Submitted by the Chamber Education Report Card Committee

Co-Chairs Jackson Miller and Brian Shaw

Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools | 2013- 2014 School Year

2 014 E D U C AT I O N R E P O R T C A R D

Education Advocates

Pivotal Partners

Supporting Sponsor Technology Partner Supported by

2

Presenting Sponsor

TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S

Submitted by the Chamber Education Report Card Committee

Co-Chairs Jackson Miller and Brian Shaw

NARRATIVEExecutive Summary 6

Recommendations 8

School System Performance 9

Committee Commendations

Committee Concerns

Educational Leadership 22

NUMBERSAppendix A – Nashville Public Opinion on Education May 2014 28

Appendix B – MNPS Funding 32

Appendix C – MNPS Demographic and Achievement Data 34

Appendix D – Performance of Middle Tennessee and Urban System Districts 49

NOTESAppendix E – Academic Performance Framework Schools 50

Appendix F – Status of Chamber Education Report Card Committee Recommendations from 2013 Report 52

Appendix G – Experts Interviewed 55

Appendix H – Glossary 58

Acknowledgements 63

3

Co-Chair Jackson MillerCEO, L2M, LLCEast Literature Cluster and magnet school parent (third year)

Co-Chair Brian R. Shaw, Jr.Owner/developer, Workout Anytime(third year)Whites Creek High School alumnus

Daryl BuckGeneral manager, Murray Guard, Inc.Hillwood Cluster parent

Dawn ColePublic affairs manager, Waste Management, Inc. of TN(third year)

Tiffany CourseyHuman resources, Barge Waggoner Sumner & Cannon, Inc.

Scott CraddockCorporate ethics and compliance officer, CCAHillsboro Cluster and magnet school parent(second year)

Laura DelgadoFamily engagement manager, Conexión Américas(second year)

Jarod DeLozierCo-founder and owner, Ugly Mugs Coffee & TeaStratford Cluster parent(second year)

Rob ElliottChief operating and financial officer, Stansell Electric Company(second year)

Kate Read EzellPrincipal, Ezell Education Consulting(second year)

James HartmanRetired MNPS teacherCorinne L. Cohn High School alumnus

Derrick HinesCurriculum development and instructional systems design, Tennessee College of Applied Technology NashvilleCane Ridge Cluster parent(third year)

Jennifer JohnstonExecutive director, Vanderbilt Center for Nashville Studies

Sara LonghiniExecutive director, Fannie Battle Day Home for Children(third year)

Katherine McElroy Partner, c3/consulting

Freddie O’ConnellSoftware developer, Rustici Software

Anita H. RyanAccount executive, HST Interior ElementsHillwood Cluster and magnet school parent

Christina SmithFirst vice president, wealth management advisor/retirement benefits consultant, Smith & Associates - Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith Inc.

Connie WilliamsPresident and CEO, PENCIL Foundation

Whitney Weeks (ex officio)VP, policy, Nashville Area Chamber of CommerceHillsboro Cluster and magnet school parent

Dr. Jewell WinnExecutive director for international programs and chief diversity officer, Tennessee State UniversityMaplewood High School alumna

Allyson YoungCEO, YMG Coaching and ConsultingHillwood and Hillsboro Clusters parent(third year)

2 0 1 4 C O M M I T T E E R O S T E R

4

Isaac Litton Middle Prep ambassadors host guided tours

for community visitors and prospective families.

5

Since 1992, the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce has

organized a diverse and committed group of Nashvillians to

assess the progress of Metro Schools. The 21 members of the

Education Report Card Committee began their work in July

2014 and conducted interviews with city and school system

leaders, community stakeholders, principals, teachers and stu-

dents. The committee also collected data and visited schools

before developing findings and recommendations. This report

represents our consensus view of the 2013-2014 school year.

K-12 public education has no shortage of measurements.

In fact, to the average parent, educator and taxpayer, the

amount of data can be overwhelming and often contradictory.

Over the past 22 years, this Education Report Card has con-

sidered overall achievement, progress within a year, gradu-

ation rates, attendance, discipline incidences, ACT scores,

and shifts in public opinion. While all these measures are

important and continue to be included in our report, at the

end of the day, families choose schools — not statistics —

and Nashvillians want to know whether Metropolitan Nash-

ville Public Schools (MNPS) is making progress toward the

goal of all their schools becoming great.

