U.S. Department of Education

Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development

Policy and Program Studies Service 

Results in Brief:

Leading Low-Performing Schools: Lessons from the Turnaround School Leaders 

Program

December 2018

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) has transformed federal 

support for low-performing schools by moving away from prescriptive models of school turnaround toward supporting state 

innovation. State approaches to implementing ESEA still demonstrate a strong commitment to school leadership as an important 

lever for improving low-performing schools. Thus, while Congress changed the requirements for addressing the needs of low 

performing schools through ESSA, lessons learned about school leaders from the Turnaround School Leaders Program (TSLP) may 

still be helpful to states and districts. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) funded two cohorts of TSLP grantees, one in 

2014, the other in 2015. Each grant lasted three years. The grants were designed to support school turnaround by investing in 

partnerships between school districts and state education agencies, institutions of higher education, and nonprofit organizations.

Each partnership contained at least one school district with at least five low-performing schools. The goal of the TSLP was to build 

the quality and supply of leaders with the skills and knowledge to turn around low-performing schools. This descriptive study 

examined the ways in which the first cohort of 12 grantees identified and trained future leaders of turnaround schools and 

presents preliminary indicators of program outcomes.

STUDY QUESTIONS

1. What role did partners play in the TSLP projects, and 

were partnerships expected to be sustained?

2. How did TSLP projects identify program participants?

3. How did TSLP projects develop and support leaders for 

turnaround schools?

4. How successful were program completers in finding 

leadership positions in turnaround schools and what 

factors affected placement rates?

STUDY DESIGN AND LIMITATIONS

The study consisted of surveys of grantees and partners; inperson interviews with grantee staff, district administrators,

and partner staff; focus groups with project participants;

and analysis of grantees’ annual performance reports. The 

study team collected survey data from 12 grantees between 

January and February 2017 and conducted site visits to 

seven grantees between April and June 2017.

This study described the ways in which grantees of the first 

cohort of TSLP grants identified and trained future leaders 

of turnaround schools and preliminary indicators of 

program outcomes. Results from this report can be used to 

inform state, district, higher education, and nonprofit 

efforts to develop leaders for turnaround schools.

Nonetheless, because of the small sample size, readers 

should be cautious about drawing overly generalized 

conclusions about the development of leaders for 

turnaround schools. 

HIGHLIGHTS

 Survey and interview data indicated joint ownership and 

involvement in all TSLP project activities by project 

partners, with the grantee having the most significant 

role across all project activities, followed by training 

partners and district partners.

 All project directors expected to work with their grant 

partners on some area of the turnaround leader pipeline 

after the end of the grant; district and training partners 

were more uncertain.

 TSLP grantees implemented multiple strategies to recruit 

potential program participants, offering incentives 

including financial incentives and professional 

development opportunities. TSLP grantees relied

primarily on referrals from peers and current school 

leaders to identify program candidates.

 TSLP projects were primarily designed to serve aspiring 

leaders; 10 percent of participants were current leaders.

 Training content and form was consistent with practices 

highlighted in current research on school leadership 

preparation in general.

 On average, project directors reported that 43 percent of 

program completers were placed in turnaround schools 

within one year of program completion.

 The number of program completers placed in 

administrative positions depended on the number of 

vacancies. Matching the number of program completers 

to vacancies was a challenge across projects, particularly 

in rural projects. There tended to be fewer vacancies in 

small rural districts, making it more difficult for program 
completers from rural projects to find administrative 

positions upon program completion.

PROJECT PARTNERSHIPS

Survey and interview data indicate joint ownership and 

involvement in all TSLP project activities, with the lead 

organization having the most significant role across all 

project activities, followed by training partners and district 

partners.

Survey respondents indicated that district partners played 

the most significant role in recruiting leaders or aspiring 

leaders for participation in activities, and training partners 

played the most significant role in developing and delivering 

training. Lead organizations exerted the greatest level of 

independent influence in developing metrics for and 

evaluating project success, and in deciding which 

participants successfully completed the program. 

IDENTIFYING AND SELECTING CANDIDATES

TSLP grantees implemented multiple strategies to recruit 

potential program participants, offering incentives 

including financial incentives and professional 

development opportunities. TSLP grantees relied primarily 

on referrals from peers and current school leaders to 

identify program candidates.

TSLP grantees used multiple sources of information to 

identify potential TSLP candidates (e.g., referrals, 

performance data, and candidates’ employment history). 

All project directors used referrals from peers or current 

school leaders; most (75 percent) used lists of current 

teachers; and over half (67 percent) used information on 

the prior performance of candidates.

Case study respondents described multilayered selection 

processes that required written applications, a series of 

interviews, performance simulations, mock scenarios, and 

problem solving.

DEVELOPING AND SUPPORTING 

TURNAROUND LEADERS

TSLP projects were primarily designed to serve aspiring 

leaders; 10 percent of participants were current leaders.

All TSLP grantees focused on prospective school leaders and 

included components designed to prepare aspiring leaders

(individuals seeking training and licenses to be eligible to be 

hired as principals) of turnaround schools. Ten projects also 

provided professional development and training for teacher 

leaders or current administrators.

Training content and form was consistent with practices 

highlighted in current research on school leadership 

preparation in general.

Despite the focus on leadership for school turnaround, 

projects geared training toward leadership, in general. Most 

projects reported relying on field-based projects, action 

research, analysis, and discussion of case studies. About 
half of the grantees (seven) relied on portfolios 

demonstrating learning and accomplishments or capstone 

or concluding projects (six).

Eleven TSLP projects included a supervised residency or 

internship or provided periodic professional development 

as aspiring leaders continued working at their jobs.

In seven projects, the residency lasted one school year; two

projects included residencies that lasted between one and 

two school years; and two projects included residencies 

that lasted less than half a school year.

Supervision and support mirrored practices highlighted in 

the leadership preparation literature, including 

evaluations using observation by mentors and staff as well 

as self-assessments. 

Aspiring leaders in all case study projects worked with 

mentor principals, and all respondents felt that the 

relationship between the participants and mentor principals 

was a key to the success of the leadership preparation. Six 

projects provided aspiring leaders with mentors during their 

residency.

POST-PREPARATION PLACEMENT OF PROJECT 

PARTICIPANTS

On average, project directors reported that 43 percent of 

program completers were placed in turnaround schools 

within one year of program completion.

The percentages reported on the survey ranged from 

0 percent to 100 percent. University-led projects reported 

lower placement rates, likely because they tended to have 

longer training periods. At the time of the survey, many 

participants had not yet completed training or were 

beginning their job search.

The number of program completers placed in 

administrative positions depended on the number of 

vacancies. Matching the number of program completers to 

vacancies was a challenge across projects, particularly in 

rural areas. There tended to be fewer vacancies in small 

rural districts, making it more difficult for program 

completers from rural projects to find administrative 

positions.

Most program completers in case study projects looked for 

positions within their districts but occasionally found 

positions in other districts. Some program completers were 

not able to find positions in turnaround schools and 

accepted positions in higher performing schools.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The complete report is available at 

https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/opepd/ppss/reports.

html.