By Ezra Howard

Summary: Co-location’s Impact on the Kids Left Behind

Nearly everyone agrees that struggling schools need support, but the disagreement comes with the best method to do so. In drastic cases, drastic measures are taken. The Obama administration has authorized four methods to receive federal funds for school improvement: Turnaround, Restart, Transformation, and School Closure.

For the turnaround model, Tennessee’s state run school district employs both whole school conversions and phase-ins.  For its phase-in schools, the charter operator adds a grade or more at a time until it runs the entire school. In the last year, Shelby County Schools has argued that co-location has been detrimental to students and learning and ended the practice. As a result of phase-in and the end of co-location, a large percentage of students are displaced from their neighborhood schools. While several charter authorizers have used this method in the past, its never been used on a wide scale in improving student achievement within struggling schools.

This study, one of the first of its kind, finds that the turnaround method may be beneficial to the schools themselves, but is detrimental to the students that are already in these schools. Given that other school turnaround methods have shown to be successful without the phase-in approach, I recommend that the ASD drop the phase in approach in favor of a whole school takeover.

Introduction: What is Co-location?

Phase-in and the resulting co-location for turning around struggling schools has been a hot debate of late in Memphis, TN. Phase-in is the growth of a school one or two grades at a time. The phase-in model is a typical way in which charters grow to full capacity.  The Achievement School District, a borderless district that absorbs schools from the Local Education Authority (LEA), and specifically its charter schools rely heavily upon the phase-in model. In turnaround efforts, this results in co-location where both the ASD and the LEA are housed in a single school building. In the past several months, the phase-in model and the practice of co-location has been source of tension between the ASD and Shelby County Schools (SCS), the LEA in Memphis, TN.

This study will look at the practice of phase-in turnovers and the resulting co-location in Tennessee and the effects thereof. The ASD argues that there are positive results for the phase-in model; the LEA argues that there are negative effects of the co-location symptomatic of the phase-in model. This study will look at the two sides of this coin.  First, it will study the effects in a qualitative manner, using case studies presented to Metro Nashville Public Schools (MNPS) of two schools in the midst of turnaround. Second, a quantitative analysis will be used to examine student achievement for both the charters being phased in and the LEA schools being phased out. Lastly, time will be given to the current debate of these practices.

Qualitative Analysis of Phase-in and Co-location

Very little history could be found on the use of phase-in as a method for charter growth. However, many charters operate under the phase-in model when establishing new schools. Charters within the ASD have relied upon this practice in turning around struggling schools, which, unlike most charters with new schools, results in co-location with the local district.

There are two primary case studies on schools in Tennessee examining phase-in charters co-locationg with district-run schools.  Interestingly enough, they both concern the same charter organization, LEAD public schools, in Nashville, TN. The first was conducted Jonathan Attridge, a researcher and analyst for the Tennessee Department of Education. Attridge conducted many in-depth interviews with those involved with the conversion of MNPS’s Cameron Middle School to LEAD’s Cameron College Prep. The second is actually a set of case studies on struggling schools conducted by the Tribal Group and commissioned by MNPS. Two of the Tribal studies examine Brick Church in 2011-12, the year prior to ASD takeover, and again in 2012-13, the first year of co-location with LEAD. While conducted by different individuals at different times, both Attridge and Tribal highlight similar strengths and shortcomings associated with phase-in and co-location.

In his report, Attridge outlines the turnover process of Cameron middle from MNPS to LEAD, one of the first transformations of a traditional public school to a charter school in the state. According to Attridge, progress was smooth throughout the planning process.  A new administration was brought in to manage the MNPS-run school and growth in student achievement was even seen during this time. However, as Attridge puts it, “The first year of co-location brought about a new set of challenges.” A major point of concern was with the recruiting quality staff, 13 out of 17 teachers in the first year of co-location had less than three years experience; the administration focused their recruiting on Teacher For America teachers whose commitment of two years would align with the timeline for MNPS phasing out. Morale was also an issue, as expressed by the administration, as teachers were concerned about their future plans. At the end of the 2012-13 school year, LEAD’s Cameron College Prep saw increased rates of student achievement. MNPS’s Cameron Middle’s level of achievement was inconsistent, showing negative as well as positive growth in all grade levels and content areas.

In 2011, Metro Nashville Public Schools contracted with the U.K.-based Tribal Group to examine and analyze a number of struggling schools in the district. Tribal presented case studies and recommendations tailored to each school it examined. Andreas Zelinski at the Nashville Scene provides a great synopsis of the findings and recommendations of the Tribal Group as a whole, however, with concern to co-locations, the reports from Brick Church in 2012-12 and 2012-13 are the most pertinent. Brick Church was taken over by the ASD in the district’s first cohort in 2012-13. As Tribal began its analysis in the previous year, they provide an interesting look at school both before and after co-location.

The Tribal reports echo that of Attridge. In the year prior to co-location, Tribal finds that “Overall, Brick Church Middle School is at a developing stage and beginning to add value to its students’ lives both academically, and with their personal and social development.” There are certainly areas in which to improve, such as a consistency in the quality of teaching and learning, but overall the culture is strong and morale is good. As a direct result of co-location, Brick Church regressed in a lot of way. As Tribal reports “This [phase-in] model has resulted in significant declines at the school in the areas of engagement, process, and culture.” Like Cameron, recruiting high-quality candidates were difficult. Many top performing teachers at Brick Church left the school in its first year of transformation and were replaced by novice or displaced teachers of lesser or unknown quality. Additionally, the culture at Brick Church began to sour. Teachers and students became envious of the collocated charter. Parents expressed grave concern that MNPS had given up on their children. The optimism for progressive growth in Brick Church was erased in a single year because of co-location.

