The Tennessee Achievement School District
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE TENNESSEE 2016 APRIL ACHIEVEMENT SCHOOL DISTRICT: Race, History, and the Dilemma of Public Engagement JOSHUA L. GLAZER CORI EGAN WORKING PAPER WORKING At the George Washington University’s Graduate School of Education and Human Development (GSEHD), we advance knowledge through meaningful research that improves the policy and practice of education. Together, more than 1,300 faculty, researchers and graduate students make up the GSEHD community of scholars. Founded in 1909, GSEHD continues to take on the challenges of the 21st century because we believe that education is the single greatest contributor to economic success and social progress. RESEARCH TEAM MEMBERS: Joshua Glazer, The George Washington University Diane Massell, Center for Policy Research in Education Blair Beuche, University of Michigan Cori Egan, The George Washington University Laura Groth, The George Washington University Matthew Malone, The George Washington University Authors’ note: The authors offer thanks to Clarence Stone, Iris Rotberg, Gary Henry, and Donald Peurach for their helpful comments. This research is funded by a generous grant from the Walton Family Foundation. Questions and comments should be addressed to Joshua Glazer at [email protected]. GLAZER AND EGAN SEHD_1516_4 a EXECUTIVE SUMMARY In January 2010, Tennessee passed the First to the Top Act, a sweeping reform of the state’s education policy that was the cornerstone of its successful Race to the Top federal grant application. The Act created the Achievement School District (ASD), a state-run education authority with the power to directly run eligible schools and to authorize charter management organizations (CMOs) to operate schools. ASD leaders set an extraordinarily ambitious goal of moving schools from the bottom 5% into the top quartile of performance within five years, but they rely almost entirely on external providers to design and implement plans for curriculum, instruction, and school leadership. This paper examines the social and political dynamics behind the political turbulence surrounding the ASD. It is informed by 41 interviews with a purposefully chosen group of state and local leaders and other stakeholders. Intense Controversy Rooted in Regional History Since its inception, the ASD has generated considerable controversy, especially in Memphis where all but two of its schools are located. The level of controversy goes beyond the typical debates about charter schools and local control. Supporters and critics see the ASD in entirely different ways that are rooted in the historical experience of Memphis, particularly the region’s long history of highly charged racial dynamics. The experience of Memphis’s African American community, including issues of discrimination, segregation and desegregation, white flight, and the recent departure of six suburban municipalities from the Shelby County school district, has shaped many local residents’ interpretation and understanding of the ASD’s mission. While the immediate survival of the ASD does not appear to be threatened, the ongoing community backlash has led to instability and diverted resources from its mission. Advocates’ Views Advocates of the ASD see an initiative dedicated to improving learning outcomes for students who historically have been poorly served by the traditional system. From their perspective, the ASD is putting needed pressure on local districts that have failed to improve and are mired in an inefficient bureaucracy and paralyzed by interest group politics. Advocates also view the operation of ASD schools by CMOs as a “hyperlocal” approach that privileges the needs of parents and students over other adult interests and that keeps decision making and funding at the school level. Critics’ Views In stark contrast, detractors see in the ASD an enterprise motivated by profit, paternalism, reckless social engineering, and racism. Several critics have noted the ASD’s adverse financial implications for the Shelby County Schools, a district that is already under financial strain. Other community members have expressed skepticism about the agenda behind the philanthropic investments that have played a key role in establishing and supporting the ASD. They suspect the real purpose is to discredit the local system and promote charter schools. In addition, the replacement of mostly African American teachers with what critics perceive as a disproportionate number of young, white teachers has stoked fears about job security and middle-class status in a city where stable employment opportunities are scarce. Moreover, several respondents expressed indignation at the implication that students will be better served by young (and often white) college graduates than by experienced, local (and often African American) teachers. Other critics claim that the ASD lacks a nuanced feel for the unique culture and historical narratives of individual neighborhoods and that this has led to poor decisions and mistrust. They resent the presumption that Memphis can be “fixed” by outsiders. GLAZER AND EGAN i The inability of the ASD thus far to meet its ambitious performance objectives of moving schools from the bottom 5% into the top quartile of performance within five years has heightened these criticisms and led groups such as the Black Caucus and the Shelby County Board of Education to question the legitimacy of additional ASD school takeovers. ASD Response ASD leaders are attuned to these dynamics and realize the importance of building a broad coalition that will support its work over time. In a significant change in strategy, the ASD in 2015 replaced the previous advisory council with Neighborhood Advisory Councils (NACs) and gave them greater decision-making authority over the controversial process of matching schools with CMOs. The representation of parents was also increased to at least 50% of each council. Initial experience suggests, however, that these new councils have neither defused the perception of a hostile takeover of neighborhood schools nor made decisions that align completely with ASD priorities. The NACs appear susceptible to the same dynamics of democratic localism that critics of traditional districts have long bemoaned. The ASD’s centralized approach has enabled it to define a clear line of authority and to focus on a remarkably coherent set of goals. But coherence and focus have come at a price. Avoiding local political institutions has left the ASD vulnerable to the perception of an aggressive takeover of neighborhood schools. Its conception of hyperlocalism may eventually lead to high-performing schools, but in adopting this approach, ASD leaders have placed their legitimacy in the hands of providers whose success depends on their ability to overcome formidable challenges. ii GLAZER AND EGAN INTRODUCTION AND CONTEXT In January 2010, Tennessee passed the First to the Top Act, a sweeping reform of the state’s education policy that was the cornerstone of its successful Race to the Top application. Among its provisions, the Act authorized aggressive intervention in the state’s lowest performing schools. A key component of the plan was the establishment of a state-run education authority—the Achievement School District—with the power to directly run eligible schools and to authorize charter management organizations to operate schools. The ASD hired its first superintendent in August 2011 and entered into full operations with 5 schools in the fall of 2012. By 2015, the number of ASD schools had grown to 29, with 4 additional schools selected for conversion in 2016. All but 2 of these schools are in Memphis. As a state-run district, the ASD represents an unusual system of governance in US education. It has the legal responsibilities of a local education agency, the approval powers of an authorizing agent, and an enrollment policy that allows a segment of students to choose among the schools in its jurisdiction. It has set an extraordinarily ambitious goal of moving schools from the bottom 5% into the top quartile of performance within five years, but it relies heavily on external providers, specifically CMOs, to design and implement plans for curriculum, instruction, and leadership.1 Since its inception, the ASD has generated considerable controversy. This is not surprising since the powers to take over schools and make wholesale changes in faculty—both integral to the ASD strategy—are invariably contested and emotionally charged. Yet the level of dissent about the ASD, especially in Memphis where most of its schools are located, has surprised even seasoned observers of school reform. During the 2015 legislative session, 22 bills were filed that sought to limit or abolish the ASD, and several new anti-ASD bills have been submitted in 2016. The process for converting district-run schools into ASD schools has become increasingly contentious and at times hostile. A segment of local representatives, district officials, school board members, and community leaders has reported growing anger and frustration about the ASD. The immediate survival of the ASD does not appear to be threatened by these dynamics. The ASD is enshrined in state law, and the governor and many members of the state legislature see it as an important component of the state’s education strategy. Of the 22 anti-ASD bills submitted in 2015, all but 2 were easily defeated, and another law was enacted that allowed ASD schools to expand enrollment. The recent turnover in the commissioner of education office and the departure of Chris Barbic as ASD superintendent