New study suggests Tennessee’s school turnaround models are not leading to long-term improvements in student performance

A graphic shows high school EOC scores for students who began middle school in each year before and after turnaround reforms began in 2012. (Photo from Brown University’s Annenberg Institute)

A new study published by Brown University’s Annenberg Institute indicates that middle school students in the state’s two primary school turnaround models have made very little academic progress since school improvement programs were launched more than a decade ago.

According to the study, which examined the effect of attending a turnaround middle school on student outcomes in high school, including test scores, attendance, chronic absenteeism, disciplinary actions, dropout rates, and graduation data, students achieved few gains from their time in the state’s Achievement School District (ASD) and Tennessee’s Innovation Zone (I-Zone) schools based mostly in Memphis.

The study said in the case of the state-run Achievement School District, high school test scores have generally worsened. Student test scores in math have also been on the decline in the Innovation Zone. The study also noted that the two school improvement programs failed to make a significant impact on students’ ACT scores. In addition, the research noted that the two programs have not boosted high school graduation rates.

What’s more, data relating to absenteeism, attendance, and student discipline showed little improvement among students leaving these programs.

“We find little evidence to support improved long-run student outcomes – mostly null effects that are nearly zero in magnitude. Our results contribute to a broad call for educational researchers to examine whether school reforms meaningfully affect student outcomes beyond short-term improvements in test scores,” the report noted.

Lawmakers created the ASD as part of Tennessee’s First to the Top Act of 2010 as an intervention the Commissioner of Education may require for the state’s lowest performing schools. The ASD is a state-run school district that operates similarly to a local school district, providing operational oversight to the schools assigned to it or schools which the ASD itself authorizes charter school operators to manage.

Local school districts have the option of creating an I-Zone to serve low performing schools. Once approved, the district must establish an I-Zone office, appoint an office leader with management authority to hire staff for the office, and appoint a leader for each school placed in the I-Zone. Approved schools remain under the management of the local school district but have autonomy over financial, programmatic, and staffing decisions, similar to the autonomy granted to schools placed in the Achievement School District.

According to the study, the recent data shows “very little evidence of positive persistent/latent effects after students leave an ASD or iZone middle school,” despite recent systemic reforms aimed at improving literacy and students’ understanding of science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) related subjects. It noted that this was not helped by the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to school closures and further handicapped efforts to boost student performance across the state.

                                Lam Pham (Photo from NC State) 

Overall, the study noted “null ASD effects,” while iZone middle schools had some positive short-term effects on student achievement among middle schoolers. These effects in iZone did not carry over after students leave middle school, however.

Lam Pham, a North Carolina State University researcher who led the research team’s work in Tennessee, said in a recent report from Chalkbeat that the findings overall show that school improvement work needs to broaden its focus beyond annual state test scores. He added that the results demonstrate the need for collaboration among educators and administrators, as well as interventions and supports focusing on socio-emotional learning across K-12 grade levels.

“Educators respond to the accountability system that’s set for them, which in this case was test scores,” he said to Chalkbeat, adding that there’s also been a limited number of highly-effective instructors who are willing to transfer to or remain with low-performing schools.

“If we’re thinking about how to model this in the future, yes, we want improved test scores, but we also want a better schooling experience for our students,” he added in the report. “Our accountability systems need other measures so that educators respond more holistically to improving long-term student outcomes.”

To learn more about the study’s findings and methodology, visit edworkingpapers.com.