Preserving Education as a Public Good: Lessons from the Grassroots

The article provides an overview of my book, The Fight for America’s Schools: Grassroots Activism in Education. The book examines how grassroots activists in Pennsylvania and New Jersey challenged various neoliberal reforms in education such as high stakes testing, school closures, state takeovers of local school districts, and charter school expansion. The four case studies focus on who the activists were, how they became involved, the challenges they faced, and the prospects for coalition building across different constituent groups. The comparative analysis reveals the role of political, organizational, demographic, and historical factors in shaping how activism played out in each location and in its effectiveness.

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

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.

A Third Way: The Politics of School District Takeover and Turnaround in Lawrence, Massachusetts

Purpose: School district superintendents say politics is the number one factor limiting their performance, yet research provides limited guidance on navigating the political dynamics of district improvement. State takeovers and district-wide turnaround efforts tend to involve particularly heated and polarized debates. Massachusetts’ 2012 takeover of the Lawrence Public Schools provides a rare case of state takeover and district turnaround that both resulted in substantial early academic improvements and generated limited controversy. Method: To describe the stakeholder response and learn why the reforms were not more contentious, I analyzed press coverage of the Lawrence schools from 2007 to 2015, public documents, and two secondary sources of survey data on parent and educator perceptions of the schools. I also interviewed turnaround and stakeholder group leaders at the state and district level regarding the first 3 years of reform. Findings: I find that the local Lawrence context and broader statewide accountability system help explain the stakeholder response. Furthermore, several features of the turnaround leaders’ approach improved the response and reflected a “third way” orientation to transcending polarizing political disagreement between educational reformers and traditionalists. Examples include leaders’ focus on differentiating district–school relations, diversifying school management, making strategic staffing decisions, boosting both academics and enrichment, and producing early results while minimizing disruption. Implications: The findings provide guidance for state-level leaders on developing accountability systems and selecting contexts that are ripe for reform. The results also provide lessons for district- and school-level leaders seeking to implement politically viable improvement of persistently low-performing educational systems.

State Takeovers and Black and Latino Political Empowerment

How is black and Latino representation affected by state takeovers of local government? Since racial minorities have had a complex history in the struggle between local autonomy and centralized authority, when does state centralization lead to increased political empowerment for racial minorities? Conversely, when does centralized authority negatively affect political empowerment among racial minorities? To answer these questions, the chapter examines how state takeovers of local school districts affect black and Latino descriptive representation on local school boards. Relying on a case study of Newark, New Jersey, and analysis of every state takeover of a local school district, the chapter shows that contrary to conventional wisdom, takeovers and centralization can increase descriptive representation among marginalized populations. On the other hand, the chapter also shows that under other conditions, takeovers are even more disempowering than the scholarship has previously imagined and understood.

A View from Two Cities

The chapter provides an in-depth examination of state takeovers of the Newark, New Jersey, and Central Falls, Rhode Island, school districts. It begins with an examination of the first five years following the takeover of the Newark schools (1995–2000) from the perspective of the city’s black community and finds that the state takeover of the local schools had a devastating political and economic effect on the city’s black community. Then the chapter focuses on a case study of Central Falls, Rhode Island. Despite representing a significant portion of the city’s population, the Latino community did not have any representation on the school board, on the city council, or in the mayor’s office at the time of the takeover in 1991. The chapter argues that the state takeover of the Central Falls schools helped pave a path to Latino political empowerment in Central Falls.

Schools, State, and Political Power

This chapter introduces the fundamental questions and puzzles about state interventions in local communities that guide this book: (1) Which communities are affected by state takeovers, and how so? (2) Why are black communities disproportionately negatively affected by state takeovers? (3) Why are Republicans—usually the champions of local control and decentralization—leading the state takeover movement? (4) What are the enduring implications of these trends for urban governance and theories of urban politics? Following the questions and puzzles, the chapter focuses on how the public schools have played a vital role in helping traditionally marginalized communities access paths to political empowerment and demonstrates how state takeovers of local school districts reveal fundamental dynamics of political power.

Takeover

State takeovers of local school districts emerged in the late 1980s. Although many major U.S. cities have experienced state takeovers of their local school districts, we know little about the political causes and consequences of state takeovers. Relying on historical analysis, case studies, and quantitative analysis, the book offers the first systematic study of state takeovers of local school districts. It shows that although the justifications for state takeovers have generally been based on concerns with poor academic performance, questions of race and political power played a critical role in the emergence of state takeovers of local school districts. Contrary to conventional wisdom, the book demonstrates that under certain conditions, state takeovers can help marginalized populations in their efforts to gain political empowerment. However, in most cases, state takeovers have negative political consequences for communities of color, particularly black communities. A central claim of the book is that efforts to strengthen state governments in the 1970s were a response to the rise of black political empowerment in American cities. As states gained greater powers, urban localities became increasingly subjected to state intervention. The emergence of state takeovers of local school districts in the 1980s was a consequence of the increasing authority of state governments.

The Implications of State Takeovers for Urban Politics

As states increase their presence in localities, what are the enduring implications for urban governance and theories of urban politics? The chapter examines urban regime theory, the dominant urban political theory of the last 30 years, and argues that although urban regime theory is still a relevant framework to analyze urban governance, the changing role of state actors, particularly governors, in urban regimes requires an expansion of urban regime theory as a conceptual framework. The chapter introduces the concept of cohesive and disjointed state-local regimes. The concept proposes that local leaders can best represent the needs of their communities under cohesive state-local regimes, while localities are exposed to less desirable, even hostile, state-led policies under disjointed state-local regimes.

Why Take Over?

Why do states take over local school districts? Additionally, why are Republicans—usually the champions of local control and decentralization—leading the efforts to take over local school districts? Finally, why do state takeovers disproportionally affect black communities? Relying on historical analysis and an original data set of nearly 1,000 school districts, the chapter argues that although concerns about academic performance are the main public justification for a state takeover, politics was a major factor in the emergence of state takeovers. Since school politics was a source of political mobilization for black communities, it became a central point of contention between conservatives at the state level and black political leadership at the local level. The conservative response was to promote a conservative education logic that has professed a concern with the education of black students and other students of color while investing in the political failure of their communities.