Why does government data have to be so messy?!

In short, it doesn't.

This. So. Much. This. http://flowingdata.com/2014/06/10/how-to-make-government-data-sites-better/

Estimating Supply & Demand in PK4 Planning

As I have described earlier (here, and here), I am working on projection estimates for PK4 in MNPS. Given the limitations of a summer-only role and the many, many factors at play in the decisions, I do not know what role these estimates will ultimately play in the strategy around PK4 expansion. But I can at least feel confident that I am providing accurate and useful information around specific questions, namely: the (1) available supply and the (2) current unmet need for PK4 across the district and in each cluster, and (3) illustrate trends in each cluster’s distinct PK4 needs and assets. So! In the interest of sharing what I have learned thus far, here is a progress report of sorts.

Definitions:    I have already sought and obtained initial figures on each of these inputs, and am in the process of cleaning, re-organizing, and crunching the numbers so that I can pull them together in a meaningful way. 

1.     Demand = Number of students who applied for this year’s PK4 through MNPS, as organized by their zone of residence

2.     Need = Students who are projected to enroll in a MNPS zoned school for Kindergarten the following year (Proxy for PK4)

3.     Need Trend = Anticipated growth in Kindergarten enrollment over time, for each zoned school

4.     Public Supply, Total = PK4 slots currently available thru MNPS and Head Start, by cluster 

5.     Public Supply, EE = Public PK4 slots allocated exclusively for children receiving Exceptional Education services

6.     Private Supply = Slots currently provided by private entities, by cluster.

7.     Private "High-Quality" Supply = Slots that are provided by entities that are accredited by the National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC), or that are three-star providers as determined by the voluntary Star-Quality Child Care Program (determined by the TN Department of Human Services Child Care Services office).

8.     Accessibility = Characteristic of each school zone's residents, which indicates families' reliance on public transportation vs. private vehicles (aggregated at the census tract level, using the ACS package in R - about which I have a blog post under construction).

Assumptions:  Every child who attends a MNPS elementary for kindergarten is likely to consider enrolling in a MNPS PK4 classroom if it were available in their residential cluster. Therefore, it is appropriate to consider projected Kindergarten enrollment in AY1415 as an appropriate proxy for projected PK4 need in AY1314. 

Limitations:    (1) Analysis captures anticipated trends for zoned schools, rather than trends for schools of choice or specialty schools. (2) Although it is intended to reflect the reality that some parents will always choose to keep their 4-year-old at home or choose private providers rather than enroll them in public PK4, the distinction between Need and Demand seems a little bit fussy, and ultimately may not be useful. (3) This is a preliminary working construct of "high quality" and cannot, by definition, capture all the characteristics that make up a quality ECE experience. But we must start somewhere, and so we start with NAEYC and Three-Star.

Thoughts, questions, suggestions? Did I miss something really obvious? 

So where do we go from here? Parents and Teachers in Title I Schools

“Educators from any racial background can be successful with any group of students whe the educators have (or are willing to garner) the knowledge, attitudes, dispositions, and skills necessary to understand and to be responsive to their students’ social, instructional, and curriculum needs.” (Milner, 2010, p. 19)

In this paper⁽¹⁾ I have illustrated the many and subtle ways that discourse and policy around parent engagement can reproduce injustice in the classroom. The problems illuminated here – namely deficit discourse, colorblindness, cultural racism, availability bias – reside in multiple settings, both within American culture and within the policy infrastructure. I recognize that these problems were not created exclusively by policy, and they cannot be addressed exclusively through policy. There is no simple strategy for excising the roots of American racism in our public schools. These problems are not exclusively about racial ideology – they are also about how the country socially constructs poverty. In the words of one teacher, families in poverty “are effectively working miracles to present their children in clean clothes at the school door every day” – even when much of the American public has written them off (Jones, 2014).

Yet despite all this I remain hopeful. In my experiences working on parent engagement, teachers across all racial groups have found the process of making visible their own unexamined frames to be extremely valuable for their work with families in poverty, even if the process prompted some surprises and some self-reflection. Do I really believe, they asked themselves, that "All Parents Have Dreams for Their Children and Want the Best for Them? What led me to think otherwise? And was I wrong?" Making visible these frames is the first step in a process by which teachers can reframe families in an affirmative manner and diminish the sense of antagonism between school and family (Henderson et al., 2007b). This shows me that even within existing requirements and regulations, steps can be taken to move teachers and families in a positive direction. Here are four recommendations that could make a difference on these complex challenges:

Teacher Retention Incentives in Tennessee

[Notes for post in progress]

Shout-outs to Walker, Luis, and Springer. 


http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/teacherbeat/2014/06/tennessee_teacher-retention_bo.html?r=1587643098

http://www.tnconsortium.org/data/files/gallery/ContentGallery/Effective_Teacher_Retention_Bonuses_Evidence_from_TN.pdf

"Considerable Noncompliance" - we've seen this elsewhere, right? In other stuff Springer has done, where local committees basically decided how to divvy it up and it didn't necessarily accomplish the desired outcomes.


