There’s been a lot of coverage of the ASD in recent weeks and months. In order to make sure all sides of the story are covered, we’re publishing a Q&A we did with the ASD’s Elliot Smalley. Below is part one of the full unedited exchange, with our questions in bold and his answers in italics.
For the sake of length, the Q&A has been split into two parts. This part covers the ASD’s decision to advocate for the phase-in model and charter authorization in Memphis. The second part will air tomorrow morning.
Many in SCS (and MNPS) have questioned the effectiveness of the phase in model, leading to SCS’ decision to end the practice of co-location. What evidence is there that suggests that this model is successful for students that remain in the take-over school under co-location, and in your opinion, why should SCS or MNPS stick with the co-location model?
Co-location is a temporary arrangement and its success for all kids is heavily influenced by the adults in the building. The bigger question for us is how we ensure the existence of a great neighborhood school over the long-term—one that will be much better than the existing option over time.
I think it would be great if district staff—e.g. the “many” people questioning the effectiveness of phase-ins—and charter operators just got together and talked about this stuff more often. This is a question of implementation. It’s not about any kind of long-term approach. Some high quality charter operators prefer to grow grade-by-grade or a few grades at a time into a whole school conversion (at times adding Pre-K grades and ultimately growing to serve even more neighborhood kids than the original school), others go whole school in the first year. We honor both implementation options because we believe this ensures that we have the highest quality operators and educators serving kids, which sets kids up for success long after the temporary implementation phase. ASD phase-in schools averaged 22 point gains in reading and 16 point gains in math last year, which is extraordinary for students, but what’s more important is what these same schools and the whole school turnarounds will be accomplishing 5-10 years from now. If phase-in is a short-term implementation approach that sets up kids and schools for success over the long term, we’re going to support it. We’re not going to micromanage the “how.”
On the issue of co-location, MNPS and SCS have very different approaches, and I encourage you to ask MNPS why they support co-location instead of shutting down the upper grades and moving kids to other schools. We’re having an ongoing conversation about co-location and different options. SCS has made clear that they’re working to ensure families have access to high quality options, and we greatly appreciate this.
A final note, the students and parents who have experienced this change are by far the most credible spokespeople. Maybe we can take a trip to Cameron College Prep in Nashville (charter conversation through MNPS/LEAD Public Schools partnership) and talk to students and parents about the experience? Cameron—a neighborhood school run by LEAD—was a Reward school this year, ranked in the top 5% of schools for growth. Is the school doing better than it did before, and is it set up to serve students successfully for years to come? These are the questions we prioritize.
(Follow Up Question): Many community members I’ve heard from are concerned with the education that will be received by the hundreds of students attending these schools now. What specific data suggests that the co-location model is the best choice to provide a high quality education for these students, and if that data doesn’t exist, why continue to advocate for that model?
Just to reiterate, the phase-in approach to school turnaround is an implementation option for operators and some of them take this approach because it has worked well for the students they serve. We advocate for this model not because of any study or specific data on the short-term effects of co-location—districts drive decisions on co-location and phase-out approaches—but because it ensures the highest quality operators serving kids, and it sets kids up for success over the long term.
Rep. Akbari from Memphis has filed a bill to curtail the ASD’s ability to implement the phase-in model currently employed. Should it pass, how would this impact the recruitment of high quality charters who, traditionally, prefer the phase-in model?
I may be misreading the press release you’ve shared, but one clarifying point worth mentioning—it’s not the ASD who sends kids in upper grades to other schools. That’s a district’s decision. We really appreciate Rep Akbari’s support for efforts to improve under-performing schools and would love to sit down with her and hear her feedback and ideas. Clearly she’s passionate about getting results for kids, and that’s what we’re all about. I’ll have to defer on the question of whether legislation should pass—think that’s best answered by those who are directly involved in the lawmaking process.
(Follow Up Question): You mention in your response that it’s not the ASD sending kids to another institution. However, under the current phase-in model, students displaced by the phase-in approach would seem to have no choice but to attend “another institution” even if that school is in the same building as the ASD school. Given that the ASD’s mission is to “prepare ALL students for college and career success,” do you think that the ASD should bear some of the responsibility for ensuring that these students have access to quality alternatives now since the phase-in is displacing them and if so, what alternatives would you suggest for these students?
Our primary responsibility is to the students and families we serve. Under a phase-in scenario, the phase-out grades are under the management of the local district. That said, we’re committed to exploring how we can partner with districts to ensure all students end out in a better school no matter the co-location arrangement.
Several charter organizations unexpectedly pulled out of agreements to take over schools during the matching process (Green Dot, KIPP and Freedom Prep) which impacted community’s choices of operators. Why did this happen, and what is your plan to ensure that this doesn’t happen going forward?
Since it was the operators’ decisions, they are best suited to answer why they made them. From the ASD’s perspective, we’ve openly acknowledged the unexpected nature and unfortunate timing of these decisions, but we stand by our operators’ right to make them because we’re never going to force an operator to open a school. If they’re not ready, if something has changed about their capacity to serve kids with excellence on day one, or if they choose to take more time to listen and get to know a community, that’s their decision. We don’t want to jeopardize the quality of services to kids because of some kind of unbending rule.
That said, we’re going to debrief this year’s matching process with operators and the Achievement Advisory Council (AAC) and discuss ways we can make it better. One topic might be how to better gauge operator readiness before we head into matching processes.
You specifically mentioned KIPP, Freedom Prep, and Green Dot in your question. We 100% believe that these operators offer students in Priority schools a better education than they’re getting and the most disappointing outcome of all is that hundreds of students will miss out on a KIPP, Freedom Prep, and Green Dot education next year. The great news is that all of these operators are serving more kids next year based on their existing growth plans, including new grades for Freedom Prep, KIPP’s new start elementary school, and Green Dot’s match with Wooddale.
(Follow Up Question): You reference changing the methods used to gauge readiness for approving charter authorizers. This suggests that the authorizer’s readiness was inadequately assessed prior to this fall. Could you elaborate on what methods were used to gauge readiness during this round of takeovers and what specifically you believe needs to change to avoid a similar outcome next year?
I simply said we’d debrief on matching and this topic might come up. We have an incredibly high bar for operator authorization and matching, including academic and operational capacity. We’ll keep this bar high. We’ve matched schools for three years and the vast majority of our charters have made it through the process. Where they haven’t, it’s not necessarily a capacity or readiness issue—sometimes it’s simply a choice (e.g. Green Dot choosing to listen to the community another year).
Several takeover schools in Memphis only had one charter operator interested in their school. What will you do in the future to work with communities to ensure that communities have a true choice of authorizers to work with?
We fundamentally agree that families should have as many high quality operators as possible from which to choose. There is no “one answer” here—especially given the ever-changing landscape of Priority schools, iZone options, etc.—but two things really stand out today. The first is squarely on our plate, and that’s to make sure we continue to see where there is still a need for more choices, and then authorizing and approving for growth the best public charter operators locally and nationally. The second is to work with the AAC and other key partners to engage in a broader conversation with families about improving access to high quality options.
Check back tomorrow for Part 2 of our Q&A with the ASD’s Elliot Smalley.
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.