Recovery,Achievement,and Opportunity: A Comparative Analysis of State Takeover Districts in Louisiana,Tennessee,and Georgia

Abstract

Although state-run turnaround districts have grown in prominence as a school improvement strategy with significant equity implications for urban education, little is known about the similarities and differences across states. This article provides a comparative analysis of state-run takeover districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia. Although there are several similarities such as the centrality of test-based accountability and charter schools as an intervention strategy, no two state takeover districts are the same. The effectiveness of state takeovers is mixed and complicated by equity concerns as well as uncertainty about which aspect of state takeovers may be driving school improvement.

Keywords

state takeover districts school takeover school improvement school reform statewide turnaround districts state takeovers educational governance urban education reform

The improvement of chronically low-performing urban schools and districts is a critical challenge facing states nationwide.¹ In the past decade, the use of a state-run school district to takeover underperforming schools has become an increasingly popular school improvement strategy among states (Burns, 2010; Welsh, Williams, Little, & Graham, 2017). Although turnaround districts are intended to be statewide, urban districts and inner city schools, largely populated by low-income and minority students, tend to be the most likely to be taken over (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Nelson, 2017; Oluwole & Green, 2009; Welsh & Williams, 2018) Incentivizing improvement or imposition? An examination of the response to gubernatorial school takeover and statewide turnaround districts. Education Policy Analysis Archives. In many ways, school takeover via turnaround districts is essentially an urban education policy as state takeover encompasses several major trends of urban education reform (Anderson & Dixson, 2016). As such, state-run turnaround districts provide a window into many of the pertinent debates in urban education including school improvement and education policy and equity.

There are growing fears that statewide turnaround districts may have adverse equity implications and replicate a governance model without strong empirical evidence on its effectiveness (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Buras, 2014; McGuire, Dunn, Shaw, & Schott, 2016; Nelson, 2017). Few studies have examined the empirical evidence on the impact of state-run takeover districts on student achievement. There are a handful of reports examining the school reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans (Cowen Institute, 2015; Holly et al., 2015; New Schools for New Orleans, 2012; Smith, 2012) and reviews of these reports (Buras, 2012; DeBray & Jabbar, 2013; Dixson, 2015; Hatfield, 2012). Recent policy reports have also provided a summary of state takeover (Dingerson, 2015; Jochim, 2016) and preliminary results from state takeover in Tennessee (Henry, Zimmer, Attridge, Kho, & Viano, 2014; Henry, Zimmer, Kho, & Pham, 2017; Zimmer, Kho, Henry, & Viano, 2015). Although statewide turnaround districts are becoming more prevalent, little is known about how these districts vary across states. It is an opportune time to systematically compare the important features of these turnaround districts across states and review the existing empirical evidence on the effects of this school improvement strategy on a range of educational outcomes and mechanisms, with a particular focus on educational equity. There is a need for a richer understanding of the policy and practice implications of state takeover districts especially because these districts tend to imitate each other despite varying contexts. Under the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), states have greater leeway in crafting school improvement strategies. As such, a solid knowledge base on the efficacy and equity dimensions of school improvement reforms in urban districts is important.

The Recovery School District (RSD) in Louisiana, the Achievement School District (ASD) in Tennessee, and the proposed Opportunity School District (OSD) in Georgia provide an exemplary comparative analysis to learn more about state takeovers. Following the example of the RSD (formed in 2003) and the ASD (formed in 2010), the Georgia legislature proposed the OSD in 2015. In November 2016, voters rejected the constitutional amendment that would have empowered the state to takeover failing public schools and place them in the OSD (Welsh et al., 2017). Table A1, in the online appendix, provides a comparison of the demographic, economic, and education characteristics of Louisiana, Georgia, and Tennessee. The states have comparable median household income, unemployment rates, and poverty levels. Based on reading and mathematics scores on the 2015 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), Georgia and Tennessee are similar performing states (C−) and Louisiana is a lower performing state (D). All three states are southern states with a legacy of racial inequities, and race is an important dimension of the school improvement debate in all three cases (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Buras, 2014; Dingerson, 2015; Dixson, Buras, & Jeffers, 2015; Nelson, 2017; Welsh et al., 2017). The majority of schools eligible for takeover are generally located in large urban districts and concentrated with low-income and African American students: In Louisiana, eligible schools were clustered in Orleans Parish and East Baton Rouge Parish; in Tennessee, Memphis and Nashville; and in Georgia, the metro Atlanta area. In essence, these three states are emblematic of urban education reform nationwide and serve as exemplars for states looking for instructive examples of state turnaround districts.

This article provides a comparative analysis of the RSD, ASD, and OSD. First, using content analysis, I examine the enabling legislations and analyze important similarities and differences among the state takeover models. Next, I compare and contrast the key educational governance features of the RSD, ASD, and OSD. Finally, I provide a comprehensive review of the empirical evidence on the RSD and ASD. This study is one of the first to comprehensively compare the models of school takeover districts employed by states and provide an integrative review of empirical evidence on their effectiveness. This study contributes to the policy and reform, and sociological perspective areas of urban education (Milner & Lomotey, 2014). It adds to the knowledge base of the costs and benefits of state takeover reforms on urban schools and helps fill the “policy gap” (Milner & Lomotey, 2014). There may be important differences between these models that influence the effectiveness of this school improvement strategy; thus, a richer understanding of variations across states has significant policy implications. The findings provide a critical assessment of an increasingly prominent school reform intended to improve urban schools and districts. School improvement policy such as school takeover is a phenomenon in which socially constructed categories shape students’ educational opportunities and experiences in important ways. The school takeover debate reflects the disagreement among educational stakeholders about the role that societal factors such as poverty play in school failure and improvement. Thus, examining state takeover policy contributes meaningful insights to the sociological perspectives of urban education. The rest of the article proceeds as follows. First, I describe the novelty and educational governance implications of state-run turnaround districts. Next, I outline the data and methods employed in this study before presenting findings. I conclude with a discussion of the implications of the results.

State-Run Takeover Districts

State-run turnaround districts represent a novel approach in a long history of school intervention and is the response to states’ need to design a new governance structure to oversee and implement the takeover process (Steiner, 2005). Historically, state intervention involved taking over entire school districts, however, several states have broadened this notion to allow takeover of individual schools (Ziebarth, 2004). Although state takeovers were initially largely due to fiscal mismanagement, in recent decades, academic performance has become the driving force behind school takeover. There are various forms of takeover entities including governor appointment of an executive official or board to manage the district, state board of education takeover, mayoral appointment of an official and/or board to manage the district, or a hybrid of the forms and, in some instances, allowing the elected local board to remain as an advisory board (Oluwole & Green, 2009). States often refrain from entirely dismantling local administration, such as the school board and the superintendent (Wong & Shen, 2003, 2007). Recently, when takeover occurs, the powers of local elected or appointed school boards are curtailed, and sometimes, a new state takeover district or superintendent assumes some or all the powers and duties of the elected or appointed board (Burns, 2010).

