Association for Public Policy Analysis & Management

State takeovers were an infrequently applied strategy to address the problems of financially and academically troubled schools for many decades. But by 2006, a new state takeover model had emerged when, following Hurricane Katrina, the majority of the New Orleans public schools were brought under the jurisdiction of the Recovery School District (RSD). The RSD has since moved aggressively towards creating a portfolio management model by authorizing numerous charter management organizations to operate its schools.

In this paper we consider how Michigan and Tennessee, responding to federal requirements and incentives, have developed and implemented plans for school turnaround districts partly inspired by Louisiana’s RSD. Our comparative case studies focus on Michigan’s Education Achievement Authority in Detroit and Tennessee’s Achievement School District in Memphis. Although state-level, philanthropic, and charter school leaders in both states initially drew upon the RSD model, Michigan and Tennessee have diverged from that model—and from one another—in many respects. We examine differences in state legislation and leadership, financial resources (federal and philanthropic), engagement with charter schools, and district-level leadership. These differences highlight some challenges to replicating the RSD in other contexts and, more generally, raise questions about school turnarounds primarily led by networks of outside actors.

The critical work of school turnaround is best supported with political and financial stability (Cohen, Peurach, Glazer, Gates, & Goldin, 2013); ideally a state takeover would ensure these conditions are met, but in practice, a state takeover may produce new political turmoil. Moreover, each district—and each individual school—is tied to its own system of interests, groups, and histories. Despite their many similarities, the differing political dynamics in both Detroit and Memphis have significantly shaped the evolution of each state-level district.

The EAA and ASD have faced additional challenges due to their policy and political contexts, including a city-county merger in Memphis and an ongoing fiscal crisis in Detroit. Local school leaders in both cities have also developed their own reform plans, and may be reluctant to expend political capital on controversial state-led efforts. Our analysis sheds light on whether outside investment and leadership can spur sustainable reforms in urban districts. These differences highlight some challenges to replicating the RSD in other contexts and, more generally, raise questions about school turnarounds primarily led by networks of outside actors.

Though the EAA and ASD are in their fourth year of operating schools, the future for both is still uncertain. A crucial question is the sustainability of their efforts. Both have fallen short of promised academic gains. Public opposition continues in both cities with potential political consequences. Both have had leadership changes. Both have relied on significant philanthropic funding, outside service providers and political support from term-limited Republican governors. Key challenges involving finances, competition among schools, leadership turnover and lack of district-wide governance remain unaddressed by state policies. We argue that investment and involvement from local political networks will be essential to sustain these reform districts.