Simone Lightfoot, left, and Susan Baskett at the Beyond the Talk meeting at Mitchell Elementary School on Thursday, May 27. (Photos by the writer.)

Sponsored by Ann Arbor Public Schools board trustees Simone Lightfoot and Susan Baskett, the meeting was a follow-up to an event held in late April at the Peace Neighborhood Center. At that event, the College and Career-Ready (CCR) Review, AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts and his senior instructional staff had presented a subset of data on student achievement in the district, broken down by race.

The breakdown showed an ongoing difference in test scores between whites and other races. The focus of the May 27 Mitchell meeting, called Beyond the Talk, was on brainstorming around what co-facilitators Lightfoot and Baskett called the elements of a plan to address this issue.

Since April’s CCR Review, the community has seen the Lunch Bunch program at Dicken Elementary School – an initiative intended to address this gap – ended when it was found by the district to violate relevant anti-discrimination laws. The story of parents’ complaints about a Lunch Bunch field trip, which was restricted to black students only, had inflamed controversy that gained national attention.

Depending on your perspective, the Beyond the Talk meeting looked either poorly-attended or well-attended. Early in the evening, one participant commented that African Americans were poorly represented at the meeting, and contended that any efforts to close the gap, however the gap was defined, would be unsuccessful as long as the “apathy” continued.

But Lightfoot declared that work gets done by those who show up to do it. And so they dove into their work.

“Current programs are maintaining the gap, not closing it.” “It’s not the kids – it’s the system.” “The system is not broken. It’s working exactly how it was designed to work.” “People are scared to shake up the status quo. It’s like fighting a war on many, many different fronts.”

Thoughts like these were distilled into bullet points by the end of the meeting, as participants discussed what next steps should be taken to address what has commonly been called the “achievement gap.”

Which “Gap” Are We Talking About Here?

The gap can be defined from at least two different perspectives. One way the term has been used in AAPS is to describe the differences in test scores, class enrollment, grade point average (GPA), and other measures of academic success among students of different ethnicities. That is, it’s a gap in “achievement.”

However, it can also be defined as an “opportunity” or even an “equity” gap. That perspective orients the problem away from the students, and shifts responsibility to teachers, administrators, and other school leaders.

Some participants of the May 27 meeting made statements from this perspective: “Teachers come with a deficit mentality”; “There are a lot of inappropriate referrals [of African American students to special education]“; and “There is an invisible wall.” At April’s CCR Review, Larry Simpson, administrator for student intervention and support services, described the specific challenge of helping white females be more capable teachers of black male students.

The College and Career-Ready Review held at the Peace Neighborhood Center on April 29, 2010.

One example of an opportunity gap is the main question brought up by parents at the CCR Review – the lack of students of color who are enrolled in Algebra I in 8th grade. Several parents argued that if students did not take Algebra I by 8th grade, there would be no way to get to Algebra II by their junior year, which would affect performance on college entrance exams.

One parent stated, “Of the 300-400 students taking Algebra I in the district, less than 20 are African American. And of the five African Americans taking it at my son’s middle school, none of them passed the common assessment.” She went on to describe the struggle she went through to get her son placed in the class, as well as frustration at the lack of support for him once he was in it.

Another example came from the May 27 Beyond The Talk meeting, where a participant described an inequitable situation caused by the district’s current attendance boundaries. She described how 95% of the students who attend Burns Park Elementary are sent on to Tappan Middle School, but 5% of them are sent to Scarlett Middle School. Those 5% of students are allowed to enroll at Tappan – but only if they provide their own transportation.

Why do the 5% attend Burns Park in the first place? The reason, said the participant, was to help ensure a more diverse student body in each building. But then when those students’ presence is no longer “required to balance the numbers,” they are separated from their elementary school peers and sent back to their neighborhood school.

Some education scholars have argued that the gap cannot be closed in schools until broader, societal changes begin taking place. The National Study Group for the Affirmative Development of Academic Ability, a working group of 20 education scholars, argues in a 2004 report that “to close achievement gaps, we first must close the experience gap.” The report continues:

This must be done not only through education policy and schooling but also through larger social policies and programs that address the environment in which students learn when they are not at school.