More than 30 states have enacted or are considering legislative provisions that detail whether states have the authority to target individual schools, districts, or both, and the parameters for school takeover (Oluwole & Green, 2009). State takeovers are most common in southeastern states followed by northeastern states and western states. The RSD has become the center of national attention and is widely viewed as the model for successful school reform (Smith, 2012; Steiner, 2005; Wong & Shen, 2007). As of 2017, several states have created or are in the process of creating a statewide turnaround district. Eight states (Louisiana, Michigan, Nevada, Tennessee, Arkansas, North Carolina, Virginia, and Ohio) have state-run school districts and a number of states (Georgia, Mississippi, Pennsylvania, Texas, Utah, and Wisconsin) introduced legislation to establish state-run districts, but have yet to fully establish any state-run school districts (Welsh et al., 2017). Welsh et al. (2017) highlighted important differences in role of governors in the latest wave of school takeover versus educational governors in the past including the following: The rationale for school takeover is rooted in the failure of local boards and persistent underperformance of schools, rather than economic productivity and job creation; the central role of Republican governors (most of the states introducing, implementing, or considering state takeover legislation are headed by Republican governors and have Republican-dominated legislatures) as opposed to governors from across the political spectrum; and, the nature of the educational governance changes, namely, statewide turnaround districts typically housed in the governor’s office or state boards are more prominent.

Research on state takeovers has not kept pace with the expansion of the policy. There is a general lack of systematic study on the changing relationship between state, district, and school officials when school takeover occurs (Wong & Shen, 2003). The literature on individual school takeovers, especially takeovers by a state-run school district, is scant (Burns, 2010; Rogers, 2012; Welsh & Williams, 2018). There is also little research on the variation of state takeover policy among states with turnaround districts. It is important to gain a richer understanding of the similarities and differences among state takeover districts, and learn more about the mechanisms that may catalyze school improvement. As such, the findings of this study have significant scholarly, policy, and practical implications. This article contributes to the nascent literature examining state-run turnaround districts as well as the robust school improvement and urban education literatures. Policy makers considering state-run takeover districts will find the results useful and gain a better understanding of how key distinctions in the enabling legislations may affect student outcomes. There are also practical implications for district and school leaders, namely, how their future roles may be shaped by state-run turnaround districts.

Data and Method

I use document analysis to examine the enabling legislations for the state takeover districts and analyze state takeover policy formation, implementation, and the features of state turnaround districts. Document analysis is a qualitative approach for evaluating the structure and content of documents (Bowen, 2009). Documents make phenomena both visible and traceable. Documents yield data by providing (a) witness descriptions, (b) awareness of a participant’s function, and (c) background information on historical events (Bowen, 2009). Prior research utilized document analysis to (a) examine historical documents, (b) inform policy formation and implementation, and (c) explore dialogue competency.

I utilize a conceptual framework developed by Lindsay Prior (2003) on the use of documents (Prior, 2003). Prior (2003) provides several useful insights regarding the nature of documents in policies. For example, (a) documents should not be considered as fixed and stable but rather as situated, collective social products that are created in social settings; (b) documents are consumed and function is an important, yet overlooked, component of research in social science; and (c) there are dynamic relationships between the production, content, and consumption of documents (Prior, 2003). When conducting a document analysis, Prior (2003) posited that the context, function production, consumption, and content of a document should always be considered. These considerations allow for identification of the document’s purpose, main message, and targeted audience (Prior, 2003).

Document analysis is conducted in either a content or thematic fashion. Content analysis involves identifying particular passages that track back to research questions and organizing the data as such (Bowen, 2009; Weber, 1990), whereas thematic analysis involves categorizing data into naturally occurring groupings through the process of coding (Bowen, 2009). Although some scholars criticize the use of content analysis (Silverman, 2000), Prior (2003) contends that carefully conducted content analysis, one that goes beyond a simple enumeration practice, enables the researcher to cajole disjointed data into a narrative that might not otherwise be uncovered. It consists of categorizing information into groups related to a particular study’s research questions (Bowen, 2009). When conducting a content analysis, researchers look for manifest content and latent content-meanings embedded within the observable content. The advantages of content analysis include the ability to simultaneously quantitatively and qualitatively analyze data, cultivate a collection of documents over a wide span of time, and understand the interactivity of cultural markers across society (Weber, 1990). Content analysis is the preferred form of document analysis in this study for two main reasons. First, there are specific research questions and features of state turnaround districts that are of particular interest. Second, content analysis also provides a foundation for future mixed methods research on state takeovers.

This study employs content analysis by categorizing information in the enabling legislations into three groups to answer the following questions

What are the problems?

What are the remedies?

How are failing schools and school improvement defined?

Following the document analysis of the enabling legislation, I conduct a comparative analysis of the features of state takeover districts. In particular, I focus on five dimensions: (a) educational governance; (b) intervention strategies and school reform models; (c) student assignment, school choice, and market-based reforms; (d) staffing, facilities, and operations; and (e) community involvement.

Finally, I provide an integrative review of the extant literature on the effectiveness of the RSD and ASD. I focus mainly on peer-reviewed empirical articles, reports, and book chapters published between 2006 and May 2017. Although there is a wide variety in research design and rigor, given the nascent nature of the state-run districts in these states, a wide net is cast to capture all available empirical research. Particular emphasis is placed on articles that provide evidence on student outcomes and key mechanisms such as student and teacher mobility. A multiphase process was employed to identify studies for inclusion in this review. I start with a systematic search of Google Scholar and several electronic databases. Separated by the Boolean term “AND,” I paired “state takeover” and “school takeover” with the following search words: “state turnaround,” “New Orleans,” “Louisiana,” “Tennessee,” “Recovery School District,” “Achievement School District,” “school takeover,” “Shelby County,” “student mobility,” “school discipline,” “school quality,” “teacher mobility,” “ school reforms,” and “student achievement.” After selecting an initial cohort of studies, reviewing abstracts, and screening articles and reports, studies were selected for review. To attain a satisfactory degree of saturation, snowball referencing was used to identify other studies. In total, nearly 40 reports and peer-reviewed articles were included in the review.

Results

The Content of Enabling Legislations

Table A2, in the online appendix, compares the enabling legislations of the RSD, ASD, and OSD. The enabling legislation in Tennessee was a Race to the Top (RTTT) application (264 pages). In Georgia, Senate Resolution (SR) 287 (two pages) initiated the idea for amending the constitution to allow for the passage of the OSD and was followed by Senate Bill (SB) 133 (13 pages). In Louisiana, Act 9 (19 pages) served as the enabling legislation for the creation of the RSD and Act 35 (14 pages) facilitated the RSD’s takeover of New Orleans public schools. The RSD and the OSD required a constitutional amendment, whereas the ASD did not. The target audience for the ASD was the federal government, whereas the RSD and OSD legislations targeted legislators and the voting public.

The enabling legislations provided a definition for failing schools and school improvement, outlined the authority and responsibilities of the state takeover district, and detailed the criteria for school takeover. Only Georgia focused solely on school takeover. In the RSD’s case, the enabling legislation also included charter school laws. The enabling legislation for the ASD addressed multiple areas of school reform including teacher evaluation system, market-based reforms in school improvement, and the expansion of a K-12 system to a P-20 system. As such, the ASD had a more holistic approach to school improvement, whereas the RSD and the OSD primarily focused on changes in educational governance.

