In opening her piece she states “Memphis is poised to become the next national center for New Orleans-style school governance.”  And this isn’t just her saying it, it also comes out of the mouths of district officials.  The stated goal of this system, to quote Brad Leon, is to create “a system of schools” similar to what New Orleans has done.” Those words will make you cheer or shudder depending on which side of the education reform debate you come down on.

I won’t quote the whole article here because it is extensive, but my favorite graphic from the whole article shows the speed and extent to which these new “systems of schools” are already forming:

As a teacher in our city I’m both encouraged and worried by what I read here. I’m encouraged because, unlike many urban cities with struggling education systems, we are truly taking action to address the tremendous inequalities that exist in our system.  I work in a high performing charter (Soulsville) and see the tremendous impact it can make on kids, especially those that would otherwise attend the neighborhood school where I used to work (right down the road at Hamilton High).  I’m also encouraged because I sincerely believe that these people truly want to see quality educational outcomes for all children.  Personally, I’ve never bought into the corporate reform mindset that believes all school reformers are out to destroy public education in our state.

At the same time, I’m worried that creating these new systems will only solidify tiered inequality in our city.  I can easily foresee a system where the lucky few attend high performing charters, those zoned for the ASD attend those schools and the district pours its time and money into iZone while neglecting those schools and students that don’t fall under the umbrella of the iZone, most likely due to lack of resources.  Furthermore, out in the municipalities, which will not fall under the jurisdiction of SCS and these reform efforts, there may be NOTHING done to combat the inequalities that exist there. Outcomes in these areas are still woefully low by any standard and should be a part of any reform efforts in Shelby County.

I’m also worried about the impact this approach will have on teachers in these new systems.  In my experience and in that of my colleagues, those that work in charters, ASD schools and iZone schools work incredibly hard and burnout is common due to the numerous stressors that come with trying to turn around long time failing schools.  I know many teachers who have left their charter schools in the past year because of the high stress environment.  This is true whether I talk to teachers in ASD charters, non-ASD charters or iZone schools across the city.

As these “systems of schools” expand, it is imperative that charter operators and system superintendents work to ensure that this pattern doesn’t continue.  Educators want schools where they can work for an extended period of time.  They need to see these new schools as long-term career options where they can work for five, ten, even fifteen years while continuing to be successful. I firmly believe that for this to happen, there needs to be some sort of teacher voice heard in this process to ensure that these type of work conditions exist.  Unions and charters have not traditionally worked well together, so that’s probably not the answer, but there needs to be some sort of unified teacher voice ensuring we make this vision a reality. Because at the end of the day, education is about the quality of the people we put in the building with the children.  All the reforms in the world won’t do us any good if we can’t get good people to come to and continue teaching in whatever school systems we put into place.

Are you a Memphis or Shelby County educator?  What do you think about this “systems of schools” approach?  Email us your thoughts at [email protected], then sign up for our email list and follow us @bluffcityed on twitter!

Jane Roberts at the Commercial Appeal does a great piece on how charters that operate outside the ASD in Memphis are disadvantaged because they need to build or lease their own space, which results in less funding that can be spent on students.  David Reaves has brought this issue up before, she reports, and it may be time for action:

Shelby County Schools board member David Reaves believes it’s time for a change in policy. He brought the issue up in June, but no action was taken and the board has not addressed it since.

“If charters are all public schools, they should be allowed to use the buildings for the cost of the deferred maintenance,” he said. “If we have a building we are not using or are going to shut down, I think any public school should be able to use the facility for free, plus maintenance. Taxpayers have already paid for them once.”

Governor Haslam announced this past Thursday that he is going to make raising teacher pay a priority in his administration:

“We’re asking our students to be the fastest improving in the nation in education achievement, and the data is showing that we’re making real progress,” Haslam said. “Teachers are the single most important factor in student achievement, and higher accountability for teachers and proven results should be met with better rewards.”

Jane Roberts also gets a great quote from Allyson Chick, the 2012-13 Tennessee Teacher of the Year about this announcement:

“The stakes are so high and the accountability standards are so high that teachers are working harder than ever before and it’s time teachers get paid for the work they’re doing. Teachers want to be part of the American Dream too, to be able to support their families.”

