I know there are quite a few people here who know a great deal about education in the US, public education, private, charter schools, etc.
In general, when a state or city takes over failing schools, does it work? I think someone took over the chicago public schools, and I believe it was good (although I'm still researching). The criteria for evaluating schools is controversial, it ignores the arts, music, sports...things that are important for our culture but can't be evaluated by standard. test. For that matter, I strongly suspect that the wise and successful posters here received varying grades on their stand. tests and it probably has no bearing on how successful they/you are now.
Thanks in advance...
In what I have seen, up until a few years ago, schools and school districts were only taken over by the state when they were "failing" educationally. Such interventions were relatively rare and often paired with added financial support from the state to execute a turn-around in performance.
Recently the situation in Michigan and elsewhere has nothing to do with school performance. Just this week one of Detroit's nationally renowned schools was closed. Educational success is not a factor. The factor that matters is budget. The Michigan takeovers and those in other states are primarily motivated by a desire to reduce educational spending. Since most (like 75%+) of any educational budget is payroll, this means firing teachers, firing staff, lowering wages, increasing class size, or all of these combined.
I would conjecture that many of the proponents of these takeovers look kindly on home schooling and would like a voucher plan that included private and religious schools, and they do not give much weight to the value of public education to society as a whole.
I have had a little experience teaching and am a product of the public school system from kindergarten through graduate school. I also have family members who have been active in school administration at a variety of levels, so of course I am a biased source.