Problems and remedies

There were similarities in the framing of problems and remedies. In all three cases, a malaise in student achievement and school performance were identified as the problem. The underlying message of the enabling legislations was the state’s lack of confidence in the ability and capacity of local school boards to improve consistently low-performing schools. The ASD legislation also highlighted teacher quality as a problem.

All three enabling legislations argue that a change in educational governance is necessary for school improvement, and posit that the state can fix problems in the provision of local public education. The corrective actions outlined in the enabling legislations included (a) school chartering, (b) staff replacement, (c) curriculum transformation, and (d) school closure. The OSD also allowed for shared governance between the local education agency (LEA) and the OSD, whereas the other legislations did not mention shared governance. The ASD enabling legislation addressed initiatives toward improving teacher quality and was more explicit about changing staff without educational governance.

Failing schools and improvement

The definition of failing schools and school improvement is largely centered on test-based accountability. In all three states, takeover eligibility was determined by school performance measures, and the legislation was explicitly aimed at schools performing in the bottom 5%. Each state stipulates that schools must be consistently low performing (having the lowest scores for a consecutive number of years) but varies slightly in the number of consecutive years of underperformance necessary to be placed under the jurisdiction of state-run turnaround districts (e.g., Georgia [3 years] is shorter than Louisiana [4 years]).²

School improvement is largely defined by enhanced performance on standardized tests; thus, schools demonstrating better scores can be removed from the takeover district. The OSD required schools to remain under state control for a minimum of 5 years and a maximum of 10 years, whereas the RSD only mandated schools remain under state control for a term of 4 years. There were less details and commonalities about the fate of schools that were taken over but continue to be low performers. If a school in the RSD is academically unacceptable for 4 years, the state board will revoke all school approval, terminate school operations, or return the school back to its original jurisdiction (Act 9). The ASD legislation did not explicitly outline the consequences for schools within the ASD that show no improvement, and only notes that schools will receive individual academic goals and are expected to reach the statewide standards set for all schools. The OSD legislation stipulates that the state board will remove any school from the OSD that earns an F rating for three consecutive years but offered no further explanation.

The Features of Statewide Turnaround Districts

Table 1 compares selected features of the RSD, ASD, and OSD. Although all state takeover districts are undergirded by the philosophy that changes in educational governance are the path to school improvement, there are key differences in the educational governance structure that have significant implications for democracy in public education. The RSD reports to the State Board of Education in Louisiana and is administered by the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE). The ASD is administered by the Tennessee Department of Education (TDOE). The OSD is administered by the Governor’s Office of Student Achievement. Each district has a superintendent but there are differences in who these superintendents report to. In Georgia, the OSD superintendent is appointed by the governor, confirmed by the senate and reports directly to the governor. Act 9 hinted that the RSD had a superintendent but did not stipulate the hiring protocol, and Act 35 does not mention the role of the RSD superintendent. In the ASD, the TDOE is responsible for hiring the ASD superintendent but the legislation did not mention the hiring protocol.

Table 1.

A Comparison of the Educational Governance Features of the RSD, ASD, and OSD.

	RSD	ASD	OSD
Under school board jurisdiction	Yes	No	Yes
Under governor jurisdiction	No	Yes	Yes
Can takeover entire school districts	Yes	Did not specify	Did not specify
Superintendent of takeover district	Yes, hiring protocol was not specified in enabling legislation	Yes, hired by the Department of Education	Yes, appointed by governor and confirmed by the senate
Criteria for selecting eligible schools	Yes	Yes	Yes
Number of schools each year	Did not specify	13	20
Number of schools at any point	Did not specify	Did not specify	100
Selection of intervention strategy	State board	ASD superintendent	OSD superintendent
Charter schools	Yes	Yes	Yes
Boards and operation of charter schools	Yes	No	Yes
School choice	Yes	No	No
Intermediary organizations	State board	Department of Education	State Charter Schools Commission and OSD superintendent
Staffing and facilities	Yes	Yes	Yes
Return to local control process	Yes	Yes	Yes

Note. RSD = Recovery School District; ASD = Achievement School District; OSD = Opportunity School District.

The educational governance design of state takeover districts is a key determinant of the extent to which state takeover districts are associated with the reduction of democracy in public education. OSD resembles a mayoral takeover more so than the RSD and the ASD, given the centrality of the governor in school reforms. The OSD is governor centric as the educational governance design shifts power of administration and supervision of low-performing public schools from the state board of education and the department of education to the governor’s office. The RSD and ASD are more democratic, given the larger role of electable state boards of education.

Intervention strategies

The ASD provided more details about the ingredients of school improvement, whereas the OSD and RSD legislation did not explicate how school improvements would occur. Superintendents of the turnaround districts play a central role in deciding the intervention employed. In Georgia, the superintendent of the OSD selects the appropriate intervention; however, there is a concerted effort to engage stakeholders and educators in the decision about which intervention is pursued. Similar to the OSD, the ASD superintendent is responsible for selecting the intervention, and TDOE also partners with schools and stakeholders to determine the intervention applied to schools in the ASD. During the planning phase of the ASD, parents and other community members are consulted to assist the ASD superintendent with understanding the context of community needs. In the RSD, the state board selects the intervention for schools in the RSD. Thus, in the ASD and OSD, the superintendent is the key decision maker but the community is consulted, whereas in the RSD, the state board makes unilateral decisions.

Although multiple intervention models are noted in the enabling legislations, charter schools are the preferred school reform. Given their limited capacity (e.g., little time or resources and a lack of experience administering schools), state takeover districts will likely rely heavily on outside contractors (whether for- or nonprofit) and staff from states’ department of education to improve low-performing schools. The management of the supply of high-quality schools by a state-run agency through the expansion of charter schools is the core of the intervention strategy. As highlighted by Henig (2010), the portfolio management model (PMM) that undergirds state-run school districts can be viewed as a “contracting regime.” This is especially true in cases where students are assigned to schools based on attendance zones rather than school choice (the ASD and OSD). School takeover districts are consumers that determine the providers of public education to replace existing operators of the lowest performing schools. Although in the initial years, the RSD and ASD directly operated several schools, over time, both have employed a chartering strategy (the RSD chartered all its schools in New Orleans by the end of the 2013-2014 school year). In addition, a key difference in the reform models across states is the use of “whole school” turnaround approach. Roughly, half of the ASD applies the “whole school” turnaround approach, whereas in the RSD, phasing in a grade at a time was the predominant approach.

Charter schools and school choice

Charter schools play a prominent role in each state takeover district. Charter management organizations (CMOs), national and local networks, as well as independent charters are staples of the RSD and the ASD. Some of the same CMOs in the ASD also operate in the RSD. Intermediary organizations play an important role in the RSD and the ASD in two main areas: (a) creating and supporting charter schools and (b) providing human capital (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; DeBray, Scott, Lubienski, & Jabbar, 2014).

