Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

Politics is the number one factor that superintendents say inhibits their job performance, according to a 2015 American Association of School Administrators survey (Education Week, 2015). State takeovers and district-wide turnaround efforts tend to be particularly politically heated. Case studies of districts with records of improvement emphasizes that effective navigation of both internal and external politics appears to be a critical ingredient of success (Honig & Coburn, 2008; Johnson et al., 2015). Furthermore, any policy requires political support to sustain itself and therefore to fulfill its long-term objectives (Jochim, 2013; Stone, Henig, Jones & Pierannunzi, 2001). Unfortunately, the academic literature is short on both examples of successful district-wide turnaround and guidance for educational leaders on navigating the politics of state takeover and district turnaround.

The Lawrence Public Schools (LPS) provides a valuable case study as a rare example of a state takeover and district-wide turnaround effort resulting in substantial academic improvements for students (Schueler, Goodman & Deming, 2016). I examine how stakeholders in Lawrence—the general public, parents, educators, union leaders, and district partners—perceived the turnaround reforms and the factors that contributed to the stakeholder response. I analyze interviews with leaders of the turnaround at both the state and district level and leaders of stakeholder groups, popular press coverage of the Lawrence schools before and after the takeover, publically available documents, and two secondary sources of survey data assessing parent and educator perceptions.

I find that, although it was certainly not without controversy, the Lawrence reforms were less contentious than expected based on other recent cases of takeover and turnaround. The three primary factors that help to explain why the reforms were not more controversial relate to the (1) local Lawrence political context, (2) expansive new authorities granted to the state under its 2010 accountability law, and (3) turnaround leaders’ approach to implementation. More specifically, I find that within a local context that was ripe for change and armed with significant authorities, turnaround leaders focused on relationship building and stakeholder empowerment, differentiated rather than uniform district-school relations, a “third way” approach to transcending left- and right-wing politics, strategic staffing decisions, and generating early results while minimizing disruption. These features all helped to minimize resistance to and increase support for the turnaround reforms.

The findings have implications for states considering takeovers of low performing school systems and provide guidance on the effective selection of districts with the potential to benefit from a similar approach to turnaround. The results also provide concrete strategies for district leaders seeking to implement politically viable school improvement efforts.