This context was reflected in the comments of one of the meeting participants, who asserted, “There are issues beyond the school system that affect how kids do educationally.”

No matter how it’s defined, this gap is not specific to Ann Arbor. The Campaign for Educational Equity at Columbia University offers a set of “facts and figures” that corroborate how pervasive across the U.S. the gap is.

For AAPS, the following facts characterize the gap:

• African American students are disproportionately enrolled in special education services, while white and Asian students are underrepresented;
• The Michigan Merit Exam (MME), taken in 11th grade, shows 80-96% of white students proficient in all subjects, while the range for African American students is 21-68%;
• 87% of white students are in Algebra II or higher math by 11 grade; for African American students, that number is 44%; and
• The percentage of 9th grade students with a GPA less than 2.0 is 10.3% for white students, 39.5% for African American students, and 42.5% for Latino or Hispanic students.

In addition, the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) data for reading and math in the district show a smaller percentage of African American students than white students as “proficient.” That difference holds true in every grade tested (grades 3-8). There’s an even larger gap between these groups of students for “advanced proficiency.” For example, in grade 3 reading, 69% of white students are “advanced proficient,” while only 24% of African American students are classified that way. That’s a gap persisting through 8th grade, when the percentages are 64% and 23%, respectively.

In the face of these statistics, board members Simone Lightfoot and Glenn Nelson have both acknowledged the breadth of the problem, and called on AAPS to rise to the occasion and to use its resources to address the gap in a model way.

What Has AAPS Done About This Gap Over the Years?

Working on this issue is not new to the district, as many participants at the May 27 meeting pointed out. The gap has existed for as long as AAPS has kept data. “It hurts to sit here,” said a former AAPS administrator, “and hear that we’ve been working on this for so long.” Other participants expressed frustration that knowing where to go from here is complicated by the fact that it’s difficult to catalog the efforts that have been made over the years.

To get a perspective on the history of work on achievement equity in the district, The Chronicle sat down with Glenn Nelson, the longest-serving member on the board.

According to Nelson, the first public, well-disseminated report on academic achievement in the district, “Key Indicators of Student Progress,” was presented to the school board in 1989 by then-superintendent Richard Benjamin. The report contained data beginning with the 1985-86 school year, when white and African American students together made up 89% of the student body – 72% and 17% respectively.

Now, both of those percentages are smaller, and the AAPS student body has diversified. White students make up only 52% of AAPS students in 2009-10. The 1989 report included comparisons by race of standardized test scores, graduation rates, and rates of participation in extra-curricular activities, but did not include analysis of achievement by special education status, or socio-economic status. On all measures, white students were shown as achieving higher outcomes than “black or brown students,” a term used by Lightfoot at the CCR Review.

Each year since then, an achievement update has been assembled by district administration and presented to the board. By the mid-’90s, Nelson reported, “people were beginning to say, ‘You say you’re working on this, but nothing’s happening,’” so the report added a statewide comparison, as well as a list of achievement initiatives then underway. By 1996, free-and-reduced lunch data were made available for analysis, and the report began to narrow in on academic achievement rather than the broader assessment of participation in both academic and non-academic school activities.

By 1997, Nelson said, a belief was growing throughout the school community that work on closing the gaps in achievement needed to be centralized, and AAPS hired a “director of achievement,” who was charged with leading constructed efforts to close the achievement gap, but who was given no real authority. However, Nelson said, that position ended after 18 months, and instead the district created an “equity ombudsperson,” a one-stop point person anyone in the district could access to report “observations or experiences of harassment, bullying, or inequity.” For whatever reason – Nelson speculated it was budget pressure, as well as a question of the position’s effectiveness – that position was also short-lived.

Nelson described the late 1990s and early 2000s as a time of “turmoil and conflict” in the district, during which the achievement reports “became less informative.” With the hiring of superintendent Todd Roberts in 2006, he said, “the data came back.”

Overall, Nelson summarized the focus of achievement efforts as starting with the idea that, “If you put something on the agenda, it will get done.” When that didn’t appear to work, he continued, programmatic initiatives began, but they were often not well-researched or evaluated. “Then, there was a feeling that there was too much guessing, and that we needed a better basis for cause and effect.” This increasing emphasis on data-driven work, Nelson concluded, has led to the present, district-wide Achievement Team Process (described below) and the commitment to developing personalized learning plans for every student.