The criteria for membership and responsibilities of charter school boards as well as the role of nonprofits in school reforms vary slightly across states. In Louisiana, powers of the charter school boards include (a) ensuring that charter proposals align with the standards set by the National Association of Charter School Authorizer and (b) collective bargaining on behalf of employees or any group. According to Act 35, no member of the (a) state board; (b) city, parish, or local public school board; (c) governing or management board or an elected official (for at least 1 year prior to appointment of said board) can be a member of the governing or management board of any Type 5 charter school. Both nonprofit and for-profit entities play a significant role in the RSD.³ The OSD superintendent plays an active role in the formation of the boards of OSD charter schools. Members of the governing board for an OSD charter school shall come from the community and are required to meet the following qualifications: U.S. citizen, resident of Georgia, and not employed by the opportunity school. Powers of the OSD chartering board include making decisions regarding the finance, human capital, and curriculum and instruction for opportunity schools. The OSD legislation only referred to nonprofits when referencing their role as the charter school governing board and stipulated that charter schools be public, nonsectarian, nonreligious, and nonprofit. However, SB133 authorizes nonprofit charter schools and/or governing boards to contract with for-profit entities for educational services. Nonprofits in the ASD legislation were viewed as both critical stakeholders and partners in the state’s school improvement journey. According to the legislation, the state “[put] together an unprecedented set of non-profit organizations, each with a robust track record of providing highly effective teachers and leaders, creating new charter schools, and revamping dysfunctional human capital systems, and deploying them in the ASD and other schools” (p. 40). However, the legislation does not speak directly of a charter school board; instead, it insists that the state will enlist the help of “charter management organizations or networks with the capacity to open five or more new charter schools in Memphis and Nashville within the ASD” (p. 126).

There is also variation in the extent of market-based accountability. Unlike Louisiana, in Georgia and Tennessee, schools under the jurisdiction of the state-run turnaround districts remain neighborhood schools and do not become schools of choice. Louisiana has the model closest to an educational marketplace with changes in demand and supply. Georgia and Tennessee have changes in supply but how students are assigned to schools remain unchanged. The importance of student assignment policy in state-run turnaround districts - neighborhood schools (OSD, ASD) versus school choice (RSD) - in influencing educational outcomes remains unknown. Charter operators are familiar with market pressure, whereas neighborhood assignment removes this pressure. It is an open empirical question whether charter schools can thrive without market pressure. Former ASD superintendent Chris Barbic expressed reservations about achieving results when students are assigned to charter schools by attendance zones (Tatter, 2016).

Staffing and facilities

Although the enabling legislations of the ASD and OSD provided greater details on what the documents mean for educational stakeholders than the RSD, across the three states, educators (teachers, school, and district leaders) appear to be the stakeholders most affected by the enabling legislation. In each case, contracting conditions change and arrangements are renegotiated for terms of employment. Act 9 stated that any teacher employed in a school being transferred to the RSD receives priority consideration for employment in a similar position by the school district (Act 35 did not explicitly mention the impact on teachers and school leaders). Teachers and staff who are selected to continue serving in schools taken over by the ASD will do so through arrangements negotiated by the ASD. The OSD and its governing body decides whether teachers and staff previously assigned to a school placed into the OSD will retain employment in the OSD. Teachers and staff who are not selected to work in the OSD will remain an employee of the local school board. Human capital organizations have played a central role in the efforts to increase the numbers of high-quality teachers and school leaders in both the RSD and the ASD (Anderson & Dixson, 2016).

Both the RSD and OSD have unrestricted use of school buildings, academic materials, and property recognized as part of the facilities of schools prior to its placement in the state takeover district. Both districts are responsible for basic upkeep but assign extensive repairs to the LEA (e.g., responsibility for bonds issued to fund major upgrades). The OSD requires that any and all repairs or upgrades conducted under its control have to remain in the school after its transfer back to the LEA. The OSD stipulates that LEAs cannot use schools closed by the OSD superintendent to provide services for similar grade spans or attendance zones for 3 years, whereas the RSD does not make the same stipulation. With regard to school closures, Act 35 prohibits the RSD from destroying previously occupied buildings that receive closure as an intervention. The ASD legislation does not address building usage or restrictions.

Addressing community involvement

Parents received scant attention in all three enabling legislations. For instance, the word “parents” is scarcely mentioned in Act 35, even though the RSD is required to develop and implement “a method for maintaining clear communication among interested parties, including . . . the parents and guardians of children for whom the recovery district is required to provide educational services” (Act 35, B2cc). In addition, in all cases, the return to local control process appears to lack substantive thought and details, even though this is a priority of community members concerned about democratic oversight of public schools. Indeed, the endgame of state takeover—return to local control—is often the most muddled and vague elements of the legislation.

A commonality among the states is opposition to the state intervention. Opponents of state takeover argue that eligible schools are typically underfunded, lack resources, and are considerably affected by contextual factors (Garda, 2011). The RSD was highly contested (Garda, 2011; Welsh & Hall, 2018). Similarly, in Georgia, the fear that parents and communities may be rendered voiceless by the OSD resulted in significant grassroots opposition and, ultimately, the defeat of the constitutional amendment (Welsh et al., 2017). Unlike the RSD and OSD, the enabling legislation for the ASD initially had support from educational stakeholders. Over time, especially with the release of initial empirical evidence raising questions about the effectiveness of ASD schools, there has been growing backlash to the ASD, including a demand for a moratorium on taking over additional schools (Gonzales, 2015; Tatter, 2016). The results also highlight that race is typically linked to the opposition of state takeover districts. In 2015, Representative Brenda Gilmore, the chairwoman of the Black Caucus of State Legislators in Tennessee argued that the ASD should not expand because it was not making significant progress (Gonzales, 2015). In both Tennessee and Louisiana, the Black Caucus of State Legislators expressed strong reservations about state takeover.

Empirical Evidence on the RSD and ASD

Table A3, in the online appendix, summarizes the extant empirical evidence on student outcomes and key mechanisms in Louisiana and Tennessee. Less research has been conducted on the ASD partly because the ASD is newer than the RSD. The review categorizes studies in seven groups: (a) competition, (b) school quality and student achievement, (c)choice and student mobility, (d) teacher quality and mobility, (e) school closures, (f) school discipline and school segregation, and (g) community involvement. The majority of research addresses competition, school quality and academic achievement, choice and student mobility, and teacher mobility. Less attention has been paid to key educational equity issues such as school discipline, school segregation, and community involvement. Research centers and consortiums were the leading producers of empirical evidence. The Center for Reinventing Public Education, the Cowen Institute for Public Education Initiatives, and the Education Research Alliance for New Orleans produced the bulk of the research on the RSD (DeBray et al. [2014] provide a useful overview of the range of organizations involved in research production). The Tennessee Consortium of Research, Evaluation and Development authored the majority of studies on the ASD.

Competition

In post-Katrina New Orleans, the majority of schools experience competitive pressure. Principals in the RSD respond to pressure created by the expansion of the education marketplace in positive and “superficial” ways, based largely on their perception of competition and their schools’ position in the market hierarchy (Jabbar, 2015b). School leaders’ perception and response to competition are shaped by several factors (Jabbar, 2015a). Although schools market themselves in several ways based on the socially defined market hierarchy (Jabbar, 2016b), cream skimming practices exist across all schools albeit in different programs (Jabbar, 2016a). To date, there has been no study of the competitive effects associated with the ASD. Overall, although there were some academic and operational changes associated with a heightened sense of competition among public schools that accompanies state-run turnaround districts, marketing and the manipulation of the student population were also common responses. The results imply that competition is a double-edged sword—it may enhance achievement but it may also undermine equity—and reinforce the need to situate educational equity as a central priority in state takeover reforms.

