Scores in

UPDATED: Urban districts score below statewide averages on new TNReady tests, with some bright spots

PHOTO: Marc Piscotty

A new test hasn’t changed which Tennessee school districts are the top performers, and which districts struggle relative to the state as a whole.

The Tennessee Department of Education on Tuesday released district- and school-level TNReady scores from last school year while unveiling a redesigned online report card. The rollout follows last month’s release of statewide scores showing that the vast majority of high school students aren’t on track to be prepared for college. The new scores are only for high school students since Tennessee canceled its 3-8 tests in April following a series of technical and logistical snafus.

Across the state, scores were significantly down — a drop that Education Commissioner Candice McQueen had warned was inevitable in the transition to more rigorous tests, designed to give a better snapshot of students’ readiness for college and career. The exception is science scores. The state is retaining older, easier tests for those subjects until new standards are phased in during the 2018-19 school year.

As in years past, most urban districts, which typically have a higher concentration of students from low-income households, had lower passing rates than the state as a whole on the 12 end-of-course tests.

McQueen reiterated Tuesday that educators shouldn’t be discouraged by the scores. “These scores show a student’s potential trajectory,” she said. “They are not a student’s destiny.”

While nearly three-quarters of students statewide and in urban districts failed most tests, Williamson County, an affluent suburb of Nashville, had a relatively even distribution of students scoring across the four levels. Still, scores for urban districts hewed close to the state’s in many instances, and in some cases, urban students did better than their statewide peers. Three out of Tennessee’s four urban districts received high growth marks in literacy, suggesting that their students are on track to catch up with higher-performing school systems.


Read Chalkbeat’s guide to understanding this year’s TNReady scores.


The performance of Shelby County Schools, Tennessee’s largest district, lagged considerably compared to the state, with only 6.8 percent of students scoring on or above grade level in Algebra I, compared to 20.8 percent statewide. The gaps were smaller for English exams.

Students in Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools, the second largest district, beat out statewide trends in Integrated Math II, where 28 percent of students passed compared to 23.8 percent statewide. Nashville shifted to Integrated Math — an alternative to Algebra I, II and Geometry — in 2015. Otherwise, the district’s scores also lagged the state’s as a whole.

Students in Knox County Schools, the third-largest district, outperformed the state as a whole on some of the new tests, with the widest margin in U.S. History. But, as was the case in virtually all districts, scores in Knox County were significantly down from last year’s across the board. Although the rebooted report card was supposed to be easier to understand, the district released an inaccurate statement on Tuesday morning that Knox County saw marked improvement.

In Hamilton County Schools, where one Chattanooga high school is among Tennessee’s bottom 5 percent and eligible for state takeover, passing rates for some subjects were within 1 percentage point of statewide scores, although none were above.

The gaps between statewide performance and the Achievement School District, the state-run turnaround district with three high schools in Memphis, were among the largest. No ASD high school students scored at the highest level on the Algebra II exam, and less than 1 percent scored on grade level, compared to 2.6 percent and 21.4 percent of students scoring at each respective level statewide.

The state gave Shelby County, Metro Nashville, Hamilton County and the ASD the highest possible score for growth in literacy. For that measure, the state uses the complex Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System, or TVAAS, which measures how students performed relative to how other students performed at the same level on past tests.  Knox County received a 3 out of 5 on literacy, but was the only district with a 5 in growth in numeracy.

Combatting Tennessee’s low literacy rate has been a state priority in recent years, and most districts have initiated their own reading improvement programs.

“While we would love to have 5s in all areas, our emphasis on literacy shows we can make positive gains,” said Kirk Kelly, interim superintendent of Hamilton County Schools in Chattanooga. “Now we need to put the same emphasis on mathematics and science.”

McQueen said many districts struggled with growth in math because the test was so different. For the first time, calculators were prohibited for some questions.

“The depth of what the expectation was in terms of problem-solving … was very different,” she said. “When you take (the calculator) away, that’s going to be a real adjustment, a real change.”

The Department of Education has published an annual report card since the early 1990s to provide an overview of state, district and school-level performance. The new online report card was designed to help educators and families better understand information about their schools.

 “This new report card is easier to use and has better information about whether our students are academically on track, both of which will help parents, educators, district leaders, and advocates support our students’ success,” McQueen said in a news release. 

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to include growth scores and comments from state and district leaders.

Sharing Stories

Tell us your stories about children with special needs in Detroit

PHOTO: Patrick Wall

Parents of students with special needs face difficult challenges when trying to get services for their children. Understanding their children’s rights, getting them evaluated and properly diagnosed, and creating an educational plan are among the many issues families face.

Chalkbeat Detroit wants to hear more about those issues to help inform our coverage. We are kicking off a series of conversations called a “listening tour” to discuss your concerns, and our first meeting will focus on children with special needs and disabilities. We’re partnering with the Detroit Parent Network as they look for solutions and better ways to support parents.

Our listening tour, combined with similar events in other communities Chalkbeat serves, will continue throughout this year on a variety of topics. In these meetings, we’ll look to readers, parents, educators, and students to help us know what questions we should ask, and we’ll publish stories from people who feel comfortable having their stories told. We hope you’ll share your stories and explore solutions to the challenges parents face.

Our special education listening tour discussion will take place from 5:30-7:30 p.m., Tuesday July 24, at the Detroit Parent Network headquarters, 726 Lothrop St., Detroit.

As our series continues, we’ll meet at locations around the city to hear stories and experiences parents have while navigating the complexities of getting children the education and services they deserve.

Next week’s event includes a panel discussion with parents of children with special needs, responses from parent advocates, and an open discussion with audience members.

Those who are uncomfortable sharing stories publicly will have a chance to tell a personal story on an audio recorder in a private room, or will be interviewed by a Chalkbeat Detroit reporter privately.