We are pleased to report that MNPS made progress during

the 2013-2014 school year. The district increased the num-

ber of effective schools and reduced the number of students

struggling in its lowest-performing schools. This conclusion

is based on the district’s Academic Performance Framework

(APF): a composite of student proficiency in math and En-

glish, academic growth, reduction of achievement gap between

demographic groups, and school culture. It is important to

note that the APF categorizes the performance of all public

schools in the county regardless of school type, reflecting the

success of both district-run schools and charter schools.

Just how much MNPS improved in one year using the APF is

open to interpretation, due to the serious misalignment be-

tween Tennessee’s use of Common Core State Standards over

the past three years and the outdated standardized tests that

are supposed to measure student mastery. In response to this

misalignment, MNPS applied a statistical adjustment based

on statewide trends when it calculated the APF scores for the

2013-2014 school year.

Without the statistical adjustment, there were 30 “excelling”

or “achieving” schools in 2014, representing a net increase of

six schools over the previous year. With the statistical adjust-

ment, the number of excelling and achieving schools increased

to 34. The number of “target” schools, the lowest-performing

category on the APF, dropped from 29 to 25 using the unad-

justed framework. With the statistical adjustment, the number

of target schools dropped dramatically to 13.

While we commend MNPS for making progress in increasing

the number of effective schools in the city, there remain

areas of real concern. The percentage of students making

at least a 21 on the ACT ticked up to 29 percent, but that

improvement is glacial given the district’s goal of at least

50 percent of its graduates attaining that college- and ca-

E X E C U T I V E S U M M A RY

6

reer-ready benchmark. In addition, eighth-grade math and

English proficiency has been flat the past three years and

elementary students missed their state accountability goals,

prompting yet another reassignment of roles within the dis-

trict central office. Perhaps most embarrassing for the city,

the Tennessee Department of Education announced in August

that the number of MNPS schools in the bottom 5 percent

statewide had more than doubled—in part, because Memphis

had moved more aggressively to address many of their failing

schools.

Strong and determined leadership at every level of Metro

Schools is essential to the district making the kind of prog-

ress our city expects and our students deserve. Encouraging-

ly, five years after the education report card committee last

examined “leadership,” there is now a clearer pathway for

leadership in Metro Schools. The Teacher Leadership Insti-

tute, a program that seeks to develop and retain high-per-

forming, early-career MNPS educators, is now in its fourth

cohort. There is now a myriad of leadership opportunities for

teachers, from team leader to department chair. However,

the inconsistent approach toward compensating teachers for

these roles sends a mixed message about leadership’s place

as a strategic driver for the district.

In addition to a new, more rigorous selection process to de-

termine school leaders, MNPS has developed a new training

program for aspiring administrators that complements the

longstanding Principal Leadership Academy of Nashville

at Vanderbilt. There is now an expectation that assistant

principals will progress to become future school leaders,

and monthly professional development is tailored to their

needs. Executive principals are being coached and supported

by “lead principals,” exemplary school leaders who spend

time outside their building working with a network of other

schools. This support is important as MNPS continues to roll

out more autonomy over school budgeting, ultimately to all

its school leaders by 2016.

As for the district’s 10,000 employees, leadership at the top

sets the tone for the organization, and there are significant

challenges for the board of education. The school board has

struggled to find a way to air different viewpoints without un-

dermining its leader. As current Director of Schools Dr. Jesse

Register nears the end of his contract on June 30, 2015, the

board must create a search process and timeline that draws

the interest of the best possible candidates from around the

country. In order to do that, the board will need to come to

consensus around the type of candidate they are looking for,

as well as develop a working understanding of how the school

board should function in its policy governance role. That test

of leadership is likely to determine whether the 2014 prog-

ress can be sustained or even accelerated in the coming year,

or whether the district devolves into dysfunction.

7

To their great credit, each year the school board and administration carefully consider the Report Card’s findings and recom-

mendations. Metro Nashville Public Schools’ responses to last year’s Report Card recommendations can be found in Appendix

F. In looking back at the 2013-2014 school year, the committee encourages MNPS and the broader community to give each of

these recommendations careful thought and consideration, as we hope to see real progress on them over the next year.