School quality and student achievement

In post-Katrina New Orleans, there is considerable variation in school quality across the sectors and types of schools. Arce-Trigatti et al. (2015) found that there is a differentiated supply of schools with a variety of programs. Several studies suggest that, on average, students in charter schools in New Orleans outperformed similar students in traditional public schools. Using a matching technique to estimate the impact of charter schools on student achievement, the Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) found that charter schools in Louisiana outperformed traditional public schools in both math and reading (CREDO, 2009). A 2013 CREDO study found that between 2006 and 2012, charter school students in New Orleans gained nearly a half of year of additional learning in math and a third of year in reading, every year compared with similar students in noncharter schools. McEachin, Welsh, and Brewer (2016) found that, on average, the RSD produced lower student achievement and attendance than the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB) but a number of nationally and locally networked RSD charter schools were producing student achievement and attendance similar to the OPSB, although they receive much larger shares of students from difficult backgrounds.

Descriptive analyses of school- and district-level data paint an encouraging picture of the improvement in academic achievement in post-Katrina New Orleans: There is a greater percentage of students achieving proficiency on state standardized tests (from 35% in 2004-2005 to 62% in 2013-2014), and increased cohort graduation rates (from 54% in 2003-2004 to 73% in 2013-2014) and college enrollment (Cowen Institute, 2015; Holly et al., 2015; New Schools for New Orleans, 2012). Using student-level data and a difference-in-difference approach, Harris and Larsen (2016) found that New Orleans’ students outperformed their counterparts in similar districts in math and English Language Arts (ELA) by 0.2 to 0.4 SD, and there were similar improvements in high school graduation and college entry. Although all major student subgroups benefited from the school reforms, White students gained more than their African American counterparts. There is no evidence that the improvement in test scores is driven by test stakes as the effect is similar across subjects and grades that have high and low stakes. The study accounted for population change and reported that there may be a small population change effect in the early phase of the reforms given that higher achieving students in the pre-Katrina period were typically the first to return in the post-Katrina period, but over time, the achievement of the returnees and nonreturnees were similar.

A notable body of research has expressed serious reservations about the effectiveness of school reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Buras, 2012, 2014; DeBray & Jabbar, 2013; Dixson, 2015; Gumus-Dawes, Luce, & Orfield, 2013; Hatfield, 2012; Jabbar & Gooden, 2015; Thompson, 2015). Although New Orleans has closed the achievement gap with the rest of Louisiana, if one were to use scores normative to national standards, the progress may appear less spectacular (Thompson, 2015). Changes in testing standards, accountability, and school improvement metrics have also been highlighted as reasons why the gains in New Orleans may be exaggerated (Buras, 2012; Dixson, 2015). Gumus-Dawes and colleagues (2013) expressed concerns that gains in New Orleans are largely attributed to selection and demographic changes, rather than the package of school reforms. Because of the lack of availability of low-income housing, it is likely that the most at-risk low-income minority students did not return to New Orleans in the wake of considerable out-migration (DeBray & Jabbar, 2013). The increase in resources may also play a significant role in explaining the effect of reforms (DeBray & Jabbar, 2013). The reform package of interconnected policies (market-based accountability, test-based accountability, human capital policy, school choice) makes it hard to disentangle what element of the package is affecting student outcomes. Whether or not the state-run turnaround district is responsible for the positive results in post-Katrina New Orleans remains an unanswered question (Jabbar & Gooden, 2015).

In Tennessee, policy makers addressed low-performing schools through district-led (iZone) and state-led (ASD) school improvement efforts. Early results indicated that iZone schools had considerable positive impact on student achievement, whereas the effects of ASD schools on student achievement were mixed but largely statistically insignificant (Zimmer et al., 2015). Chronically underperforming schools in Shelby County’s iZone outperformed ASD students on all performance measures. There are indications of improvement over time in the ASD, given that the gains were negative in the first year of the ASD’s implementation but improved in the second and third years. In essence, early results in Tennessee indicate that district-led turnaround efforts have fared better than the ASD, and state takeover efforts did not significantly improve student achievement.

Choice and student mobility

The reasons parents gave for their choice of schools in post-Katrina New Orleans differed significantly between charter and traditional schools. The most common reasons reported by charter school respondents were the school’s academic curriculum, record of student achievement, and attendance and discipline policies, whereas the most common reasons cited by parents of traditional school students included the school’s provision of transportation, the proximity of the school to the family’s residence or availability of public transportation, and the parents’ lack of awareness of choice options (Steele, Vernez, Gottfried, & Schwam-Baird, 2011). Similarly, Harris and Larsen (2015) found that although parents are “active choosers” (only 14% attend the nearest school) and seek a wide range of school characteristics, academic attributes may not be most significant consideration and family income plays a large role in the choice process and differences in schooling decisions. Considerations such as transportation and after-school care limit the choices of low-income families and reduce the role of test scores in schooling decisions (Harris & Larsen, 2015).

In post-Katrina New Orleans, the rate of student mobility in the PMM is similar to that of traditional school districts—about one in six students switch schools on their own accord each year (Welsh, Duque, & McEachin, 2016). On average, high-achieving students switch to high-quality schools, whereas low-achieving students transfer to low-quality schools (Welsh et al., 2016). Maroulis et al. (2016) found that rates of student mobility declined in the post-Katrina era relative to before the storm, and the demand for school quality was one of the main reasons why students switched schools. In Tennessee, Henry et al. (2014) found high student mobility rates (more than a third) and no difference in the performance of students entering and exiting the ASD. Overall, there appears to be higher student mobility rates in the ASD than the RSD, even though ASD schools were neighborhood schools. There is movement across schools and some students are accessing the stock of high-quality schools, however, the results also imply that students most in need of higher quality schools are less likely than their more well-off peers to access high-quality schools. The suggestive evidence of a stratified school system that may lead to student segmentation based on student achievement and school quality is a major equity concern associated with state-run turnaround districts.

Teacher quality and mobility

The majority of the roughly 4,300 teachers who were laid off after the collective bargaining agreement between the OPSB and the union expired were Black, female, had more than 15 years of average teaching experience, and did not return to work in New Orleans (Lincove, Barrett, & Strunk, 2017). Barrett and Harris (2015) found that there were declines in qualified and local teachers in post-Katrina New Orleans. The reforms in post-Katrina New Orleans also resulted in a demographic mismatch between teachers and students as veteran, Black teachers were replaced by younger, inexperienced White teachers but the student population remained overwhelmingly Black (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; DeBray et al., 2014; Lincove et al., 2017). Race and the experience of Black teachers has been a significant component in the reshaping of the teacher workforce in post-Katrina New Orleans (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Cook & Dixson, 2013).

Similar to the RSD, there was significant teacher mobility especially in the year following the implementation of school reforms in the ASD. Henry and colleagues (2014) found that only 14% of the teachers in the schools placed in the ASD remained in the school in the year after the takeover (the 2011-2012 school year). Essentially, the overwhelming majority of teachers left schools that were directly run by the ASD. There was also an exodus of teachers in CMO-managed schools in the ASD in its first year (Henry et al., 2014). Similar to post-Katrina New Orleans, veteran educators were replaced with inexperienced teachers (Henry et al., 2014). Recent results from the ASD suggest that some of the disruptions in the teacher workforce may lead to more effective teachers in classrooms. Henry et al. (2017) found that both the ASD and iZone have been able to recruit more highly effective teachers but the teacher turnover rate is lower in iZone than ASD schools. This dispels, to some extent, the notion that the extraordinary context of post-Katrina New Orleans is needed to attract effective educators to state takeover districts.