What Is AAPS Doing Currently to Address the Gap?

At the CRR Review in April, Sylvia Nesmith, chair of the Black Parents’ Student Support Group (BPSSG), expressed a concern mentioned several times at the May 27 Beyond the Talk meeting as well: “When are we going to start doing and making real what we are talking about?” She argued that the things the district is doing to work on closing the gap are not being well-communicated, and that resources are not being evenly distributed.

The goal of achieving parity in educational outcomes is part of the district’s strategic plan, but the process has been on hold since Phase 1 was completed this past September, and action teams won’t resume meeting until late August at the earliest. At the May 27 meeting, Kathy Scarnecchia, principal at Mitchell, said that, in addition to the strategic plan, the district school improvement plan is being written. She said an inventory of efforts to raise achievement will be part of it. A statement from AAPS put it this way: “All of the efforts [to address the achievement gap] are part of the district school improvement plan and school improvement plans, or come from the strategies in the District’s Strategic Plan.”

During the CCR Review, top-level district administrators enumerated many of the programs which currently exist in the district to address the issue.

Achievement Team Process

First among the interventions mentioned was a new process, the Achievement Team Process (ATP), which was put in place this year. It is an electronic data collection process that can be accessed by all teachers at all schools to create personalized learning plans. As described at the CCR Review by district administrator for elementary instruction Lee Ann Dickinson-Kelley, the ATP is especially useful in tracking which interventions have been tried for each struggling student. It’s a way to address each student’s “specific needs and strengths.” Larry Simpson, administrator for student intervention and support services, added at that same meeting that the ATP is based on responsive intervention, as opposed to the “Student Study Team,” for which a student had to be failing in order to qualify for services. The ATP serves as a step between teacher referral and a student’s evaluation for special education services, Simpson said.

Literacy Interventions

The district has reading interventions in place at each building level –”Reading Intervention” for K-2 students, “System 44″ for students in grades three through five, “Reading Apprenticeship” for high school, and “Read 180″ at all levels. The goal of the district’s “balanced literacy” approach, along with these supplements to classroom instruction, is to reduce the number of years students spend struggling, and to provide opportunities to teach reading to students who are still missing basic knowledge in later grades.

Math Interventions

In response to issues raised at the CCR Review, the district issued a statement saying, “The plan is for all 8th grade students to take Algebra. The next school year will be a planning year with implementation in 2011-12.” At the elementary level, the district has implemented “Fast Math,” which is designed to increase the automaticity of factual recall, and is used to supplement the classroom curriculum, Everyday Math. Dickinson-Kelley also mentioned recent efforts to “trace the Algebra strand” down through the elementary grades to be sure its objectives are met.

Additional Academic Programs

The Summer Learning Institute is a 4-week program intended to minimize the impact of summer regression, and focuses on “high leverage items,” according to Dickinson-Kelley. She also named Title 1 plans embedded in school improvement plans, using Read 180 and System 44 with English language learners, and the World Languages Program as additional ways the district is trying to strengthen instruction for all students.

Joyce Hunter, administrator for middle and high school education, added that she has pushed for common assessments to be used among different sections of Algebra and Biology in order to increase accountability and share best practices. She asserted that more students need to be taking advanced placement and accelerated classes. Other interventions available at the secondary level are the “e2020″ credit recovery program, the options/choices program, summer school, and the Rising Scholars program.

Equity Work

For five years, AAPS has been working with a consultant named Glenn Singleton from Pacific Education Group (PEG). The Chronicle asked school board president Deb Mexicotte and vice president Irene Patalan for their thoughts on the “courageous conversations” held with Singleton.

Mexicotte described the district’s PEG work as part of a broader equity initiative, which also includes instituting policy changes, making efforts to hire more diverse staff, examining curricular materials, and creating a welcoming environment in school buildings for parents. Patalan added that Singleton was very positive about the developments AAPS has made, particularly regarding what he called the “culture of equity” that had been achieved at Skyline. Patalan reported that Singleton “was confident that the work we’re doing will manifest in honestly closing the achievement gap.”