Neither Attridge nor the Tribal Group present a very compelling case for phase-in and co-location. Attridge presents student achievement as a pro for LEAD’s phase-in model. However, they seem to be outweighed by the cons of co-location for the district’s side of the school. Together, it seems apparent that the case studies present a stronger case against co-location than it does for phase-in transformation.

Quantitative Analysis of Phase-in and Co-location

Using the data available through the Tennessee Department of Education, student achievement data was examined for the charters schools being phased in and the district schools being phased out. This level of analysis provides a quantitative balance to the qualitative reports of Attridge and the Tribal Group. Additionally, it provides an updated view of student achievement in collocated schools as both the Attridge and Tribal studies are now nearly two years old.

In the first two years of the ASD’s operation, six of its thirteen turnaround schools are charters that operate under a phase-in model. By official accounts, there are seventeen schools, however, Aspire split Hanley into two schools and both Grad Academy, Humes Prep – Lower Academy, and Pathways are considered “new start” schools and are not turning over existing schools. Currently in its third academic year, the ASD has two cohorts of schools with results from state assessments.

Phase-in Infographic

Phase-out Infographic

The data illustrates obvious positive trends with the schools being phased in; equally apparent are the negative trends for the schools being phased out.  Looking at the data alone, one could easily argue that the local district and its schools have failed these children. However, complimented by the case studies, there is more nuance to the situation. Phase-in turnaround is the death and life of the school, where one side seems to flourish and the other falters. It creates a tumultuous environment for teaching and learning. As a result, the current debate in Memphis is whether or not to end the practice of co-location.

The Current Debate

In a turnaround setting, phase-in and co-location become intricately inter-tangled. In Tennessee, these practices began with transition of Cameron Middle into Cameron College Prep mentioned in the Attridge report. These practices became widespread under the Achievement School District; there have been examples in each cohort of the state-run district. It has only been in the last year that phase-in and co-location have been widely criticized, and the local districts have been the most vocal.

In October of 2014, Shelby County Schools said it would end the practice of co-location. As Chalkbeat reported, “co-location has led to morale, recruitment and retention problems among principals and teachers who work for traditional public schools, and who know their jobs will be phased out.” These are the same issues of concern in both the Attridge and Tribal Group reports. The factors, SCS argues, have had a negative impact on the student achievement at these schools. The student achievement data reported by the state validates SCS’s concern. While ending co-location will displace several students at ASD’s phase-in schools, SCS hopes to mitigate the negative effects of co-location on student achievement.

Conversely, the Achievement School District stands behind its phase-in of charters. Charter leaders argue that the phase-in model allows them to modify their model and practices to fit the needs of the community. Second, it allows charters to share their innovative strategies with their fellow educators in the traditional public school being phased-out. However, as reported, “Many charter and traditional public school educators said they didn’t understand how to work with staff on the other side of the building because district leaders didn’t give them clear direction on what services and initiatives could be shared between the schools.” As it stands, collaboration exists in theory, but not in practice.

This begs the question of practice reflecting rhetoric. ASD officials often speak of a sense of urgency as well as minimizing disruption. SCS Superintendent Dorsey Hopson voiced his criticism and concern, saying he didn’t understand the reliance upon incremental phase-in rather than whole-school turnaround in light of the ASD’s message. After all, SCS’s iZone is proving the possible with whole-school turnaround efforts.

Legislation has also been recently introduced to confront the issues of the phase-in model and co-location. State Representative Raumesh Akbari, who represents District 91 in Memphis, filed two pieces of legislation in December of 2014 that addresses both phase-in and co-location. As reported by the Memphis Flyer, “One bill would prohibit the ASD from altering the grade structurer [sic] of the institution being taken over. A second, related measure would end the ‘phase-in’ process by which the ASD can take over the grade levels at a school by piecemeal intervals.” As Akbari put it, her legislation “will reinforce the original mission of the ASD, which is to turnaround failing schools and ensure that no child is denied the opportunity to succeed.”

Conclusion

In light of student achievement data, the phase-in approach to school turnaround has obviously been beneficial. However, phase-in is a double-edged sword, the other side of the blade being co-location. In a school being phased out, a number of factors contribute to a steady decline in student achievement. As a result, ending the practice of co-location is a wise decision for Shelby County Schools. Conversely, continuing to phase-in charters is proving to be more and more inappropriate for turnaround efforts at struggling schools and should be discontinued by the ASD.

The negative aspects of phase-in and co-location simply outweigh the positive. For one, turnaround decisions are governed by a sense of urgency; the phase-in approach fundamentally undermines this reasoning. Second, turnaround efforts are meant to help as many of the neediest students as possible; phasing in one grade at a time contradicts this motive. Next, with the end of co-location, the phase-in model will inevitably and unnecessarily displace a large amount of students, many of whom have always attended a neighborhood school. Lastly, the district’s iZone has proven successful at whole school turnaround without the use of the phase-in approach. As public schools in their own right, charters should be prepared to do the same.

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.