K1 students at UP Academy Holland at work on a project learning about animal habitats. The Dorchester school is exiting state receivership after more than a decade under state oversight. (Photo courtesy of UP Academy Holland)

THE MASSACHUSETTS Board of Elementary and Secondary Education recently voted to end state receivership of UP Academy Holland and return the school’s operation to Boston Public Schools. It was a significant moment for a school that, just over a decade ago, was among the lowest performing in the state.

The vote should also prompt a broader conversation.

For the past several years, the dominant narrative surrounding state receivership in Massachusetts has been that it did not work. There is evidence to support that view. Several state takeovers produced mixed results, and the outcomes often fell short of the ambitious promises that accompanied them.

But if the goal is to improve outcomes for students attending chronically underperforming schools, the most important question is not whether receivership succeeded everywhere. It is whether it succeeded anywhere, and if so, why.

UP Academy Holland, soon to return to its original name, John P. Holland Elementary School, deserves to be part of that conversation.

When the school entered receivership, it ranked in the bottom 1 percent of public schools statewide. Today, it is one of the strongest-performing schools in Boston. It ranks second among Dorchester schools in English language arts growth and is among the top-performing Boston Public Schools in ELA and math growth overall. Third-grade students outperform district and state averages in math proficiency among comparable high-needs schools, and multilingual learners exceed district and state peers on ACCESS growth measures.

Most importantly, the school is now positioned to return to district governance while preserving the systems, culture, and instructional practices that drove its improvement.

That outcome matters.

BPS still has more than 40 schools performing in the bottom decile statewide, although the district is implementing numerous strategies to improve performance. Across Massachusetts, educators and policymakers continue to wrestle with the challenge of helping chronically underperforming schools improve. Holland demonstrates that meaningful transformation is possible. The question is why.

I have spent much of my career at Holland, first as a member of the founding leadership team, then as principal, later supporting the development of school leaders, and now as CEO of UP Education Network, the organization that partnered with BPS to manage the school during receivership.

No single curriculum, training, or intervention transformed Holland. The theory of change was more fundamental, and frankly, isn’t glamorous nor particularly innovative: create clarity about excellence, build systems aligned to that vision, and develop the capacity of leaders to improve teacher practice through sustained coaching and feedback. We were steadfast in our belief in the power of these elements, and over time, those elements did in fact reinforce one another and produced improvement that could last beyond any one leader or organization.

Looking back, three broader lessons stand out.

First, school transformation takes time.

One of the challenges in education policy is that improvement timelines are often measured in election cycles, contract terms, or leadership tenures. School transformation rarely operates on those timelines.

Holland made significant gains early in its turnaround, but lasting improvement required years of refining and strengthening the practices behind those results. It required building the capacity of leaders and teachers, responding to new challenges, and sustaining a culture of improvement through leadership transitions, changing circumstances, and even a global pandemic. With stability, persistence, and a willingness to stay the course, these systems have thrived at Holland.

Second, successful turnarounds require true partnership.

Too often, conversations about receivership frame districts and external operators as competing interests. In practice, successful school improvement depends on the opposite.

Throughout Holland’s transformation, BPS and UP maintained a shared commitment to the same outcome: ensuring students had access to an excellent school. That partnership required trust, flexibility, and an understanding that improvement efforts were being carried out on behalf of the district, not in opposition to it.

The transition now underway reflects that same spirit. District leaders, union leaders, state officials, school leaders, and UP have spent the past year working together to identify what must be preserved for the school to continue thriving and maintain student outcomes.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, struggling schools need the right partner.

Not every organization is equipped to lead school transformation, which requires far more than good intentions. It requires the ability to establish a clear vision, translate that vision into coherent systems, develop strong leaders, and support educators through years of challenging work. It also requires the discipline to execute those practices consistently and the willingness to keep learning when something is not working.

It requires humility as well. The most effective partners recognize that success is not measured by how long they remain in control. It is measured by whether the school can thrive after they leave.

At Holland, the goal was never to create a permanent alternative to district leadership. The goal was to build a school strong enough to succeed within BPS.

As Holland returns to district governance, that work is not ending. Through ongoing collaboration, both organizations are committed to ensuring continuity for students, families, and staff. Improvement is not sustained through abrupt transitions. It is sustained through thoughtful ones.

The lesson of Holland is not that receivership is the answer to every struggling school. Nor is it an argument for a return to broad state takeovers.

The lesson is that school transformation is possible.

Massachusetts remains a national leader in education, but statewide success can obscure the reality facing students in schools that have struggled for years to deliver the outcomes they deserve.

As the state formally closes the chapter on Holland’s receivership, we should resist the temptation to view the story solely through the lens of a broader debate about state intervention. Instead, we should study it carefully.

Because if we are serious about improving outcomes for students in chronically underperforming schools, our responsibility is not to replicate a governance model. It is to study and replicate the practices that make lasting improvement possible.

Holland offers one example. Students and families demand that we learn from it.

Hillary Casson is the chief executive officer of UP Education Network.