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.