explicitly stated outcomes.
Table 2 conveys an example of a quick win without a clear outcome. The condition
identified – celebrating adequate yearly progress gains – appears to be straightfor-
ward. But the actions do not suggest celebration as much as information sharing.
Within the explanation, the plan states a need to build on positive results. But
again, the actual “win” does not seem to build. Instead, as constructed, the quick
win seems to be little more than sharing the previous year’s test results with
various stakeholder groups. There was no clear statement describing any detail or
forethought about the type of celebration.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 11

Table 2. Example of an unclear quick win.

Condition requiring early action
Celebrate the movements
forward on meeting [adequate
yearly progress] AYP.
Specific actions to be taken to address the
Explanation of need condition
We need to begin the school year Present the data to the staff at the
by building on our positive beginning of the school year to reaffirm
results to move forward. our commitment to improving student
achievement.
Share an overview of the data with
parents at our first [parent teacher
association] PTA meeting.
Share an overview of the data with school
parent advisory committee.
Share an overview of the data with [local
Montessori committee].
Share an overview of the data with a [civic
association].

Aligned
Nearly 50% of quick wins were well aligned. Many well-aligned quick win plans are
simple, where a singular action or two basic, linked actions result in the quick win (e.g.,
the quick win is to beautify the school and the action is to paint the walls). However,
other plans set forth more involved examples that demonstrate higher levels of plan-
ning. For example, each of the four actions presented in Table 3 could independently be
a quick win, but they are presented together coherently as a set of actions to arrive at a
more substantial win; the creation of a routinized school meeting schedule to celebrate
good behavior and academics.
The other plans included steps that did not align to other steps, were unrelated to
the quick win identified (35%), had multiple steps in which there was no alignment
between actions, or the actions did not align to the goal of the quick win (16%). For
example, one quick win focused on “actively” identifying “ways to obtain clear perfor-
mance improvement.” But the actions listed included “shout outs” or acknowledgements
to staff doing good work, recognizing staff through written communications (e.g., cards),
providing teachers with monthly tokens of appreciation, and beginning every meeting
with staff sharing teacher and student accomplishments. None of these markers of
appreciation, although potentially important to school climate and culture, seems to
clearly connect with the stated quick win of improving performance, whether that be
teacher instruction or student achievement. The recognition, while important, falls short
of improving performance through utilizing both support and accountability, which are
components of growth and development.

Table 3. Example of a well-aligned set of actions to achieve a quick win.

Planned quick win
Create and produce an ongoing schedule/agenda for
school town meetings involving all students. These
meetings will occur weekly and will teach and
celebrate the cultural behavior and academic elements
desired in the school as a continued extension of
[positive behavior interventions and supports] PBIS.
Some of the meeting content will be published in the
local paper.
Specific actions necessary to achieve the quick win
1. Organize town meetings to include format and
location.
2. Create a model of a town meeting, agenda, and areas to
celebrate: birthdays, PBIS good behavior awards, excel-
lence in the classroom.
3. Initiate town meetings after the return of all students.
4. Publish the town meetings’ successes in the local paper
and on our website.
12 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

Visible
Recommendations in the literature suggest that quick wins be identifiable across the
school’s most relevant stakeholders. Less than one third (31%) of quick win plans, if
actualized, would be visible to all stakeholders (teachers, students, and parents and the
community). Of these, the most frequent publicly visible quick win was updating or
beautifying the school building or grounds. And, most often (43%), visibility of quick
wins was limited to teachers and school administration only, and did not include
external stakeholders or students. Celebrations of higher test scores, restructured master
schedules, and the establishment of professional learning communities or teams are
common examples. In this sample, 8% of quick wins, if accomplished, would be recog-
nized as “wins” by only the school principal. For example, one principal writes in her
quick win plan the need for her to be “open about programs and ideas” and “honest in
all interactions” as a way to build trust in the building, but the plan does not indicate
how anyone else would know this. The minimal amount of “principal only” quick wins is
a relative strength in the sample. In addition, only 7% of quick wins connected directly
with students and/or parents while circumventing teachers. About 12% of quick wins
were visible to teachers and students, including schoolwide celebrations, or recognitions
and content-based or disciplinary initiatives.