School closures

To date, only one study has empirically examined school closures in New Orleans (Bross, Harris, & Liu, 2016). Bross et al. (2016) examined school closures from 2008 to 2014, and found that school closures proved most helpful to students at the elementary level or when conducted via a phase-out process, rather than abruptly closing. Research suggests that the harm yielded to neighborhoods as a result of school closures extend beyond the direct responsibility of educating children (Bross et al., 2016). Hence, such closure decisions are considered extremely controversial, especially as it pertains to how the selection process occurs (Bross et al., 2016).

School discipline, special education, and school segregation

Although there has been much attention in the media, there is little empirical evidence on school discipline. A 2010 report credited with catalyzing a renewed focus on centralized enrollment and discipline system (DeBray et al., 2014) found that zero-tolerance policies in post-Katrina New Orleans resulted in racial disproportionalities and that the lower rates of suspensions in charter schools were due to pushing out (National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, & Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children, 2010). In a 2015 presentation, Barrett and Santillano (2015) reported that (a) there was a notable increase in expulsion in the years succeeding the implementation of the PMM that has declined over time, (b) the number of suspensions and expulsions in the post-Katrina era have been lower relative to the pre-Katrina period, and (c) the majority of suspensions are out of school, though the gap with the state has slightly declined over time (Barrett & Santillano, 2015). Gross and colleagues (2016) reported that although there has been progress since the implementation of a centralized discipline program, there are remaining issues regarding the disciplinary measures for students with disabilities. Using a comparative analysis of Detroit, Memphis, and New Orleans, Nelson (2017) found that “state takeover districts have not consistently disrupted the school-to-prison pipeline for black students in urban settings.” (p. 1).

Another equity concern in state takeover districts is the treatment of special education students. The Southern Poverty Law Center filed a lawsuit against the LDOE in 2010 that was settled in 2015 regarding the treatment of special education students. There were also concerns about the treatment of non–English speaking students evidenced by a federal complaint about the violation of civil rights of these students in 2013.

There is little evidence on the effects of state takeover on segregation in classes, schools, and districts. Weixler et al. (2017) reported that there have been little changes in segregation relative to the pre-Katrina period for most student subgroups, though there is evidence of an increase in racial isolation of Hispanic students.

Community involvement

Resistance from the community at various junctions—whether at the outset or the first round of intervention results—have characterized state-run turnaround districts (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Buras, 2014). The community outcry is rooted in several concerns including taking over schools and districts on an upward trajectory, the treatment of students by charter schools, the lack of transparency on charter school governance, and participation in schooling decisions and school closures (Dixson, 2015; Jabbar & Gooden, 2015). The results suggest that the community hold the reformers accountable as increasing pressure from community members and organizations regarding issues such as school discipline, special education, and cream skimming contributed significantly to the changes in the second phase of the RSD. It is conceivable that the increased focus on educational equity over time in post-Katrina New Orleans was due, in part, to lawsuits and community outcry. Community organizations also played an important role in the early phase of the PMM in filling gaps in the marketplace with equity implications such as providing parents with school quality and enrollment information (DeBray & Jabbar, 2013; DeBray et al., 2014).

There are also concerns about how state turnaround districts are implemented. The prevailing notion in New Orleans is that reforms were done “to” rather than “with” the community, and scholars such as Pedro Noguera attribute this to a market-based model that posits parents as consumers rather than as partners (Thompson, 2015). Polls in New Orleans over time reveal a complex relationship between the community and school reforms characterized by community satisfaction with some elements of the school reforms and dissatisfaction with others. For example, polls in 2017 revealed widespread satisfaction with schools and support for school reforms but dissatisfaction with the number and location of high-quality schools and the lack of racially and economically diverse schools (Orleans Parrish School Board, 2017).

Discussion

State takeover policies propose changes in educational governance to improve consistently low-performing schools. Although turnaround districts are modeled after each other in many ways, no two state takeover districts are the same. Key differences include the numbers of years schools are required to be under state control, involvement of outside parties, ways to exit state control, and how schools are identified as failing or improved. Test-based accountability and charter schools are common and central features of the state takeover policy among states. At the federal and state levels, the debate about the expansion of charter schools has garnered increasing attention and controversy, in part, due to lingering concerns about their potentially disparate impact on the achievement of traditionally disadvantaged student populations, school discipline, and other equity-related phenomena such as segregation. As charter schools have expanded nationwide, they have increasingly served traditionally disadvantaged students, and charter schools attract a larger percentage of Black students and students in poverty than traditional public schools. At the same time, some influential civil rights groups including Black Lives Matter and National Association for the Advancement of Colored People have called for a moratorium on charter schools. Thus, state takeover policies that situate charter schools as the central school improvement strategy have significant equity implications given the prevailing perceptions and evidence on this school reform.

The cases of the RSD and ASD paint a mixed picture of the effectiveness of state takeover and leave many unresolved questions. It seems that charter schools in the RSD sparked some gains; yet, district-led efforts appear more fruitful than the initiatives of the ASD. State takeover appears to be another instance of reforms spreading before their effectiveness is validated by a robust body of research. The empirical evidence on state turnaround districts is nascent and limited; yet, this model of school reform is growing in prominence. Indeed, the evidence on the effectiveness of state takeover would likely fall between Tier 2 (moderate) and Tier 4 (emerging) of the ESSA evidence tier, given that there are many descriptive analyses and only a handful of quasi-experimental studies.

The results also highlight the importance of the relationship between school accountability and state takeover policy. Consistency in school quality metrics and the definition of failing/successful schools is necessary to accurately judge school improvement over time. The case of the RSD illustrates the importance of consistent measures of school performance and standards for school improvement (DeBray et al., 2014; Dixson, 2015). The LDOE has made several changes to the measurement of school quality and definition of failing/improving schools in the post-Katrina era (Dixson, 2015). The lack of constancy in school accountability measures and school improvement definitions make comparisons of school performance over time and accurately judging school improvement challenging.

The effectiveness of state takeover is a contested notion especially when one takes an expansive view of educational equity. The critiques of, and controversy surrounding, the ASD are similar to those of the RSD (Anderson & Dixson, 2016), and concerns about state-run turnaround districts were evident in the campaign for the constitutional amendment to create the OSD (Welsh et al., 2017). Beyond the questions surrounding the extent and reasons underlying the gains in test scores lie deeper concerns about disruptions to the Black middle class (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Dixson, 2015). State takeover in Louisiana and Tennessee has been accompanied by increased teacher mobility and disruptions in the teacher labor market and, in turn, existing communities as the Black middle class is destabilized (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; Dixson et al., 2015). In many ways, state takeover policies illuminate the trade-off in education reform between achievement and equity. Some scholars contend that “the very reform processes that, on the surface, are intended to bring about equity and increased opportunity to learn can, in fact, lead to the maintenance of inequitable outcomes” (Anderson & Dixson, 2016, p. 384). The achievement versus equity trade-off in a test-based and market-based accountability era warrants greater attention. In essence, acknowledging the progress is important but the remaining challenges are equally important.