Andy Spears at Tennessee Education Report posts a summary of a Valerie Strauss article in the washington post arguing that 20 years of the TVAAS system has actually told us very little about student achievement and good teaching.  The article contains a breakdown of proficiency rates at all charters in Tennessee, making it worth a scan even if you don’t have time to read the whole thing.  Their basic argument is that the focus on growth rates helps to mask the continuing inequality inherent in the achievement gap. Expect a post on this sometime in the next few days!

Pros:

• Aligns with the TCAP scoring categories to give parents a better idea of where their students fall on that spectrum: “ASD is being more honest about how kids are doing. They are no longer artificially inflating grades. If you can only answer 64% correctly, you get a 64, not a 70. Assuming the tests they are using are aligned with TCAP, there should be no big surprises when the scores come back next year.”
• The system is based on mastery, which allows students to raise their grade over time as they master and improve: “It’s good, too, that the ASD is doing standards-based grading. They are breaking the subject-area grades out into the major strands. And so, instead of just getting a Math grade, you get a grade on Equations, on Ratios & Proportions, on Geometry, etc. This is important because these are all very different skills. Maybe a kids is great at equations, but is really struggling with geometry. You don’t get that in the traditional grading system. But here you have more information, and more specific information, that tells kids what they need to be working on and tells parents where they should be helping their kids.”

Cons:

• COMMUNICATION (like almost everything with the ASD) hasn’t been positive and consistent: “The initial letter they sent home had the wrong grading scale. And that same letter referred to homework, classwork, and studying as “nonacademic.” The latter, especially, put them on the defensive from the go.”
• The system is designed to more closely align to the TCAP, but keeps the traditional grading levels (A, B, C, etc.), causing confusion: “There’s no way getting around the fact that a 59, what was solidly an “F” before, is now a “C.” Or that a kid can get a “D,” which is a passing grade, with a 47. That’s right – you can pass while getting more answers wrong than right! It’s no wonder folks are accusing them of lowering standards!”

I’ve posted sections here, but the entire piece is worth a read as it covers the whole issue in much more depth than the snippets I’ve posted here give you.

Commercial Appeal: Between the ASD and Izone, 14 new schools are expected to join these respective reform districts.  Izone is Memphis specific and ASD is a borderless district that transcends district and county boundaries with the aim of raising the bottom 5 percent of schools to the top of the state. Schools up for takeover in 2014:

Izone:

• Grandvew Heights Middle
• Vance Middle
• Hamilton High
• Melrose High
• Trezevant high
• Carver (take over or closed)

ASD:

• Denver Elementary, Spring Hill Elementary
• Coleman Elementary
• Westwood Elementary
• Southside Middle
• Wooddale Middle
• Frayser high
• Carver High or Fairley High

If I were to speculate, I would imagine ASD would take over Carver rather than Fairley because they will be already invested in the South Memphis community.  Now that both Izone and ASD are completely taking over feeder patterns (ASD owns Frayser), I look forward to watching the progress of these mini systems like the Hamilton system in South Memphis and the Frayser system in North Memphis.  For what its worth, Izone beat out ASD last year for overall growth.

Given the connections between SCS chief of Innovation Bradley Leon and Teach for America (Mr. Leon is the former executive director of TFA Memphis), I imagine that cooperation between Izone and the teacher training program will only expand in the coming years.

Mathematic: Speaking of expanding relationships with TFA, an IES analysis conducted by mathematica about Teach for America and Teaching Fellow programs and their effectiveness came out a few days ago.  The study’s two key takeaways:

TFA teachers were more effective than the teachers with whom they were
compared. On average, students assigned to TFA teachers scored 0.07 standard  deviations higher on end-of-year math assessments than students assigned to comparison teachers, a statistically significant difference. This impact is equivalent to an additional 2.6 months of school for the average student nationwide.
2. Teaching Fellows were neither more nor less effective than the teachers with whom they were compared.

This is encouraging news for Teach for America supporters, although the bashing has already begun (see some of the comments on eduwonk).

As I tell my kids every day, numbers give you power when you use them correctly.  However, I also tell them that you can always disprove numbers, so they are not a foolproof argument.  My quick two cents on the likely impact of this study; it will only make supporters of alternative certification programs more sure that they are correct and it will do nothing for those who are ardently opposed to such programs.  Very little will change as a result.