Meaningful
To operationalize “meaningful,” we considered if and how well a quick win, if enacted,
would support the realization of a vision for a better school. We coded a quick win as
having little influence on the achievement of goals and/or vision for the following
reasons: The quick win was routine or a standard practice in schools, inconsequential
or seemingly unimportant, or undefined or without clear outcome. For example, the
routine quick win highlighted in Table 4 is necessary work. We are not suggesting that

Table 4. Examples of quick wins that are not meaningful.

Reason quick win is not
meaningful Condition requiring early action
Routine practice In order to make sure all
teachers have access to the
same resources, a master
schedule is needed to help
things run effectively.
Inconsequential outcome Relationships.
No clear outcome Lack of ownership of the
School Improvement Grant
model.
Specific actions to be taken
Explanation of need to address the condition
Teachers and staff have 1. Create a spreadsheet
much to do this year template.
and are concerned 2. Place blocks of time for
with time interventionists.
management. 3. Schedule schoolwide activ-
ities, such as lunch, recess,
art, library, etc.
4. Finalize master schedule.
5. Give master schedule to
teachers to finalize and
include blocks for instruc-
tional time.
Need to encourage Provide staff with The Leader
leadership skills in Me book and Lost at
among students. School.
Empower teachers and Present current model,
build early capital. outline options, and lead
teachers in decision
making regarding an
acceptable alternative.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 13

creating the master schedule is unimportant. In fact, we coded some quick wins focused
on master schedules as meaningful. But in this example, the condition and need – “help
run things effectively” and “concerned with time management” – are not detailed
enough to understand why the master schedule is more important now than before.
The specific actions also suggest routine more than innovative practice. Regarding the
inconsequential outcome, the action does not align with the stated condition or need,
but even if it did, providing staff with materials without clear purpose or outcomes
negates intention. For the last example, that of no clear outcome, the quick win is close
to being meaningful, but presenting to teachers about acceptable alternative steps and
then leading them in discussion on those steps sets up the possibility of a meaningful
win, but there is no resolution. The plan lacks expression of expectation about what
should be achieved or how it will be achieved. Some quick wins contained already
completed activities. In total, 39% of quick wins lacked meaning.
In Table 5, we highlight a few examples of the 61% of meaningful quick wins. In each
of the three examples, the plan explicitly states and explains clear need, and the actions
to achieve the quick win, if completed, would at least be an initial step to addressing it.
In the data access example, simply providing electronically generated data reported to
teachers serves as a sufficiently meaningful quick win because of its importance given
teachers’ previous lack of access. The additional action of providing professional devel-
opment to leverage data for planning appears to be a logical extension. Similarly,
assuming that teachers in the second example are having difficulty engaging in tough
conversations, the demonstration of professional conversations and practicing them in a
controlled setting seem to be appropriate responses. And, as identified in many plans,
facilities in disrepair need upgrading.

Table 5. Examples of quick wins that are meaningful.

Condition requiring early Specific actions to be taken to
Topic action Explanation of need address the condition
Data access Teachers do not have access Teachers need to be able 1. Provide electronically generated
to data in a usable format to use the data to make data reports to teachers that out-
to guide and differentiate better instructional line student performance.
instruction. decisions and 2. Provide teachers professional
differentiate instruction. development on how to use these
data to plan for instructional plan-
ning.
Culture and trust Demonstrate how to have Teachers are afraid to have 1. Have leadership team demon-
professional discussions tough conversations strate professional conversation
with grade-level team with colleagues. surrounding a data set.
members. 2. Give teachers actual data from last
year and have the teachers have
conversation. A leadership team
member will sit with each grade
level.
Facilities Restrooms are dirty and in A beautiful front garden 1. Contractors and painters will
disrepair. Front garden is will make a good first complete all work.
messy and unattractive. impression on staff, 2. Staff and landscaper will clean up
Hallways are painted parents, and garden and replant.
mismatched colors and community.
are dark and dreary.
14 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

Connected
We analyzed quick wins to determine whether they connected to any of the school’s
objectives or goals in the school improvement plan that build toward the broader
conceptualization of what the school could become. Only 38% of quick wins were
connected to a school improvement plan priority, objective, or goal. Some principals
focused the entirety of their quick win(s) on advancing toward a priority. For example,
one middle school principal determined that math proficiency score increases were
imperative to launch and achieve a turnaround. The quick win he developed was
centered on increasing math fact fluency for students in classes ranging from Math 7
through Algebra II. Quick win actions included (a) establishing Mad Minute Math Facts
weekly, (b) posting math fact fluency notes throughout the school, and (c) coordinating
weekly Mad Minute Math Facts with Monday morning announcements. All quick wins,
while discrete, also aligned with the larger goal of improving math needs.