There is little evidence to explain what aspect of state takeovers may be driving school improvement. Although there is limited research pinpointing the exact ingredients of school improvement, the integrative review of the empirical evidence on the RSD and ASD suggests that turnarounds are fueled by additional resources and effective teachers. The gains in New Orleans occurred in the midst of additional resources and a reduction in teacher certification and experience and increase in teacher turnover. Early indications for the ASD indicate that teacher turnover may be a temporary sorting that accompanies recruiting and retaining more effective teachers. The New Orleans and Tennessee cases imply that wise use of resources and investment in human resources are critical elements to the success of state-takeover efforts. There was a significant increase in resources in both cases as well as widening of the talent pool from which teachers are drawn.

Policy Implications and Directions for Future Research

First, policy makers should be aware of how differences in state takeover policy may affect the effectiveness of school reforms and refrain from comparing apples with oranges. The differences in educational governance framework and variations in market-based accountability are important as it is conceivable this may influence key mechanisms and student outcomes.

Second, policy makers should consider concurrently creating a research consortium to evaluate school reforms with a research agenda that goes beyond a primary focus on student achievement to the mechanisms that may influence students’ outcomes. Scholars have highlighted that there is widespread consensus on the lack of nonpartisan research entities studying state takeover reforms (DeBray et al., 2014). Empirical evidence is crucial to refining school reforms, and the production of this evidence should be considered at the outset of state takeover policy. Within enabling legislations, policy makers may earmark funding and other resources to facilitate immediate and ongoing analysis of state turnaround districts. In addition, restricted access to data is also a pertinent consideration (Anderson & Dixson, 2016; DeBray & Jabbar, 2013; Dixson, 2015). Policy makers considering or implementing school takeover policies should ensure there is unrestricted access to data among researchers as well as consistent measures of school quality and definitions of school improvement.

Third, policy makers should consider establishing an equity division within state takeover districts that includes parents and educators at the outset to better monitor and investigate claims of abuses against at-risk student subgroups. A central positioning of equity may help address many of the concerns accompanying the implementation of the state turnaround districts and ease tensions with the community. This office is a step toward ensuring that as the educational marketplace blossoms and schools compete, there is an adherence to a common set of safeguards for vulnerable students. Building local capacity through parent and community involvement must be a goal of state takeover policy as the sustainability of school improvement will rely on these stakeholders. Parents and educators should have a prominent seat at the state takeover table if state takeover is temporary as intended. As such, it is incumbent on policy makers to find ways to involve parents and educators in the school improvement process.

There are also some important directions for future research. More research is needed on the effectiveness of state takeover districts along multiple dimensions. There is considerable uncertainty about why state takeover reforms may work. It is critical to gain a better understanding of the mechanisms at play behind the success or failure of state takeover districts. There is also a dearth of evidence on the effects of state takeovers on nonacademic and long-term outcomes such as income and wages, on teachers, school and district leaders, and parents and communities.

Supplemental Material

Online_Appendix_UrbanEdRevisions_Final_Oct2017 – Supplemental material for Recovery, Achievement, and Opportunity: A Comparative Analysis of State Takeover Districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia

Supplemental material, Online_Appendix_UrbanEdRevisions_Final_Oct2017 for Recovery, Achievement, and Opportunity: A Comparative Analysis of State Takeover Districts in Louisiana, Tennessee, and Georgia by Richard O. Welsh in Urban Education

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Supplemental material

Supplemental material for this article is available online.

Notes

Author Biography

Richard O. Welsh is an assistant professor of educational administration and policy at the University of Georgia. His research focuses on the economics of education; K–12 education policy, such as school choice policies; and key mechanisms such as student mobility.

References

Anderson

C. R.

Dixson

(2016). Down by the riverside: A CRT perspective on education reform in two river cities. Urban Education, 51, 363-389.

Arce-Trigatti

Harris

D. N.

Jabbar

Lincove

J. A.

(2015). Many options in New Orleans choice system. Education Next, 15(4), 24-33.

Barrett

Harris

(2015). Significant changes in the New Orleans teacher workforce. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

Barrett

Santillano

(2015). Student discipline: Outcomes, policies, and practices. In The urban education future? Lessons from New Orleans 10 years after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

Bowen

G. A.

(2009). Document analysis as a qualitative research method. Qualitative Research Journal, 9(2), 27-40.

Bross

Harris

D. N.

Liu

(2016). The effects of performance-based school closures and charter takeover on student performance. Retrieved from http://educationresearchalliancenola.org/files/publications/Bross-Harris-Liu-The-Effects-of-Performance-Based-School-Closure-and-Charter-Takeover-on-Student-Performance.pdf

Buras

(2012). Review of “The Louisiana recovery school district: Lessons for the Buckeye state.” Boulder, CO. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-louisiana-recovery-buckeye

Buras

(2014). Charter schools, race, and urban space: Where the market meets grassroots resistance. New York, NY: Routledge.

Burns

(2010). Race and support for state takeovers of local school districts. Urban Education, 45, 274-292.

10.

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2009). Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 states. Stanford, CA: Author.

11.

Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO). (2013). Charter school performance in Louisiana. Available from http://credo.stanford.edu

12.

Cook

Dixson

(2013). Writing critical race theory and method: A composite counterstory on the experiences of Black teachers in New Orleans post-Katrina. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 26, 1238-1258.

13.

Council of the Great City Schools. (2013). Fact sheet. Retrieved from https://www.cgcs.org/domain/24.

14.

Cowen Institute. (2015). The state of public education in New Orleans, 10 years after Hurricane Katrina. Retrieved from https://edexcellence.net/articles/the-state-of-public-education-in-new-orleans-10-years-after-hurricane-katrina

15.

DeBray

Jabbar

(2013). Review of two presentations on the portfolio model. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/files/ttr-portfoliorecovery.pdf

16.

DeBray

Scott

Lubienski

Jabbar

(2014). Intermediary organizations in charter school policy coalitions: Evidence from New Orleans. Educational Policy, 28, 175-206.

17.

Dingerson

(2015). Investing in what works: Community-driven strategies for strong public schools in Georgia. Atlanta, GA: Southern Education Foundation.

18.

Dixson

(2015). Review of “ten years in New Orleans: Public school resurgence and the path ahead.” Boulder, CO. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-NOLA-public-impact

19.

Dixson

Buras

Jeffers

(2015). The color of reform: Race, education reform, and charter schools in post-Katrina New Orleans. Qualitative Inquiry, 21, 288-299.

20.

Garda

(2011). The politics of education reform: Lessons from New Orleans. Journal of Law & Education, 40, 57-104.

21.

Gonzales

(2015). Tennessee democrats call for halt to state school takeovers. The Commercial Appeal. Retrieved from http://archive.commercialappeal.com/news/schools/tennessee-lawmakers-to-speak-on-asd-schools-today-27f9eaf9-df06-6c6a-e053-0100007fd734-363647461.html

22.

Gross

Tuchman

Yatsko

(2016). Grappling with discipline in autonomous schools: New approaches from D.C. and New Orleans. Seattle, WA: Center on Reinventing Public Education.

23.

