Research suggests that takeovers are not a silver bullet for improving struggling school systems. State takeovers of school districts have happened in all major regions of the country but disproportionately affect some types of communities more than others. There are two main reasons states typically give for enacting takeover: low academic performance and fiscal challenges. They have been better suited to addressing financial than academic concerns, and they appear to be especially risky when undertaken in majority-Black communities and within school districts that are not among the lowest performing in the country. Research on the subset of takeovers that have generated benefits--as well as on efforts to improve low-performing districts without a dramatic governance change--provide some guidance for how leaders in Texas and beyond might reasonably approach school district reform. State takeovers, on average, do not improve student academic performance in math or reading. In fact, evidence suggests that they were disruptive to reading achievement in the early years of reform.