Collective components
Taken together, the results reported indicate lackluster quick win quality and great room
for growth. In Figure 2, we highlight how the percentage of quick wins meeting
expectations decreases considerably as components are combined. Maintaining the
same order of presentation as above, we start by showing that only 53% of quick
wins were actually rapid in nature or “quick” (Q). When we identify plans that were

100

90

80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
Q Q+C Q+C+A Q+C+A+V Q+C+A+V+M Q+C+A+V+M+C

Figure 2. Percentage of quick wins meeting expectations as components are combined.

Note: The letters in Figure 2 stand for the following combinations of components: Q = quick; Q+C = quick and
clear; Q+C+A = quick, clear, and aligned; Q+C+A+V = quick, clear, aligned, and visible; Q+C+A+V+M = quick,
clear, aligned, visible, and meaningful; Q+C+A+V+M+C = quick, clear, aligned, visible, meaningful, and
connected.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 15

both “quick and clear” (Q+C), the percentage decreases to 36%. The percentage remains
constant when we add the component “aligned” (Q+C+A). It is worth noting that not all
quick wins that are clear are aligned and vice versa. However, all quick wins that meet
criteria for quickness and clarity are also aligned. When we add the component “visible”
(Q+C+A+V) to the criteria, specifically to teachers and students and/or parents, the
percentage again decreases even further to 17%.
Once we add “meaningful” (Q+C+A+V+M) and “connected” (Q+C+A+V+M+C), only
3%, or nine total quick win plans, meet all criteria. For comparison, approximately 20% of
quick wins were neither quick, clear, aligned, meaningful, visible, nor connected. Or put
differently, for every six plans, five of them fall short of addressing all components. When
just considering quick wins that were both meaningful and connected to school
improvement plan priorities or objectives, only about one quarter were satisfactory.
In Table 6, we highlight three examples of quick wins that address all components.
Each example ties to a priority described elsewhere in the school improvement plans
and is important, clear, and aligned. They reasonably can all be completed within the
first 30 days of the academic year. Although recommendations for each might make the
quick wins better, more dynamic, and potentially yield greater short- and long-term
impacts, they serve as strong examples of high-quality quick wins.

Summary
We define quick wins as planned strategies that when enacted, demonstrate the launch
of strategic and connected organizational change. In low-performing schools, quick wins
have typically been identified as a necessary component to turn the school and student
achievement around. Yet, researchers have not conducted an empirical study of quick
wins in school turnaround or improvement initiatives prior to this one. In this study, we
do not attempt to determine whether the quality of quick wins impacts or correlates
with student achievement or other important organizational outcomes. Instead, our
initial work analyzing quick wins suggests that those school principals tasked with
developing them have generally been unsuccessful. Approximately half of the quick
wins could not be completely achieved within the 30 days allotted, suggesting that
many were not designed to actually be quick. Nearly one third of the plans do not
appear to be especially meaningful; fewer than half were connected to a school priority;
and only about one quarter were both meaningful and connected. When all essential
components of quick wins are considered collectively, less than 10% of the quick wins
analyzed were of high quality.

Discussion
Research indicates that school improvement planning is critical to a principal’s success in
leading a school (Fernandez, 2011; Strunk et al., 2016), and quick wins seem important
to a school turnaround effort (Herman et al., 2008). This study suggests to us, however,
that there is considerable progress still to be made in terms of conceptualizing a
turnaround plan wholescale and considering all of the details required to rapidly
improve low-performing schools. Some have argued that a quick, or early, win should
not be an isolated feat but strategically connected to priorities or larger objectives
16 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

Table 6. Examples of quick wins that meet all components.

