By The Numbers: Middle School Performance in Shelby County

TCAP data for the 2013-14 school-year has been released. And, since I’m particularly interested in middle school (transparency: I work for a public charter middle school), I’ve been analyzing trends in 6th-8th grades. But, first, some context.

Post-merger Shelby County Schools (SCS) is a portfolio district that oversees a total of 247 schools across the city of Memphis, six different municipalities, and non-incorporated areas of the county. Those schools can be broken into five basic types: public charter schools, district-run I-Zone schools (turnaround efforts for schools among the bottom-5% in the state), legacy-SCS schools (serving the municipalities and non-incorporated areas), and legacy-MCS schools (serving those within the city limits).

Overall, the district did very well on growth, with TVAAS (Tennessee’s value-added measure) scores of 5 in all areas. However, middle school was a particular area of concern, as the vast majority of schools earned either the highest Level 5 (40.6%) or the lowest Level 1 (33.3%). This stark contrast can also be seen in the fact that, while 11 SCS middle schools earned their way to the state’s Reward List for either achievement or growth among the top-5% of schools in Tennessee, another 16 are on the new Priority List for achievement scores among the bottom-5%.

Middle school is a particular tricky time during one’s education, so it would be interesting to analyze TVAAS data for SCS middle schools (see attached spreadsheet) to see what’s going on here. And, since there are different types of schools in the district’s portfolio, it would be interesting to look for trends in each type of school.

The purpose here is to answer the following questions:

  • Which types of schools are adding the most value in middle school? (We need to look at what these schools are doing and replicate their efforts.)
  • Which types of schools are adding the least value in middle school? (We need to provide these schools with supports to improve and also learn from their mistakes.)

Graph 1

 

There are a total of 69 middle schools in SCS; 18 (26.1%) are public charter schools, 7 (10.1%) are district-run I-Zone schools, 15 (21.7%) are legacy-SCS, and 29 (42%) are legacy-MCS schools.

Graph 2

 

TVAAS Composite scores reflect the value added in all tested subjects. In short, this is the overall performance of a school. The good news is that, within district middle schools, most (40.6%) earned the highest score of Level 5, while another 15.9% also added value at expected levels or above. So, over half (56.5%) met or exceeded expectations. The bad news is that many (33.3%) earned the lowest score of Level 1, with another 10.1% at Level 2, for a total of 43.4% failing to meet expectations. This is troublesome.


Graph 3

 

On the whole, the district is doing pretty well with Literacy. The vast majority, nearly two-thirds, of schools are meeting or exceeding expectations. But that still leaves just over one-third of district middle schools adding value at below expected levels.

Graph 4

Numeracy is a big problem, though. Well over half of district middle schools are adding value at levels below expectations. But there is some good news: a full 29% of schools earned the highest score of Level 5.

Graph 5

When Literacy and Numeracy are combined, nearly half of district middle schools are adding below expected value. Compared to Literacy alone and Numeracy alone, this shows that Numeracy scores were so low as to outweigh the positives in Literacy. Obviously, the big problem is with Math.

Graph 6

If we look at Composite scores by school type, we see that Charter, I-Zone, and Legacy-MCS schools are doing pretty well. Legacy-SCS schools, on the other hand, are doing quite poorly, with 93% of schools failing to meet expectations. Compare that to the 28% of Charter, 14% of I-Zone, and 34% of Legacy-MCS schools below expectations. Clearly, there is a problem in Legacy-SCS middle schools, which leads to the conclusion that TVAAS scores for SCS middle schools will improve next year just by the formation of the municipal schools districts. Likewise, this also leads to the conclusion that TVAAS scores for municipal school districts will be low.

Graph 7

In the area of Literacy, we see a similar pattern. Charter, I-Zone, and Legacy-MCS schools are doing fairly well, while Legacy-SCS schools are underperforming.

Graph 8

Numeracy, though, is another story. Here, the only bright spot is the I-Zone schools. Charter schools, in particular, are struggling with Math, with just a few bright spots. Legacy-SCS schools are doing better in Math, but are still doing poorly.

Graph 9

When Literacy and Numeracy are combined, I-Zone continues to shine and Legacy-MCS is doing pretty well. Charters have mixed results, while Legacy-SCS continues to struggle.

So, what does this all mean? What are the key takeaways for the district?

Three things immediately jump out as areas of improvement: Math is a problem, some charter schools are seriously underperforming, and Legacy-SCS schools aren’t pulling their weight with regard to student growth.

Since most schools from Legacy-SCS will no longer be part of the district portfolio next year, as they will be part of the new municipal districts, there’s not much to say about them except that suburban residents and leaders should be concerned.

With regard to Math, the district needs to place a major emphasis on improvement. We should expect to see some new Math initiatives from the district and extra support to schools. When the 15 Legacy-SCS middle schools are removed, less than half of the remaining 54 middle schools are meeting expectations. I-Zone schools are doing pretty well, with 5 of their 7 schools meeting expectations, so the district should definitely look there for best practices. Yet, they should look for best practices from other large, urban districts as well.

The district should also put pressure on those 12 charter schools failing to meet expectations, each of which earned the lowest score of Level 1. The state legislature recently passed a bill that would revoke a school’s charter if, beginning in 2015, it lands on the state’s Priority List for scoring among the bottom-5% of schools in Tennessee. I believe strongly in charter school accountability and applaud the state for taking this step. However, it remains the case that these charter schools fall under the jurisdiction of Shelby County Schools and, as such, their scores go to the district. Thus, I would like to see the district take some measures to ensure that these schools make the improvements necessary to stay off the Priority List.

The charter school community has a responsibility here too. Low-performing charters (e.g., the Du Bois schools, the City University schools, KIPP’s Middle Academy, to name a few) are harming the reputation of all charters, but Memphis currently lacks the structures for charter schools to learn from one another or to hold each other accountable. A charter school co-op, like those found in New Orleans and DC, would be a great way to hold inter-charter dialogue, provide support to charters, and ensure quality.

All data for this piece can be access here: TVAAS SCS Middle Schools 2014

James Aycock is currently the Director of Scholar Support at Grizzlies Prep, an all-boys public charter middle school located in downtown Memphis. He previously served as the founding Special Education Coordinator with Tennessee’s Achievement School District, after several years as a special educator and baseball coach for Memphis City Schools. Contact him at [email protected].

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *