Analyzing the ASD’s Approach

In the early years of the Achievement School District (ASD), administrators held community meeting in school slated for takeover and confronted the community with their schools poor data. They were blunt and honest. Now, with mounting criticism, we see the constant spin of data and rhetoric over results. We see this once again with Dr. Nickalous Manning’s guest column, “All Children, One Memphis.” To be fair, Dr. Manning did not begin this rhetoric, but his guest column is certainly a continuation of it.

I find the rhetoric to be a deflection from real and valid criticism of the ASD and its approach to school turnaround. While collaboration is certainly a virtue in education, a hard look should be taken at the ASD’s approach. All this nice talk about collaboration avoids these courageous conversations. I think people will find that there are some serious flaws in the way in which the ASD and its operators are taking on the arduous task of school turnaround. I agree with Mr. Manning that working together is important, but if the ASD’s has fundamental flaws and does not address them then no amount of collaboration will help.

The facts have put the Achievement School District on the defensive and as such there are two major themes to the ASD’s current message. First, the ASD continuously tries to take credit for the success of iZone. This shift in the ASD’s message seems to first appear this summer with a presentation given by Superintendent Malika Anderson, which she calls “catalytic impact,” to Senate Education Subcommittee and repeated again in the latest legislative session.

Secondly, there is a sudden and repeated call for collaboration between SCS and the ASD. The ASD and its supporters began pushing for collaboration after garnering criticism after a Vanderbilt study compounded by a contentious matching process with the Neighborhood Advisory Council. Mr. Manning echoes both messages with the allusion that it was due to the collaboration between Hanley and Cherokee that both schools received level 5 TVAAS scores. However, the data suggests that Cherokee is taking off with student results while Aspire continues to fail its students (see graph below):

Both Hanley Aspire schools have had pretty poor results overall. In 2013, prior to takeover, math was at 22.7% proficient or advanced and reading was at 10.4% for Hanley. Hanley’s Aspire 1 now has math scores at 26.6% and reading at 7.6% while Hanley’s Aspire 2 math is at 19.8% and reading at 12.3%. In reality, one half of the school is doing worse in math while the other is slightly better, the same can be said for reading. Moving the needle 2-4 percentage points in two years of school turnaround work is by all accounts unacceptable. In fact, the only reason Hanley Aspire 1 and 2 have a 5 on TVAAS is because they did so spectacularly poor in their first year – double digit drop in math and they cut their reading score in half. Faltering achievement was the primary reason that the NAC could not justify a match this past year.

By comparison, Cherokee went from 14.5% pre-iZone to 43.8% and then 65% in math. In reading, Cherokee went from 16.4% pre-iZone to 26.7% and then 54.2%. To put things in perspective, Cherokee is a reward school in the top quartile of schools in two years while both Aspire Hanley schools are on the priority list. Both schools started turnaround work at the same time.

There are definite trends in both the ASD and iZone. A great deal of ASD schools see tremendous losses in their first year, then there is a year of recovery, followed by sluggish gains. The iZone schools largely see double digit gains in their first year followed by 5-10 percentage point gains in year two and three. That’s the basic explanation for why Vanderbilt found the ASD’s gains as statistically insignificant while the iZone’s were impressive.

In the face of such blunt criticism, the ASD has argued rather than listened.

The ASD has argued that it is responsible for iZone success because of increased competition. Faced with the fear of state takeover and charter conversion, SCS was forced to improve. There is definitely some truth to that assertion. However, it’s unfair for the ASD to continually try and take credit for another party’s success when it is failing so miserably. Furthermore, it stands contradictory to its sudden call for collaboration. It feels very much like the ASD is trying to have its cake and eat it too. I really do wonder if the situation was reversed if the ASD would be arguing the virtues of cooperation and collaboration.

The ASD has also argued for patience. It is correct that research has shown it takes about five years to accurately gauge results of drastic changes in educational practice and policy. However, the argument for patience is not one against changing either policy or practice and it’s certainly not an argument for continued expansion. The highly contentious NAC system illustrates that the ASD has no real intention revising its fundamental practices and policies regarding school turnaround.

There is one primary suggestion I have for the ASD: demand concrete accountability for student achievement from its operators. I’ve said it before, but I believe that if the ASD required its operators to achieve an average TVAAS score 4 or 5 in order to expand then that would alleviate a lot of the issues. However, looking at the trends with Hanley as an example, I’m not sure one year of TVAAS scores would be an accurate assessment of an operator’s ability.

I want these schools to succeed. I believe everyone within the ASD and the organizations supporting them want these schools and these students to succeed. However, the ASD is going to have to take criticism seriously and change its methods. If the ASD does not reevaluate their entire approach to school turnaround and continue as if its business as usual, then the district and its operators continue the cycle of schools failing communities.

This piece was published today along with the publication of the new TCRED report on the ASD’s first years. The entire report is available here and worth the read.

By Ezra Howard

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.