Topic Condition requiring early action
Ensuring planning The recent on-site audit revealed that
time without teachers are frequently pulled from their
sacrificing quality planning periods to cover classes for which
instruction substitutes cannot be found, negatively
impacting their ability to plan for and
provide effective instruction.
Culture [The school] is focusing on “No Excuses
University,” creating a positive culture of
learning, helping students reach their
potential.
Student discipline Each teacher will be presented with a
Behavior and Consequence Notebook.
There will be a page for each child with
that child’s contact information, making it
easy for the teacher to contact parents as
well as note the child’s behavior (both
desirable and undesirable) and the
consequences for that behavior.
Specific actions to be taken to address the
condition
1. In order to prevent past practice of tea-
chers having to sub for absent teachers
almost daily, assign sub-finder responsi-
bilities to receptionist arriving at
7:30 a.m.
2. In the interim, assign member of adminis-
tration to recruit and retain qualified
substitutes.
3. Train staff on expectations for absences.
4. Require teachers to have “sub-folders” and
substitute teaching plans ready, accessible,
and updated.
1. Back to School Night will have a tailgate
celebration to set the stage of being col-
lege bound, a culture of learning.
Teachers will talk to parents and students
about the academics and culture of the
school.
2. A large banner with “I am going to col-
lege” as the heading will be placed on the
wall in the common area so students may
sign it.
3. Each classroom will choose a university.
The school will purchase a flag to hang
outside the classroom and a shirt for the
teacher.
4. The first Friday we will have a pep rally
celebrating character traits, academic suc-
cesses, attendance, behavior, college
readiness . . . the positive environment of
well-rounded students.
1. We will acquire 15 three-ring notebooks,
one for each classroom teacher.
2. All copies will be run for each teacher.
3. The school secretary will get contact
information for each student within each
classroom.
4. The school counselor will explain the use
of the behavior log to the teachers. The
teachers will then meet on our profes-
sional development day to assemble
notebooks and fill in the contact informa-
tion.

(Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011; Steiner et al., 2008). The lack of connection to priorities
found in this study could be indicative of principals’ inability or unwillingness to
leverage all aspects of their work strategically, which are related challenges Mintrop
and colleagues (Mintrop & MacLellan, 2002; Mintrop et al., 2001) identified when
analyzing the quality of overall school improvement plans.
In that vein, although a quick win is only a small part of the overall improvement
planning process, there are potentially bigger implications. Failure to plan quick wins
results in missed opportunities to show change is occurring. The federally backed
practice guide on school turnaround underscored the need to signal change through
better leadership and by leveraging quick wins (Herman et al., 2008; Huberman et al.,
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 17

2011). The authors argue that quick wins could indicate change to various stakeholders.
This research does not disprove that. We contend that the practice guide correctly
identifies the need to signal change, but how that change is effectively planned (and
realized) remains unstated, which is reflected in our results. Moreover, failure to connect
quick wins to priorities suggests limited strategic thinking and planning because there is
no intentional building or scaffolding (Aladjem et al., 2010; Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011;
Kowal & Hassel, 2005). If quick wins are of insufficient quality and weakly linked to
improvement plans, imagining quick wins as spurring legitimate, lasting change is
difficult.
Our study suggests that quick wins, at least in their current form, lack strategic
development. This aligns with research analyzing school improvement plans holistically.
Multiple studies in various international contexts have shown that plan quality, at least
SIPs developed for low-performing schools, insufficiently identify root causes of low
performance and inadequately develop a cogent way forward (e.g., Duke, Carr, &
Sterrett, 2013; Lockheed et al., 2010; Strunk et al., 2016). Quality may be lacking because
principals lack perspectives and skill to create meaningful and high-quality plans, and
support and development providers have been thus far unable to effectively guide
principals and leadership teams to successful creation of high-quality quick wins.
Alternatively, principals could be engaging in acts of “satisficing” (Simon, 1957) in
which they submit quick wins because quick win development is a programmatic
requirement but they do not identify developing quick wins as meaningful work.
Mintrop and colleagues make a compelling argument for the prevalence of this type
of behavior in their research on school improvement plan quality (Mintrop & MacLellan,
2002; Mintrop et al., 2001).
Conversely, we wonder how rates of turnaround might be affected if quick win plans
were of better quality. Although the research on school improvement plan quality
suggests plans could be better, it also links higher quality plans to higher levels of
student achievement (e.g., Caputo & Rastellli, 2014; Fernandez, 2011; Huber & Conway,
2015; Reeves, 2011). Thus, if school leaders designed quick wins more thoughtfully and
strategically to be rapid, aligned, realistic, connected, and visible (as the literature
suggests quick wins should be), how might the critical launch of the turnaround differ?
How might turnaround outcomes differ? We connect back to the work of Leithwood
(2012), who suggests that considerable thought and care should be afforded to the
vision development and enactment processes. If this is the case, the great room for
improvement that currently likely exists in the quick win design process suggested by
this study could be an important lever for turnaround principals and districts. Moreover,
if the field continues to feature quick wins prominently in the turnaround methodology,
at the very least, principals should be afforded greater support in developing these
initial sources of change. Districts would be wise to closely partner with newly selected
principals to co-create quick wins that are truly strategic, discrete, and connected and
otherwise reflective of what is known about high-quality quick wins.
This is an initial descriptive study that does not consider the principal’s success
leading his/her school to turnaround, but it is still quite insightful in terms of under-
standing the current substance and quality of quick wins. Our results indicate that
almost all principals in the study do not develop quality quick wins. We suggest that
the poor quality of quick wins is an issue of skill or will, or both. Principals either (a) do
18 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

