This case of district turnover was developed as part of a project with state leaders and funders supporting local early education systems development. Understanding strategic and reactive activities during district leadership transition can be useful in assisting educators and their partners to prepare for sustainability. In this case, early education efforts supported by a district–community partnership, Childhood Advancing Partnership (CAP), were threatened by turnover of many central administration positions at the same time, shortly before an economic downturn. Due to strategic planning, hiring a supportive new superintendent, and organizing community support, the partnership with CAP was sustained across transitions within the district.
AlsburyT. L. (2008). School board member and superintendent turnover and the influence on student achievement: An application of the dissatisfaction theory. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 7, 202-229.
2.
AlsburyT. L.WhitakerK. S. (2007). Superintendent perspectives and practice of accountability, democratic voice, and social justice. Journal of Educational Administration, 45, 154-174.
3.
BennettJ. V.ThompsonH. C. (2011). Changing district priorities for school-business collaboration: Superintendent agency and capacity for institutionalization. Educational Administration Quarterly, 47, 826-868.
4.
BuchananB. (2006). Turnover at the top: Superintendent vacancies challenge big-city boards. Lantham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
5.
CoburnC. E.BaeS.TurnerE. O. (2008). Authority, status, and the dynamics of insider-outsider partnerships at the district level. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 364-399.
6.
CubanL. (1985). Conflict and leadership in the superintendency. Phi Delta Kappan, 67(1), 28-30.
7.
DalyA. J.FinniganK. (2010). Learning at the system level: Ties between principals of low-performing schools and central office leaders. In DalyA. J. (Ed.), Social network theory and educational change (pp. 179-196). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
8.
DatnowA. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41, 121-153.
9.
FullanM. (2007). The new meaning of educational change (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
10.
FusarelliC. B. (2008). The politics of coordinated services for children: Interinstitutional relations and social justice. In CooperB. S.CibulkaJ. G.FusarelliL. D. (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy (pp. 350-373). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
GlassT. E.BjörkL.BrunnerC. C. (2000). The 2000 study of the American school superintendency: A look at the superintendent of education in the new millennium. Arlington, VA: American Association of School Administrators.
12.
GlassT. E.FranceschiniL. A. (2007). The state of the American school superintendency: A mid-decade Study. Blue Ridge Summit, PA: Rowman & Littlefield Education.
13.
GriffinD.FarrisA. (2010). School counselors and collaboration: Finding resources through community asset mapping. Professional School Counseling, 13, 248-256.
14.
GrissomJ. A.AndersenS. (2012). Why superintendents turn over. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 1146-1180.
15.
HessF. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
16.
IshimaruA. (2013). From heroes to organizers: Principals and education organizing in urban school reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 3-51.
17.
IshimaruA. M. (2014a). Rewriting the rules of engagement: Elaborating a model of district-community collaboration. Harvard Educational Review, 84, 188-216.
18.
IshimaruA. M. (2014b). When new relationships meet old narratives: The journey towards improving parent-school relations in a district-community organizing collaboration. Teachers College Record, 116(2), 1-49.
19.
JangH. S.FeiockR. C. (2007). Public versus private funding of nonprofit organizations: Implications for collaboration. Public Performance & Management Review, 31, 174-190.
20.
KaniaJ.KramerM. (2011). Collective impact. Stanford Social Innovation Review, 9(Winter), 36-41.
21.
LeChasseurK. (2014). Critical race theory and the meaning of “community” in district partnerships. Equity & Excellence in Education, 47, 305-320.
22.
MayerA. P.DonaldsonM. L.LeChasseurK.WeltonA. D.CobbC. D. (2013). Negotiating site-based management and expanded teacher decision making: A case study of six urban schools. Educational Administration Quarterly, 49, 695-731.
23.
McLaughlinM.TalbertJ. (2003). Reforming districts: How districts support school reform. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching Policy.
24.
MedirattaK. (2007). Outside in: Communities in action for education reform. Theory Into Practice, 46, 194-204.
25.
MetzgerC. (1997). Involuntary turnover of superintendents. Thrust for Educational Leadership, 26, 20-24.
26.
PurcalC.MuirK.PatulnyR.ThomsonC.FlaxmanS. (2011). Does partnership funding improve coordination and collaboration among early childhood services?—Experiences from the communities for children programme. Child & Family Social Work, 16, 474-484.
27.
RorrerA. K.SkrlaL.ScheurichJ. J. (2008). Districts as institutional actors in educational reform. Educational Research Quarterly, 44, 307-357.
28.
SandersM. G. (2009). Collaborating for change: How an urban school district and a community-based organization support and sustain school, family, and community partnerships. Teachers College Record, 111, 1693-1712.
29.
SandersM. G. (2012a). Achieving scale at the district level: A longitudinal multiple case study of a partnership reform. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 154-186.
30.
SandersM. G. (2012b). Sustaining programs of school, family, and community partnerships: A qualitative longitudinal study of two districts. Educational Policy, 26, 845-869.
31.
SuárezD. F. (2011). Collaboration and professionalization: The contours of public sector funding for nonprofit organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 21, 307-326.
32.
SupovitzJ. (2008). Melding internal and external support for school improvement: How the district role changes when working closely with external instructional support providers. Peabody Journal of Education, 83, 459-478.
33.
ThomsonA. M.PerryJ. L. (2006). Collaboration processes: Inside the black box. Public Administration Review, 66, 20-32.
34.
ValliL.StefanskiA.JocobsonR. (2016). Typologizing school-community partnerships: A framework for analysis and action. Urban Education, 51, 719-747.
35.
WalterJ. K.SharpW. L. (1996). Moving on. Executive Educator, 18, 21-23.
36.
WaltzerN.WeaverL.McGuireC. (2016). Collective impact approaches and community development issues. Community Development, 47, 156-166.
37.
WarrenM. R. (2005). Communities and schools: A new view of urban education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 75, 133-173.
38.
WarrenM. R. (2011). Building a political constituency for urban school reform. Urban Education, 46, 484-512.
39.
WellsR.GiffordE.BaiY.CorraA. (2015). A network perspective on dropout prevention in two cities. Educational Administration Quarterly, 51, 27-57.
40.
YeeG.CubanC. (1996). When is tenure long enough? A historical analysis of superintendent turnover and tenure in urban school districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 32, 615-641.
41.
YomezawaS.StringfieldS. (2000). Special strategies for educating disadvantaged students follow-up study: Examining the sustainability of research based school reforms. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University CRESPAR.
