Policy Implications to “Just the Facts: A Longitudinal Analysis of ASD and SCS’s iZone”
Primary Policy Implications
Race to the Top Progress
In yesterday’s piece I examined the data for Shelby County School’s iZone and compared it to achievement results for the ASD. I did this for two reasons; first, because I had not yet examined iZone performance and second, because it’s vital to understanding which turnaround methods are producing the best results.
After examining this data, it’s fair to say that iZone’s achievement results are significantly better than the ASD in both Math and Reading. In looking at the average P/A rates for 2014, iZone ranks more than 10.0% higher than ASD for Math and more than 5% higher in RLA. However, despite outpacing the ASD in achievement, we must ask ourselves can iZone reach the magic number of 55% proficient or advanced (P/A) in order to reach the top quartile of schools in the state?
I should preface my answer with a clarification and correction from my last piece on the ASD. I asked the same question of the ASD. Erroneously, however, I lumped both Cohort 1 and 2 together as only the district-level data was available. I will take the time to correct this error. The following numbers are based on the total gains needed to reach 55% P/A, which are then divided into the average gains needed per year to reach the goal within five years. The average yearly gains needed are compared to the past average for yearly gains under turnaround efforts. iZone has a different timeline; rather than reaching 55% in five years, the goal is three years. I will assess iZone by its stated goal and then, for a fair comparison, against a hypothetical five-year period.
This information suggests that it’s unlikely that iZone will meet its own standards for improvement within a three-year time period, despite impressive gains being made in several areas. But there is hope to reach it within five. The district could realistically meet 55% under the same conditions as the ASD. This questions the reasoning behind these timelines. Why is it three years for iZone and not five? Where did the timeline for the three vs five-year turnaround effort come from at all? What, based on research, is a reasonable period to see increased achievement with more time and resources invested?
Secondary Policy Implications
Is there a need for phase-in schools?
The first question we need to ask ourselves is: who benefits from the phase-in model of school takeovers? It’s true that there has been success with phase-in schools, as the ASD has suggested. However, most phase-in schools are more difficult to track and, as such, gauge their efficacy compared to prior achievement. Furthermore, several of the phase-in schools are serving children that are untested, providing no readily available evidence by which to measure their achievement. That being said, iZone has succeeded at significantly raising achievement without this model and has vowed to continue to do so. iZone’s results suggest that phasing in grades is not necessary to turn around schools and may even be a detrimental approach to improving student learning. The phase-in model is simply easier to implement. The resulting question is whether the phase-in model is beneficial to the kids or to the adults?
After seeing the results posted by iZone, it’s my opinion that the phase-in model is not in the best interest of kids at floundering schools. Rather, it is to the detriment of older students who deserve a stronger infusion of time and resources for their education. The achievement results for these struggling schools tell us that these students are not performing at grade level. The gaps in learning are potentially far greater for older students than the younger ones; the task of closing the gap in a student’s learning is much greater for the older students than the younger students as a result. It’s much easier to provide targeted intervention and see results with a 2nd grader reading at a Kindergarten level than an 8th grader reading at a 2nd grade level. I know because I’ve experienced it. It’s much easier to simply ignore the older students and ensure success with the younger ones, following them with each successive grade. If the true goal of turnaround efforts is to raise achievement for as many students as possible with the hopes of changing lives, the phase-in model stands in direct opposition to this mission.
Are Charters Necessary to Turnaround Efforts?
The second question that we should ask ourselves is this; are charter schools, such as their implementation with the ASD, necessary to turnaround efforts? This is a more complicated question to consider as many of the charters have relied upon the phase-in model, which has obscured a reliable longitudinal analysis of the data. However, because SCS’s board is considering adding charters to its Innovation Zone, it’s an important question to ponder. The data shows that iZone’s current operation is vastly outperforming both direct-run and charter operated schools with the ASD in both Math and Reading. While the ASD asserts that it is seeing better results with the phase-in model, used exclusively by charters, data shows that this is not actually the case. Furthermore, it appears the majority of schools, including charters, are not faring well under the ASD. It’s more difficult to say if they would do just as poorly under iZone. However, charters seldomly operate without using the phase-in model. From the ASD’s results, it is unlikely that charters will perform at a high level when required to take on a whole school from the outset of a turnaround effort.
Brad Leon, Chief Innovation Officer for SCS, argued that charters will help iZone with recruiting high-performing teachers and administrators from outside the city. However, I think the iZone’s reliance on local educators with experience and a proven track record could be one of the primary reasons for its success. If a local teacher wanted to work for the ASD, he or she would have to resign from Shelby County Schools. This, in effect, may turn away many experienced teachers who’ve invested themselves with SCS.
As an aside, I would be interested in comparing the average years of experience for the teachers in both the ASD and iZone. I would also be interested in the retention rates for iZone and ASD schools post-turnaround Rather than being concerned about pooling the high-achieving teachers to iZone, there should be concern about the root of the issue: enticing high-achieving, experienced teachers to remain with SCS; recruiting experienced high-flying teachers to SCS; and supporting novice teachers who show promise so that they become the next generation of strong teachers. I’m not sure that charters would alleviate any of these issues.
Conclusion
I would hate to end with a cliché, but I’m about to. I keep coming back to the idea of “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it.” With iZone, besides a few kinks that could be fixed with additional support, the majority of the schools are seeing positive results. There is the issue of a three-year timeline (which I would press is inappropriate), but the schools are on track to achieving at very high levels. The data illustrates that there is little to no reason to push for a portfolio model. Especially with the lessons learned from the ASD. The more appropriate course of action is to scrutinize the successes at iZone schools. The innovative interventions and programs in place at these high growth schools must be examined, verified, and then, if and where appropriate, replicated across the district.
The ASD, however, has some very real issues that need to be addressed. I stand by assertions made in my earlier piece on the ASD. The core root of successes and failures within these schools must be targeted and identified. These failing schools need a very strategic support structure in order to improve achievement. Like iZone, successful methods at the high achieving schools need to be thoroughly examined, verified, and replicated. In all of this, expansion should be halted in order to focus on the problems at hand and stave off new ones. If schools still don’t improve, then the problem is a systemic one and should be returned to the local districts. For Memphis, where the majority of these struggling schools are located, SCS has been far more successful at handling the situation through the iZone.
The real conundrum then, should the ASD close down shop, is if iZone and other similar local initiatives would continue to be as successful if the ASD didn’t exist. Does it take competition between districts to incite innovation and evoke collaboration within and among schools? Is it the threat of losing schools and students that entices schools and districts to make the great leap forward as has happened through the iZone? How much of academic achievement is attributed to the stick and how much is to the carrot? All great questions to which I have yet to find an answer; it will take quite a bit more than a few years’ worth of data for a handful of schools.
Follow Bluff City Education on Twitter @bluffcityed and look for the hashtag #iteachiam and #TNedu to find more of our stories. Please also like our page on facebook. The views expressed in this piece are solely those of the author and do not represent those of any affiliated organizations or Bluff City Ed writers. Inflammatory or defamatory comments will not be posted on this