not know how to design a high-quality quick win or (b) do not fully understand the
rationale for designing quick wins and how they link to the turnaround endeavor.
Similarly, although the training program requires principals to include quick wins in
their initial improvement plans, one must also question how committed the provider
was to the quick win creation process. This may be in part due to the highly context-
dependent nature of quick wins. Quick wins must be determined at the outset of the
reform effort when levels of nuanced understanding of the school are low for both the
newly installed principal and the provider (Herman et al., 2008).
Perhaps most concerning, a quick win should be the most readily developed aspect
of a school improvement plan. It is simple, brief, and direct. Given that less than 10% of
quick wins were high quality, we wonder the extent to which we can extrapolate to
overall school improvement plan quality, which is a next step in our research line. We
suspect that low-quality quick win plans are associated with low-quality school improve-
ment plans. We have no reason to believe that principals or leadership teams who do
not produce good quick wins will be better at the more complex task of developing a
comprehensive school improvement plan. We find this concerning given that research
suggests more sophisticated plans are associated with better schools (MacGilchrist &
Mortimore, 1997; McNamara et al., 2002).
The most reasonable counters appear to be that principals might spend more time on
or think harder about the traditional school improvement plan. But from the perspective
that the quick win is a key first step in planning (Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011), those
counters would seem misplaced because the planner has not accounted for the critical
first stage to launching the turnaround initiative. This suggests the critical importance of
more initial legwork to demonstrate to principals the potential of quick wins and how
leveraging them strategically could garner increased principal commitment and less
potentially satisficing behavior (Simon, 1957). More broadly, given the priority placed on
the quick win in school turnaround, at least in the American context, we wonder how,
and if, such wins in their current form are as necessary as the initial literature suggests
(e.g., Herman et al., 2008; Kowal & Ableidinger, 2011).

Limitations
This study is an entryway into further consideration of the utility of quick wins as a
planning practice to jumpstart or initiate planned change processes in low-performing
schools. Given the foundational position of the study, there are a number of clear
limitations in it. Perhaps chief among them, this is a study of the quality of quick wins
as they were planned, but because these data are archival, we could not determine the
enactment of the quick wins. This presents at least two problems. First, it could be the
case that the best of planned quick wins were ineffectively enacted or not enacted at all.
Inversely, it could be that poorly written quick win plans might have been executed
reasonably well in practice. Understanding how quick win planning, or any planning,
translates to practice is critical to identifying what aspects, if any, of the planning
process produce real change, and we suggest that further work that examines enact-
ment rather than planning and intention is warranted as we begin to better understand
the importance of the various facets of planning.
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 19

It is also difficult to know whether the principals were motivated to put forth the
effort necessary to develop quality quick win plans. We have no evidence that program
site leaders conveyed urgency to this work to lead principals to embrace the importance
of quick wins. School principals could simply interpret the development of quick win
plans as another compliance-oriented task among many imposed by the state and
district agencies, and now program leadership. In a similar vein, school principals
might have improved the quality of their quick win plans if they were both supported
and held accountable to develop them in subsequent semesters.
Regardless, it seems to us that many of the limitations associated with this study are
beyond the scope of this initial consideration of quick win planning. As we develop a
research agenda focused on school principals’ ability to develop high-quality school
improvement plans, the concept of a quick win seems like some of the lowest hanging
fruit, especially considering the support available from the district and program in this
initiative, as well as access to a programmatic protocol that should guide plan develop-
ment. It underscores the importance of shifting principals’ – and district leaders’ –
perspectives on planning from one of compliance to instead, thoughtful and strategic
vision creation and iterative refinement.

Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors
Coby V. Meyers is the Chief of Research of the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in Education
(PLE) and Associate Professor of Education in the Curry School of Education at the University of
Virginia. Dr. Meyers’ research focuses on understanding the role of school system leadership,
especially in the context of school turnaround.
Dallas Hambrick Hitt is a research scientist for the Darden/Curry Partnership for Leaders in
Education and adjunct faculty for the Curry School of Education at the University of Virginia.

References
Aladjem, D. K., Birman, B. F., Orland, M., Harr-Robins, J., Heredia, A., Parrish, T. B., & Ruffini, S. J.
(2010). Achieving dramatic school improvement: An exploratory study. Washington, DC: U.S.
Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, Policy and
Program Studies Service.
Bennett, N., Crawford, M., Levačić, R., Glover, D., & Earley, P. (2000). The reality of school develop-
ment planning in the effective primary schools: Technicist or guiding plan? School Leadership &
Management, 20(3), 333–351. doi:10.1080/13632430050128354
Broadhead, P., Hodgson, J., Cuckle, P., & Dunford, J. (1998). School development planning: Moving
from the amorphous to the dimensional and making it your own. Research Papers in Education,
13(1), 3–18. doi:10.1080/0267152980130102
Caputo, A., & Rastellli, V. (2014). School improvement plans and student achievement: Preliminary
evidence from the Quality and Merit Project in Italy. Improving Schools, 17(1), 72–98.
doi:10.1177/1365480213515800
Chapman, C., & Harris, A. (2004). Improving schools in difficult and challenging contexts: Strategies
for improvement. Educational Research, 46(3), 219–228. doi:10.1080/0013188042000277296
20 C. V. MEYERS AND D. H. HITT

Cuckle, P., Hodgson, J., & Broadhead, P. (1998). Investigating the relationship between OfSTED
inspections and school development planning. School Leadership & Management, 18(2), 271–
283. doi:10.1080/13632439869691
Davies, B. (2004). Developing the strategically focused school. School Leadership & Management, 24
(1), 11–27. doi:10.1080/1363243042000172796
Duke, D. L. (2015). Leadership for low-performing schools: A step-by-step guide to the school turn-
around process. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
Duke, D. L., Carr, M., & Sterrett, W. (2013). The school improvement planning handbook: Getting
focused for turnaround and transition. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
Duke, D. L., & Jacobson, M. (2011). Tackling the toughest turnaround – Low-performing high
schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 92(5), 34–38. doi:10.1177/003172171109200508
Edmonds, R. (1979). Effective schools for the urban poor. Educational Leadership, 37(1), 15–24.
Fernandez, K. E. (2011). Evaluating school improvement plans and their affect on academic
performance. Educational Policy, 25(2), 338–367. doi:10.1177/0895904809351693
Given, L. M. (2008). The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods. Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE.
Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T., Greene, J., Maynard, R., Redding, S., & Darwin, M. (2008). Turning
around chronically low-performing schools: A practice guide (NCEE #2008 4020). Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education
Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
Hitt, D. H., & Meyers, C. V. (2017). School turnarounds and the test of time. In C. V. Meyers & M. J.
Darwin (Eds.), Enduring myths that inhibit school turnaround (pp. 319–338). Charlotte, NC:
Information Age.
Huber, D. J., & Conway, J. M. (2015). The effect of school improvement planning on student
achievement. Planning and Changing, 46(1/2), 56–70.
Huberman, M., Parrish, T., Hannan, S., Arellanes, M., & Shambaugh, L. (2011). Turnaround schools in
California: Who are they and what strategies do they use? San Francisco, CA: California
Comprehensive Center at WestEd.
Kowal, J., & Ableidinger, J. (2011). Leading indicators of school turnarounds: How to know when
dramatic change is on track. Charlottesville, VA: University of Virginia’s Darden/Curry Partnership
for Leaders in Education. Retrieved from http://www.darden.virginia.edu/darden-curry-ple/turn
around/research-resources/
Kowal, J. M., & Hassel, E. A. (2005). Turnarounds with new leaders and staff: School restructuring
options under No Child Left Behind: What works when? Washington, DC: The Center for
Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement.
Leithwood, K. (2012). The Ontario Leadership Framework: With a discussion of the leadership
foundations. Ontario: The Institute for Education Leadership, OISE/University of Toronto.
Lockheed, M., Harris, A., & Jayasundera, T. (2010). School improvement plans and student learning
in Jamaica. International Journal of Educational Development, 30(1), 54–66. doi:10.1016/j.
ijedudev.2009.06.007
MacGilchrist, B., & Mortimore, P. (1997). The impact of school development plans in primary
schools. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 8(2), 198–218. doi:10.1080/
0924345970080202
McNamara, G., O’Hara, J., & Aingléis, B. N. (2002). Whole-school evaluation and development
planning: An analysis of recent initiatives in Ireland. Educational Management &
Administration, 30(2), 201–211. doi:10.1177/02611X02030002510
Meyers, C., Cornier, J., Cooper, G., Dean, S., Hitt, D. H., Kutas, D., . . . Lutterloh, C. (2017). Examples of
actions taken by principals trying to lead turnaround. San Francisco, CA: WestEd. Retrieved from
http://centeronschoolturnaround.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/CST_Examples-of-Actions_
Principals.pdf
Meyers, C. V., & Hitt, D. H. (2017). School turnaround principals: What does initial research literature
suggest they are doing to be successful? Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk
(JESPAR), 22(1), 38–56. doi:10.1080/10824669.2016.1242070
 SCHOOL EFFECTIVENESS AND SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT 21