The event is free and open to anyone who wants to attend, but reservations are required because space is limited. To register, call 313-309-8100 or email frontdesk@detroitparentnetwork.org.

If you can’t make our event, but have a story to share, send an email to tips.detroit@chalkbeat.org, or call or send a text message to 313-404-0692.

Stayed tuned for more information about listening tour stops, topics and locations.

First Person

I’m a principal who thinks personalized learning shouldn’t be a debate.

PHOTO: Lisa Epstein
Lisa Epstein, principal of Richard H. Lee Elementary, supports personalized learning

This is the first in what we hope will be a tradition of thoughtful opinion pieces—of all viewpoints—published by Chalkbeat Chicago. Have an idea? Send it to cburke@chalkbeat.org

As personalized learning takes hold throughout the city, Chicago teachers are wondering why a term so appealing has drawn so much criticism.

Until a few years ago, the school that I lead, Richard H. Lee Elementary on the Southwest Side, was on a path toward failing far too many of our students. We crafted curriculum and identified interventions to address gaps in achievement and the shifting sands of accountability. Our teachers were hardworking and committed. But our work seemed woefully disconnected from the demands we knew our students would face once they made the leap to postsecondary education.

We worried that our students were ill-equipped for today’s world of work and tomorrow’s jobs. Yet, we taught using the same model through which we’d been taught: textbook-based direct instruction.

How could we expect our learners to apply new knowledge to evolving facts, without creating opportunities for exploration? Where would they learn to chart their own paths, if we didn’t allow for agency at school? Why should our students engage with content that was disconnected from their experiences, values, and community?

We’ve read articles about a debate over personalized learning centered on Silicon Valley’s “takeover” of our schools. We hear that Trojan Horse technologies are coming for our jobs. But in our school, personalized learning has meant developing lessons informed by the cultural heritage and interests of our students. It has meant providing opportunities to pursue independent projects, and differentiating curriculum, instruction, and assessment to enable our students to progress at their own pace. It has reflected a paradigm shift that is bottom-up and teacher led.

And in a move that might have once seemed incomprehensible, it has meant getting rid of textbooks altogether. We’re not alone.

We are among hundreds of Chicago educators who would welcome critics to visit one of the 120 city schools implementing new models for learning – with and without technology. Because, as it turns out, Chicago is fast becoming a hub for personalized learning. And, it is no coincidence that our academic growth rates are also among the highest in the nation.

Before personalized learning, we designed our classrooms around the educator. Decisions were made based on how educators preferred to teach, where they wanted students to sit, and what subjects they wanted to cover.

Personalized learning looks different in every classroom, but the common thread is that we now make decisions looking at the student. We ask them how they learn best and what subjects strike their passions. We use small group instruction and individual coaching sessions to provide each student with lesson plans tailored to their needs and strengths. We’re reimagining how we use physical space, and the layout of our classrooms. We worry less about students talking with their friends; instead, we ask whether collaboration and socialization will help them learn.

Our emphasis on growth shows in the way students approach each school day. I have, for example, developed a mentorship relationship with one of our middle school students who, despite being diligent and bright, always ended the year with average grades. Last year, when she entered our personalized learning program for eighth grade, I saw her outlook change. She was determined to finish the year with all As.

More than that, she was determined to show that she could master anything her teachers put in front of her. She started coming to me with graded assignments. We’d talk about where she could improve and what skills she should focus on. She was pragmatic about challenges and so proud of her successes. At the end of the year she finished with straight As—and she still wanted more. She wanted to get A-pluses next year. Her outlook had changed from one of complacence to one oriented towards growth.

Rather than undermining the potential of great teachers, personalized learning is creating opportunities for collaboration as teachers band together to leverage team-teaching and capitalize on their strengths and passions. For some classrooms, this means offering units and lessons based on the interests and backgrounds of the class. For a couple of classrooms, it meant literally knocking down walls to combine classes from multiple grade-levels into a single room that offers each student maximum choice over how they learn. For every classroom, it means allowing students to work at their own pace, because teaching to the middle will always fail to push some while leaving others behind.

For many teachers, this change sounded daunting at first. For years, I watched one of my teachers – a woman who thrives off of structure and runs a tight ship – become less and less engaged in her profession. By the time we made the switch to personalized learning, I thought she might be done. We were both worried about whether she would be able to adjust to the flexibility of the new model. But she devised a way to maintain order in her classroom while still providing autonomy. She’s found that trusting students with the responsibility to be engaged and efficient is both more effective and far more rewarding than trying to force them into their roles. She now says that she would never go back to the traditional classroom structure, and has rediscovered her love for teaching. The difference is night and day.

The biggest change, though, is in the relationships between students and teachers. Gone is the traditional, authority-to-subordinate dynamic; instead, students see their teachers as mentors with whom they have a unique and individual connection, separate from the rest of the class. Students are actively involved in designing their learning plans, and are constantly challenged to articulate the skills they want to build and the steps that they must take to get there. They look up to their teachers, they respect their teachers, and, perhaps most important, they know their teachers respect them.

Along the way, we’ve found that students respond favorably when adults treat them as individuals. When teachers make important decisions for them, they see learning as a passive exercise. But, when you make it clear that their needs and opinions will shape each school day, they become invested in the outcome.

As our students take ownership over their learning, they earn autonomy, which means they know their teachers trust them. They see growth as the goal, so they no longer finish assignments just to be done; they finish assignments to get better. And it shows in their attendance rates – and test scores.

Lisa Epstein is the principal of Richard H. Lee Elementary School, a public school in Chicago’s West Lawn neighborhood serving 860 students from pre-kindergarten through eighth grade.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to reflect that Richard H. Lee Elementary School serves 860 students, not 760 students.