When State Control Steps In

In recent decades, state takeovers of public schools and districts have emerged as a popular response to struggling educational systems across the United States. Advocates argue that centralizing decision-making at the state level can bypass local politics and introduce reforms to improve student outcomes. However, evidence supporting these claims remains inconclusive.

A new study (Schueler, 2024) examining the long-term effects of state takeovers of school districts from 2010 to 2018 provides critical insight: these interventions rarely lead to meaningful gains in student performance, even nearly a decade after they occur. Despite the promise of streamlined governance and resources, reading and math scores largely remain unaffected.

This research raises important questions for Florida, where the state's Department of Education has increasingly asserted control over school districts and school boards facing chronic underperformance. Could state takeovers of individual schools yield better results than district-wide interventions? What lessons can Florida learn from the national experience with centralized educational governance?

Proponents believe that state takeovers are essential for addressing local mismanagement. In some cases, local school boards lack the capacity or political will to implement necessary reforms. A state takeover can provide a clean slate, allowing for professional management and targeted interventions. For instance, the post-Hurricane Katrina Recovery School District in New Orleans is often cited as a success, where graduation rates improved significantly after transitioning to charter schools (Osborne, 2020). Similarly, state control can help ensure that resources are allocated equitably, focusing on student needs rather than local politics, which can sometimes perpetuate disparities. Advocates also point out that states can implement standardized performance metrics and enforce accountability in ways that local leaders may find politically difficult. For example, Tennessee’s Achievement School District aimed to transform the bottom 5% of schools into the top 25% within five years, showcasing the potential for ambitious reform. Though, when compared to local innovation zones, ASDs were less effective at implementing change for students (Pham et al., 2020)

Critics, however, highlight that the results of state takeovers often fall short of expectations. Research, including a recent nationwide study of districts taken over between 2010 and 2018, shows no significant improvements in reading or math scores even a decade later. Beyond academic outcomes, there is concern about the perception of erosion of local democracy. State takeovers effectively remove local control, disempowering communities that rely on school boards as a key avenue for civic engagement. This issue is particularly pronounced in districts serving predominantly low-income and minority populations, raising equity concerns. For example, Detroit Public Schools experienced extensive state control, but community advocates argue this exacerbated inequities without delivering meaningful improvements. Additionally, critics point to the high turnover in leadership and frequent policy changes under state control, which often destabilize schools and hinder long-term progress.