Thread by @BethSchueler

Is it possible to turn around a low-performing school district w/o generating significant public resistance? My recently released paper on 2012 Lawrence, MA state takeover suggests the answer is YES & provides guidance on implementing politically viable district improvement. 1/14

To understand the public response, I analyzed press coverage, public documents, & survey data and I interviewed turnaround and stakeholder group leaders at the state and district level regarding the first 3 years of reform. 2/14
Full paper: scholar.harvard.edu/files/schueler…

Although LPS was not w/o controversy, it was milder than typical cases of districtwide turnaround (e.g., TN, NOLA, Newark). I find minimal signs of resistance from parents, educators & students. Local electeds supported takeover. The teachers union took a cooperative stance. 3/14

So, why wasn’t the Lawrence experience more contentious? I find that both (a) features of the Lawrence context and (b) the turnaround leaders’ “third way” approach to framing and implementing change help explain the relatively mild response. 4/14

For (a) context, the district’s size, growing enrollment, perceptions of pre-takeover local corruption & organized labor landscape improved the public response. The statewide accountability system also gave leaders leverage & the ability to recruit a politically savvy team. 5/14

Leaders also (b) adopted a third way orientation, focused on reconciling polarizing conflicts btwn educational “reformers” & “traditionalists.” The approach seeks to avoid false choices btwn the policy preferences of either camp & synthesize perspectives into something new. 6/14

Five brief examples of policy choices the team that illustrate the third way approach include: 7/14

(1) differentiating district-school relations: the team avoided a false choice btwn traditional centralization & a reform-oriented decentralized system by giving schls different levels of autonomy & support based on capacity, tailoring relatnshps & increasing school support 8/14

(2) diversifying school management: mgmt. of a small handful of schools were handed over to a diverse set of operators ranging from CMOs to the local teachers union. CMO-managed schools retained neighborhood-based student assignment & a unionized teaching force 9/14

(3) strategic staffing decisions: a majority of teachers and some key insiders at the CO were retained, across the board salary increases improved the palatability of the new merit-based career ladder compensation system & leaders actively engaged the local union 10/14

(4) balancing academics w/ enrichment: leaders balanced increased academic expectations w/ extracurricular expansion, signaling interest in the whole child. Community-based orgs were asked to provide activities, generating support for reform among previously excluded groups 11/14

(5) producing early results while minimizing disruption: leaders avoided false choice btwn incremental & disruptive change by generating early gains via Vacation Academies while building out school capacity for long-term improvement & avoiding too many disruptive changes 12/14

These encouraging findings have implications for state-level leaders on selecting districts most ripe for this type of reform and for district-level leaders seeking to implement improvement efforts with community support. 13/14

Thanks to all who helped me develop this piece, including interviewees, LPS, Lawrence Teachers Union, @MASchoolsK12, @jal_mehta, @ProfMartyWest, @ProfDavidDeming, @JoshuaSGoodman, @J_Henig & Ebony Bridwell-Mitchell. Finally, thanks EAQ & reviewers. Happy to see it in print! 14/14