Can States Take Over and Turn Around School Districts? Evidence From Lawrence,Massachusetts

Abstract

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) requires states to identify and turn around struggling schools, with federal school improvement money required to fund evidence-based policies. Most research on turnarounds has focused on individual schools, whereas studies of district-wide turnarounds have come from relatively exceptional settings and interventions. We study a district-wide turnaround of a type that may become more common under ESSA, an accountability-driven state takeover of Massachusetts’s Lawrence Public Schools (LPS). A differences-in-differences framework comparing LPS to demographically similar districts not subject to state takeover shows that the turnaround’s first 2 years produced sizable achievement gains in math and modest gains in reading. We also find no evidence that the turnaround resulted in slippage on nontest score outcomes and suggestive evidence of positive effects on grade progression among high school students. Intensive small-group instruction over vacation breaks may have led to particularly large achievement gains for participating students.

Keywords

state takeover district turnaround school improvement school accountability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdulkadiroğlu

Angrist

Dynarski

Kane

Pathak

(2011). Accountability in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 699–748.

Abdulkadiroğlu

Angrist

Hull

Pathak

(2014). Charters without lotteries: Testing takeovers in New Orleans and Boston. American Economic Review, 106(7), 1878-1920.

Angrist

Dynarski

Kane

Pathak

Walters

(2010). Inputs and impacts in charter schools: KIPP Lynn? American Economic Review, 100, 1–5.

Chingos

Whitehurst

Gallaher

(2015). School districts and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 10, 378–398.

Cook

Dodge

Farkas

Fryer

Guryan

Ludwig

. . . Steinberg

(2014). The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth (NBER Working Paper 19862). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w19862

Dee

(2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 Stimulus (NBER Working Paper 17990). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w17990.pdf

Dobbie

Fryer

(2011). Are high quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children’s Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 3, 158–187.

Education Research Services. (2015). Back from the brink. Lawrence, MA: School System 20/20 Case Study.

Empower Schools. (2014). Urban school reform in Lawrence Massachusetts: Pioneering the “open architecture” model. Retrieved from http://empowerschools.org/lawrence-case-study/

10.

Fryer

(2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129, 1355–1407. doi:10.1093/qje/qju011

11.

Fryer

(2016). The production of human capital in developed countries: Evidence from 196 randomized field experiments (NBER Working Paper 22130). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w22130

12.

Gewertz

(2009). Duncan’s call for school turnarounds sparks debate. Education Week, 28(37).

13.

Gill

Zimmer

Christman

Blanc

(2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.

14.

Gleason

Clark

Clark Tuttle

Dwoyer

(2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education and Evaluation and Regional Assistance.

15.

Harris

Larsen

(2016). The effects of the New Orleans Post-Katrina school reforms on student academic outcomes. New Orleans, LA: Tulane University, Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.

16.

Heissel

Ladd

(2016). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis (National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data Working Paper 156). Retrieved from http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/WP%20156.pdf

17.

Hill

Campbell

Gross

(2012). Strife and progress: Portfolio strategies for managing urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/book/strife-and-progress-portfolio-strategies-for-managing-urban-schools/

18.

Honig

(2013). From tinkering to transformation: Strengthening school district central office performance (Education Outlook). American Enterprise Institute. Retrieved from https://www.aei.org/publication/from-tinkering-to-transformation-strengthening-school-district-central-office-performance/

19.

Hoxby

Murarka

(2009). Charter schools in New York City: Who enrolls and how they affect their students’ achievement (NBER Working Paper 14852). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w14852.pdf

20.

Johnson

S. M.

Marietta

Higgins

Mapp

Grossman

(2015). Achieving coherence in district improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

21.

Kraft

M. A.

(2015). How to make additional time matter: Extending the school day for individualized tutorials. Education Finance and Policy, 10, 81–116.

22.

Lawrence Public Schools. (2013). Professional compensation system. Retrieved from https://vimeo.com/63110985

23.

Layton

(2016). GOP-led states increasingly taking control from local school boards. The Washington Post. Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/gop-led-states-increasingly-taking-control-from-local-school-boards/2016/02/01/c01a8e4e-bad3-11e5-b682-4bb4dd403c7d_story.html?utm_term=.2636311c28f4

24.

Massachusetts DESE. (2012). Lawrence Public Schools Turnaround Plan. Retrieved from http://www.mass.gov/edu/docs/ese/accountability/turnaround/level-5-lawrence-plan-2012.pdf

25.

Massachusetts DESE. (2015). Lawrence: Total expenditure per pupil, all funds, by function. Retrieved from http://profiles.doe.mass.edu/state_report/ppx.aspx

26.

Smarick

(2010). Toothless reform. Education Next, 10, 15–22.

27.

Strunk

K. O.

Marsh

J. A.

Hashim

Bush

Weinstein

(2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy, 11, 251–282.

28.

Supovitz

(2006). The case for district-based reform: Leading, building and sustaining school improvement. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

29.

U.S. Census. (2015). State and county quickfacts. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/quickfacts/table/PST045215/2534550/accessible

30.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). Turning around the lowest-performing schools. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/resources/turn-around.pdf

31.

Wong

Shen

(2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16, 161–192.

32.

Wong

Shen

(2003). Measuring the effectiveness of city and state takeover as a school reform strategy. Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 89–119. Retrieved from http://www.fxshen.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WongShen_2003_MeasuringEffectiveness1.pdf

33.

Zavadsky

(2013). Scaling turnaround. Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute.

34.

Zimmer

Kho

Henry

Viano

(2015). Evaluation of the effects of Tennessee’s Achievement School District on student test scores. Nashville: Tennessee Consortium on Research, Evaluation and Development.

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

0.87 MB