Still: What about teachers for non-tested subjects?

ACS, SABINS: Wrangling census data for school-level analysis

[Post in progress] Your nerd giggle of the day: My phone keeps auto-correcting ACS (the American Community Survey) to ACA (the Affordable Care Act). It has also been correcting TTFN (ta-ta for now!) to TANF (Temporary Aid for Needy Families, or, the federal grant that provides public assistance or "welfare"). I find this really amusing.

Continuing the project from earlier  - one step forward, two steps back, more forward.

Looking for resources on graphics for another project, I found the choropleth package.

Alas, while it DOES do zip codes, this package does not go all the way down to the block or even block group level data.

Nested Census geographies (from census.gov)

BUT! This lead me to the acs package, from Ezra Haber Glenn outta MIT. And although the documentation only discusses up thru ACS 5-year 2011, the Census API now goes up through 2012. Yay! Could have saved me a bunch of time in pulling the raw data itself.... Alas. Now to install. Walking through the tutorial (essentially) and pulling the necessary code for the county, by block or block group. [Use pretty R to make the R snippets look pretty]

% related to links to look at later - http://gadm.org/ 

Acknowledgements: Parents and Teachers in Title I Schools

I wish to express my thanks to those individuals without whom this project -- my major research and analysis paper for my MPP -- would not have been possible.

First, my deepest thanks to Dr. Catherine Gavin Loss, for patience and counsel, for encouragement for my unorthodox framing to an important question, and for helping me think about the issues at hand from multiple perspectives. This project is not the sum total of everything I have wanted to write about over the course of this project (and thank goodness!) but it certainly represents the best of what I have learned at Peabody. And that is thanks to the unwavering advocacy and support of Dr. Loss.

My gratitude also to Dr. Sandra Barnes, for the introduction to the wide world of sociological inquiry, and for demonstrating the power of rigor and precision in the service of justice. She was (metaphorically!) looking over my shoulder as this paper came together, and I can only hope that I have done these texts justice.

I must also thank Dr. Joe Murphy, whose wisdom, scholarship, and humor were steadying even my most skeptical moments. (This is "seed-bed work'' indeed, Murph.)

My gratitude also to fellow Peabody students Chelsea Henkel, for taming my chaotic early drafts, and Joanna Geller, for sharing the riches of her research and welcoming me into her own inquiry.

I also wish to acknowledge Dr. H. Richard Milner IV, for welcoming this stray policy student into his course on culturally responsive pedagogy, and for demonstrating the power of these CRT frames in the teacher education classroom.

In the Nashville community, I am deeply grateful to Robin Veenstra-VanderWeele and Laura Bilbrey, for the richness of my practicum experiences with TIP in the Promise Neighborhood. I also wish to thank the TIP groups at Kirkpatrick Enhanced Option Elementary School and the Early Learning Center at Martha O'Bryan Center.

On a personal note, I thank Bridget O'Brien, for counsel and expertise, Andrew Remick, for cheering me along toward the finish line, and Jennifer Muñoz, for patience and for keeping me human these last many years. I would also like to thank my own "first teachers'', Elizabeth Abeyta-Price and Craig Price, for raising all three of their children to love justice and to fight oppression. Surely this paper is part of that mission.

Above all, I must express gratitude for my partner Matthew Smedberg. At every step of this project he has encouraged, cajoled, coaxed, nudged, catalyzed, soothed, supported, chivvied, cheered, consoled, proofread, clarified, debugged, championed, advised, edited, prodded, challenged, and now, finally, celebrated. I may be the sole author of this paper, but he is the reason it is out of my brain and onto the page.


***
Acknowledgements in frontmatter of "Parents and Teachers In Title I Schools: A Critical Race Theory Analysis of Parent Engagement". I am happy to provide a copy of the manuscript (PDF) to interested parties.
***

Intro: Parents and Teachers In Title I Schools

Parent Engagement is Good for Student Achievement

A broad body of research demonstrates that students do better in school when their learning is supported at home. Teachers write newsletters and make phone calls, principals host back-to-school nights, and districts hire family outreach coordinators – all with the goal of encouraging parents to interact with their children in particular ways. These strategies are rooted in the assumption that if some engagement is good for student learning, then more is better. But what exactly are parents supposed to do more of? The consensus definition of parent engagement may exist only on the school side of the school-family dynamic – that is, consensus between teachers, policymakers, and school leaders. How parent engagement is defined by these school-side actors, then, may not reflect the ways in which some parents choose to be engaged in their child’s academic development. What does this mean for student learning, when parents and teachers have different understandings of parent engagement?