Gumus-Dawes

Luce

Orfield

(2013). The state of public schools in post-Katrina New Orleans. In Orfield

Frankenberg

(Eds.), Educational delusions? Why choice can deepen inequality and how to make schools fair (pp. 159-185). Berkeley: University of California Press.

24.

Harris

D. N.

Larsen

M. F.

(2015). What schools do families want (and why)? New Orleans families and their school choices before and after Katrina. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

25.

Harris

D. N.

Larsen

(2016). The effects of the New Orleans post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes. Retrieved from https://ldr.lafayette.edu/bitstream/handle/10385/2096/Larsen-EducationResearchAllianceforNewOrleansTechnicalReport-2016.pdf?sequence=1

26.

Hatfield

(2012). Should the educational reforms in New Orleans serve as a national model for other cities? New Orleans, LA: Research on Reforms.

27.

Henig Jeffrey

(2010). Portfolio management models and the political economy of contracting regimes. In Bulkley

Henig

J. R.

Levin

H. M.

(Ed.), Between public and private: Politics, governance and the new portfolio models for urban school reform (pp. 27–54). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

28.

Henry

Zimmer

Attridge

Kho

Viano

(2014). Teacher and student migration in and out of Tennessee’s Achievement School District. Nashville, TNt: Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation, & Developmen.

29.

Henry

Zimmer

Kho

Pham

(2017). Recruitment and retention of teachers in Tennessee’s achievement school district and iZone schools. Nashville, TN: Tennessee Education Research Alliance.

30.

Holly

Field

Kim

Hassel

Runyan-Shefa

Stone

Zaunbrecher

(2015). Ten years in New Orleans: Public school resurgence and the path ahead. New Orleans, LA: New Schools for New Orleans.

31.

Jabbar

(2015a). Competitive networks and school leaders’ perceptions: The formation of an education marketplace in post-Katrina New Orleans. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 1093-1131.

32.

Jabbar

(2015b). “Every kid is money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 638-659.

33.

Jabbar

(2016a). Between structure and agency: Contextualizing school leaders’ strategic responses to market pressures. American Journal of Education, 122, 399-431.

34.

Jabbar

(2016b). Selling schools: Marketing and recruitment strategies in New Orleans. Peabody Journal of Education, 9(1), 4-23.

35.

Jabbar

Gooden

(2015). New Orleans recovery school district not quite as recovered as advertised. National Education Policy Center. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/newsletter/2015/07/new-orleans-recovery

36.

Jochim

(2016). Measures of last resort: Assessing strategies for state-initiated turnarounds. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.crpe.org/sites/default/files/crpe-measures-last-resort.pdf

37.

Lincove

Barrett

Strunk

(2017). Did the teachers dismissed after Hurricane Katrina return to public education? New Orleans, LA. Retrieved from http://educationresearchalliancenola.org/publications/did-the-teachers-dismissed-after-hurricane-katrina-return-to-public-education

38.

Maroulis

Santillano

Harris

D. N.

Jabbar

(2016). What happened to student mobility after the New Orleans’ market-based school reforms? New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

39.

McEachin

Welsh

R. O.

Brewer

D. J.

(2016). The variation in student achievement and behavior within a portfolio management model: Early results from New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 669-691.

40.

McGuire

Dunn

Shaw

Schott

(2016). A failing grade for K-12 state takeover. Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/27/a-failing-grade-for-k-12-state-takeovers.html

41.

Milner

H. R.

IV . (2012). But what is urban education? Urban Education, 47, 556-561.

42.

Milner

H. R.

IV. Lomotey

(2014). Handbook of urban education. New York, NY: Routledge.

43.

Milner

H. R.

IV. Murray

Farinde

Delale-O’Connor

(2015). Outside of school matters: What we need to know in urban environments. Equity & Excellence in Education, 48, 529-548.

44.

National Economic & Social Rights Initiative, & Families and Friends of Louisiana’s Incarcerated Children. (2010). Pushed out: Harsh discipline in Louisiana schools denies the right to education (A focus on the recovery school district in New Orleans). New York, NY: Author.

45.

Nelson

S. L.

(2017). Racial subjugation by another name? Using the links in the school-to-prison pipeline to reassess state takeover district performance. Georgetown Journal of Law & Modern Critical Race Perspectives, 9(1), 1-34.

46.

New Schools for New Orleans. (2012). New Orleans-style education reform: A guide for cities. New Orleans, LA: Author.

47.

Oluwole

Green

I. I. I. P

. (2009). State takeover of school districts: Race and the equal protection clause. Indiana Law Review, 42, 343-409.

48.

Orleans Parrish School Board (OPSB). (2017). OPSB Community Education Survey Results. New Orleans, LA.

49.

Prior

(2003). Using documents in social research. London, England: SAGE.

50.

Rogers

(2012). In the aftermath of a state takeover of a school district: A case study in public consultative discourse analysis. Urban Education, 47, 910-938.

51.

Silverman

(2000). Analyzing talk and text. Handbook of Qualitative Research, 2, 821-834.

52.

Smith

(2012). The Louisiana recovery school district: Lessons for the Buckeye state. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED528943.pdf

53.

Steele

Vernez

Gottfried

Schwam-Baird

(2011). The transformation of a school system: Principal, teacher and parent perceptions of charter and traditional schools in post Katrina New Orleans. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

54.

Steiner

(2005). State takeovers of individual schools. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED489527.pdf

55.

Tatter

(2016, March 10). Tennessee’s state-run school turnaround district poised to escape lawmakers’ intervention—Again. Chalkbeat. Retrieved from https://www.chalkbeat.org/posts/newark/2018/09/07/i-am-the-childrens-superintendent-newarks-new-schools-chief-promises-students/

56.

Thompson

(2015). Living in dialogue: Questions persist about New Orleans test score gains. Retrieved from http://nepc.colorado.edu/blog/questions-persist

57.

Weber

R. P.

(1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.

58.

Weixler

L. B.

Barrett

Harris

D. N.

Jennings

(2017). Changes in New Orleans segregation after Hurricane Katrina. New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

59.

Welsh

R. O.

Duque

McEachin

(2016). School choice, student mobility, and school quality: Evidence from post-Katrina New Orleans. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 150-176.

60.

Welsh

R. O.

Hall

(2018). The point of no return? Interest groups, school board elections and the sustainment of the portfolio management model in post-Katrina New Orleans. Teachers College Record, 120(7), 1-38.

61.

Welsh

R. O.

Williams

Little

Graham

(2017). Right cause, wrong method? Examining the politics of state takeover in Georgia. Urban Affairs Review, 1-40. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/1078087417714061

62.

Wong

Shen

(2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78, 89-119.

63.

Wong

Shen

(2007). Mayoral leadership matters: Lessons learned from mayoral control of large urban school systems. Peabody Journal of Education, 82, 737-768.

64.

Ziebarth

(2004). State takeovers and reconstitutions policy brief. Denver, CO. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED473720.pdf

65.

Zimmer

Kho

Henry

Viano

(2015). Evaluation of the effect of Tennessee’s achievement school district on student test scores. Retrieved from http://mediad.publicbroadcasting.net/p/wpln/files/201512/ASD_Impact_Policy_Brief_Final_12.8.15.pdf

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.37 MB