Achievement Districts might not be the panacea

by Tom Campbell, Executive Producer and Moderator, NC SPIN, Jun 9, 2016.

When Representative Rob Bryan first proposed the idea of Achievement School Districts it seemed, at first, a pretty radical concept, but after a year of discussion we’ve not heard many alternatives put forward.

While we have some excellent schools, no one disputes there are far too many schools in which students fail to perform at acceptable levels. In most all instances these students come from lower socioeconomic families.

The guidance, encouragement and support of the parents is essential to the performance of the student but many of these low-performers come from single-parent homes where that parent doesn’t possess a high level of education, good parenting skills and works at low-income jobs to pay the bills. While we can offer meals, special instruction, after-school and other enrichment programs to assist we cannot provide sufficient economic assistance to raise the standard of living in these homes. Further, just having more money doesn’t assure someone will be a better parent or that a child will become a better student.

For years we have tried reassigning students from low-performing schools into higher performing schools, hoping an environment among higher achieving students might positively impact students. These efforts have proved only moderately successful and frequently resulted in many parents opting to enroll their children in private or charter schools in an effort to ensure their child gets the best possible education.

This is all old news. We’ve hashed and rehashed these narratives for years. It is disappointing that the education establishment (administrators, principals, teachers and boards of education) hasn’t come forward with bold, innovative and replicable solutions that yield significant improvements. If the establishment has found solutions they aren’t evident, highly touted or else are not scalable.

The Achievement District proposal now being considered would identify low-performing schools and offer them three options. First, and most drastic, would be closure of the school, begging the question where you would house the displaced students and teachers and how would that closure automatically improve results?

The second option would require firing the current principal, replacing him or her with someone who has a proven track record turning around low-performing schools. While we believe that effective principals are vital to well run, high-achievement schools this is also problematic. Where is this database of those principals with established turnaround track records? Might this not result in a bidding competition, similar to what we see in professional sports or the corporate world? How would this ultimately improve education, especially in poorer school districts?

The third option would assign low-performing schools to an Achievement District, turning over administration and instruction to charter schools that allow more regulatory flexibility. Tennessee has undertaken the Achievement District concept with mixed results to date, and our own track record with charter schools demonstrate some inconsistencies in education outcomes.

Achievement Districts might not be the panacea. We would hope other alternatives could also be put forward. On thing is sure: something has to change or else we will sentence too many students to futures where their lack of education will force them into low-paying jobs and the cycle will just continue. Surely there are educators and leaders who can find answers to these problems. Until that time the Achievement School District idea might be worth a try.