A naïve observer might assume that there is an easy confluence of interests around increasing parent engagement. Policymakers, for example, put tremendous pressure on schools that serve low-income children of color; increasing parent involvement is seen as a policy strategy for addressing school achievement goals. Most teachers and principals would love for parents to be involved in the student’s learning, and parents across all race and class profiles want what’s best for their children. In the best scenarios, teachers and parents both act to support the student’s growth and learning. Yet as it is currently understood by teachers and policymakers alike, parent engagement policies and practices are rife with cross-cultural misunderstandings. This is particularly true for schools serving communities in concentrated poverty, or where there is racial incongruence between the community and the school faculty. For these schools, existing concepts and policies actually may be counterproductive for the parent-teacher relationship and consequently for student learning.

In this paper(1), I situate parent engagement practice and policy in the context of school improvement pressures, and review the research about how teachers make sense of parents. First I illustrate the three main ways in which teachers understand parent engagement. Using Tennessee data to illustrate nationwide trends, I then situate my analysis in the comparative demographics of students and teachers in Title I schools. Using a lens informed by critical race theory, I illuminate the negative images and racialized discourse around parent engagement, identify ways in which bias can enter into a teacher’s understanding of parents, and show the paths by which these subtle attitudes can actually disincentivize parents from certain engagement behaviors. Finally, I offer suggestions to move from the current models of parent engagement toward a more robust and affirmative understanding of families.


***
(1) Introduction to my major degree-required paper, "Parents and Teachers In Title I Schools: A Critical Race Theory Analysis of Parent Engagement". I am happy to provide a copy of the entire manuscript (PDF) to interested parties.
***

Childfind: Data and the 4YO children in Nashville (Part 1)

Well, this is going to be complicated.  

As I wrote at the outset of this project, one of the policy/planning questions that needs to be addressed is how many four-year-old children live in Davidson County? Generating a smart estimate has turned out to be more complex than I anticipated initially.

In short, no wonder nobody has tackled this process before!

Turns out, isn't really the responsibility of any one particular government entity to track children in this age cohort. Or, rather, lots of entities track some of these kiddos, but nobody tracks all of them. So I need to bring the relevant data together and build the model myself.

Initially, my plan was to (a) fit kindergarten enrollment numbers, by year and by school cluster, and then (b) use that model as a proxy for the number of five-year-old children who would have been eligible for four-year-old (universal, voluntary) pre-K had it been in place in the previous year. From this figure I could determine trend lines for PK need, and predict/forecast  But as I discovered, there are some characteristics of the data itself that will necessitate adjustments to the plan.

School Geography is a Cluster...

Before you scold me for the pun implied above, you need to know that MNPS is organized into twelve geographically delineated units called "clusters" -- a zoned high school, and its feeder elementary and middle schools. You can access the (updated as needed) cluster maps on the district website, but here is how the clusters were organized in AY1314(1):

Each of the clusters can include zoned and charter schools alike. If you open it in another window, you can zoom in, etc. The colors alone should give you a sense of how these clusters are jumbled across the county.

Plan: Finding the PK4 seats in Nashville

For the planning of PK4 expansion in Metro, one of the issues we need resolved is current capacity across the county. To be sure, I haven't heard any talk about replacing the current providers of PK4/care. But at the very least, to determine how many children are not being served by anyone, we need to know how many children are currently served by providers outside the MNPS system. In short, I will approach it based on where the money comes from -- whether the service is paid for out of public funds, private funds, nonprofit services, or for-profit entities.

Here are the bones of my initial plan:

Summer research for MNPS: Early Childhood Policy!

Well, graduation has come and gone, and it's time to put my MPP to work. I'm grateful that I decided to spend so much time while at Peabody to data handling, analysis, program evaluation experience. Grateful, too, for the practicum placement and ongoing volunteer work with Martha O'Bryan Center, which has really demanded that I understand the complexities (and boundaries) of high-quality, useful evaluation and data work. But now I get to build my own projects: from nebulous start, and planning out each step, tracking down the data I need for each piece of the project... through the analysis of data, making judicious decisions about how to handle demographic trends, all the way to writing findings/recommendations and reporting out -- presumably to the superintendent, if not also to the mayor's office and the folks at PRI who are at the table.

So I'm excited to get started. It is a delight to spend this summer working on such concrete policy questions. In particular, I get to spend time and mental energy on the planning and strategy that will inform expanding access to pre-kindergarten for four-year-olds in Davidson County! On Monday morning, I spent a wonderful five minutes in the front lobby watching a four-year-old and her (very slightly) older sister run around and quiz each other about colors, and it was just fantastic to know that I get to be part of a process to serve these lil' ones.

There are already new initiatives under way for the expansion of PK4 in Nashville: the early learning centers at Ross, Bordeaux, and Casa Azafrán, as the district announced and as The Tennessean reported in February, in May, and just earlier this week. Certainly the upcoming initiatives are the main focus for  the director of early learning innovation, but my role will mostly be future-focused... as in, not primarily aimed at phase one year one but informing the strategy for smart decisions in later years and/or phases.