In addition to PEG, Mexicotte named AAPS work in co-founding the Minority Student Achievement Network as proof of a long-term AAPS commitment to achieving equity. MSAN is a coalition of school districts with similar demographics who share ideas about closing the achievement gap.

At the May 12 board meeting, Mexicotte stated, “Creating equitable opportunities and achievement for all students has been very difficult and there have been many false starts and ineffective efforts along the way over the years. Many of our recent efforts … are indeed finally bearing fruit. Our achievement for all students is rising, the gaps are closing, and effective programs and strategies are being supported and embraced. We still have a ways to go before we see full opportunity for achievement for all our students, but we know we are on the right path – and our data bears that out.”

The consultancy has been a source of criticism from some quarters – money spent on consulting could be spent instead on the educational programs that would address the gap. A recent email sent to AAPS superintendent Todd Roberts from Ted Annis – former Ann Arbor Transportation Authority board member who has worked with Citizens for Responsible School Spending – suggests scrapping the consultancy and adopting an approach used at a Brooklyn school.

Next Steps and Who Should Take Them?

At the May 27 Beyond the Talk meeting, one participant commented that African Americans were poorly represented there, and worried about prospects for success if the “apathy” continued. Lightfoot countered by saying “more folk will be on board when they see success.”

The May 27 Beyond the Talk meeting at Mitchell Elementary School.

The 30 people at the meeting – which included a school psychologist, four school board members, a social worker, four school principals, four teachers, a pastor, the president of the local chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union, an education researcher – also included representatives of local community-based organizations. Among them were the Peace Neighborhood Center, Young People’s Project, Youth Empowerment Project, Literacy Coalition of Washtenaw County, Family Learning Institute and Avalon Housing.

Many of the meeting’s participants were parents of current or former AAPS students, and roughly half of them were themselves products of the district.

The focus of the meeting was on brainstorming around what co-facilitators Lightfoot and Baskett called the elements of a plan to address the gap. After lengthy introductions, the group produced the following main suggestions through almost two hours of discussion:

• Use the expertise of community-based organizations who have shown success in improving academic outcomes;
• Support those who step up to take initiative, such as Mike Madison, principal at Dicken Elementary;
• Demand strong, effective teachers who hold kids to high expectations;
• Stop social promotion of underachieving students;
• Focus on elementary learning;
• Support the African-American Studies class at Pioneer;
• Help parents, especially from families who transfer into the district;
• Continue school-based equity and Collaborative Action Research for Equity (CARE) teams;
• Stay focused on where improvement is possible;
• “Help black parents make noise”;
• Ensure equitable responses to white and African American parents by administrators;
• Add a “number sense” program to the math curriculum;
• Aim higher than “proficient” for all students;
• Perform a comprehensive literature review of what’s working to close achievement gaps;
• Meet the parents;
• Stop teacher seniority and teacher tenure;
• Make accountability a condition of teacher tenure;
• Examine how classes are assigned to teachers, i.e. who gets to teach AP classes?;
• Ensure equitable participation on school equity teams;
• Be proactive, not reactive;
• Examine attendance boundaries for inequity;
• Describe the district’s Equity Initiative and PEG work;
• Get PEG work into classrooms;
• Discover what the barriers are to learning;
• Help teachers who care, but who don’t know what to do;
• Use teachers in the district who are doing good work;
• Create a district-wide plan with milestones and timeframes;
• Motivate children to have a “learning attitude”;
• Set high expectations for students; and
• Bring in the student voice.

Near the end of the meeting, Baskett announced, “We have no magic next step. We thought we would turn this input over to the superintendent, but we’re in it for the long haul … what do you want us to do?”

Many participants expressed an interest in continuing to meet and remain active on this issue.

One participant suggested that Lightfoot and Baskett create a neat list of the suggestions made at the meeting, and that the group meet again to narrow down the focus to three or four things on the list to do now. Another added, “We have to start trying something, collectively.” Lightfoot agreed that the group’s work should fit into the strategic plan, but could also parallel it.

Two participants of the May 27 meeting suggested that any and all future meetings of this group be televised on Ann Arbor’s Community Television Network.