Mintrop, H., & MacLellan, A. M. (2002). School improvement plans in elementary and middle
schools on probation. The Elementary School Journal, 102(4), 275–300. doi:10.1086/499704
Mintrop, H., MacLellan, A. M., & Quintero, M. F. (2001). School improvement plans in schools on
probation: A comparative content analysis across three accountability systems. Educational
Administration Quarterly, 37(2), 197–218. doi:10.1177/00131610121969299
Muijs, D., Harris, A., Chapman, C., Stoll, L., & Russ, J. (2004). Improving schools in socioeconomically
disadvantaged areas – A review of research evidence. School Effectiveness and School
Improvement, 15(2), 149–175. doi:10.1076/sesi.15.2.149.30433
Murphy, J., & Meyers, C. V. (2008). Turning around failing schools: Leadership lessons from the
organizational sciences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
O’Donoghue, T. A., & Dimmock, C. (1996). School development planning and the classroom
teacher: A Western Australia case-study. School Organisation, 16(1), 71–87. doi:10.1080/
0260136960160107
Reeves, D. B. (2011). Finding your leadership focus: What matters most for student results. New York,
NY: Teachers College Press.
Reynolds, D., Teddlie, C., Chapman, C., & Stringfield, S. (2016). Effective school processes. In C.
Chapman, D. Muijs, D. Reynolds, P. Sammons, & C. Teddlie (Eds.), The Routledge international
handbook of educational effectiveness and improvement: Research, policy, and practice (pp. 77–
99). New York, NY: Routledge.
Rhim, L. M., Kowal, J. M., Hassel, B. C., & Hassel, E. A. (2007). School turnarounds: A review of the
cross-sector evidence on dramatic organizational improvement. Lincoln, IL: Center on Innovation
and Improvement.
Schön, D. A. (1983). The reflective practitioner: How professionals think in action. New York, NY: Basic
Books.
Simon, H. A. (1957). Models of man: Social and rational – Mathematical essays on rational human
behavior in a social setting. New York, NY: Wiley.
Steiner, L. M., Hassel, E. A., & Hassel, B. (2008). School turnaround leaders: Competencies for success.
Chapel Hill, NC: Public Impact. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED539552.pdf
Strunk, K. O., Marsh, J. A., Bush-Mecenas, S. C., & Duque, M. R. (2016). The best laid plans: An
examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative.
Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), 259–309. doi:10.1177/0013161X15616864
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide
positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.
Teddlie, C., & Yu, F. (2007). Mixed methods sampling: A typology with examples. Journal of Mixed
Methods Research, 1(1), 77–100. doi:10.1177/2345678906292430
Wikeley, F., Stoll, L., Murillo, J., & De Jong, R. (2005). Evaluating effective school improvement: Case
studies of programmes in eight European countries and their contribution to the effective
school improvement model. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 16(4), 387–405.
doi:10.1080/09243450500234617