Going forward, the Chamber’s Education Report Card Committee should annually

monitor the implementation of MNPS’ strategic plan through 2018. page 15

Metro Schools should reform the pay supplement system to financially reward

teachers who assume leadership roles at their schools. page 22

Metro Schools should catalog those issues most commonly identified as impeding

school-level autonomy in order to identify potential policy or statute changes. page 25

The Metro School Board should recommit its adherence to policy governance by

engaging in ongoing professional development. page 26

The Metro School Board should time the hiring of a new director of schools to

take place after the election of Nashville’s mayor in 2015. page 26

R E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

1

2

3

4

5

8

S C H O O L S Y S T E M P E R F O R M A N C E

The Education Report Card Committee examines the over-

all performance of Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

(MNPS) during the most recently completed school year.

We are pleased to report that Metro Schools made progress

during the 2013-2014 school year. We reach this conclusion

primarily through an analysis of the 2014 Academic Perfor-

mance Framework (APF), a district-created tool that sorts

Nashville’s public schools into five performance categories

using a variety of data points. The APF is a composite mea-

sure that takes into account academic attainment, academic

growth, achievement gap closure, and school culture. This

allows for a more nuanced approach to determine the number

of “excelling” and “achieving” schools. Using the APF, we

also look to see if the district reduced the number of stu-

dents enrolled in “target” schools, the lowest performance

category. In 2014, Metro Schools reduced the number of

students in its lowest-performing schools and increased the

number of effective schools.

Just how much MNPS improved this year is open to inter-

pretation, due in part to the serious misalignment between

Tennessee’s use of Common Core State Standards over the

past three years and the outdated standardized tests that are

supposed to measure student mastery of those standards. In

short, statewide K-8 academic gains on the TCAP test have

been dropping in recent years, precisely at a time when Ten-

nessee was ranked the fastest-improving state in the country

under the National Assessment of Educational Progress. Un-

fortunately, instead of fixing this misalignment, the Tennes-

see General Assembly prolonged it by delaying implementa-

tion of a new state assessment until 2016.

In response to this misalignment, MNPS applied a statisti-

cal adjustment based on statewide trends when it calculated

the APF scores for the 2013-2014 school year, resulting in

some schools receiving three to four additional points on a

100-point scale (see Appendix F). The committee believes

this adjustment is appropriate, given that districts and

schools fully implementing Common Core State Standards

are, in effect, being penalized on an outdated assessment

that measures mastery of Tennessee’s old standards. The

statistical adjustment also makes sense given the APF’s role

as a framework from which to make internal district deci-

sions. We include both the adjusted and unadjusted 2014

numbers in this report in order to allow a full comparison to

the previous year.

With the statistical adjustment, there were 34 excelling and

achieving schools, a net increase of 10 schools and 1,641

students over 2013. Even more significant is the reduction

of schools and students in “target” status. The 2014 adjust-

ed APF classifies 13 schools as target, a 55 percent reduc-

tion from the 29 target schools in 2013, with 6,627 fewer

students in these lowest-performing schools.

9

Type

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

School

MNPS Middle College

Lockeland

Liberty Collegiate Acad

Glendale

Nashville Prep School

STEM Prep Academy

Stanford

Old Center

Percy Priest

New Vision Academy

Cameron

LEAD Prep

Cameron College Prep

MLK Magnet

Granbery

Intrepid Prep

KIPP College Prep

Knowledge Academy

Andrew Jackson

J.T. Moore

LEAD Academy

KIPP Academy

MLK Magnet

Hume-Fogg Magnet

Crieve Hall

Harpeth Valley

Rose Park

Eakin

Rosebank

Academy at Old Cockrill

Cockrill

Hermitage

Meigs MS Magnet

Dupont Hadley

2013

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Target

N/A

Review

Excelling

Excelling

N/A

N/A

Achieving

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Excelling

Satisfactory

Achieving

Excelling

Satisfactory

Achieving

Satisfactory

Review

Satisfactory

Review

Review

Excelling

Review

2014

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Excelling

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Achieving

Excelling and Achieving Schools: MNPS Academic Performance Framework (APF)

1 0

Target Schools: MNPS Academic Performance Framework (APF)

Type of school

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

School

Norman Binkley

Paragon Mills

Boys Prep

Drexel Prep School

Amqui

Mt. View

Tusculum

Cumberland

J.B. Whitsitt

Bellshire

Caldwell

Kirkpatrick

Wright

Metro Schools still made improvement without the statistical adjust-

ment to the APF, but the progress is far less dramatic. Using unadjust-

ed numbers, there were 30 excelling and achieving schools in 2014

serving 12,639 students, approximately 15 percent of the city’s public

school students. This represents a net increase of six higher-perform-

ing schools over the previous year, but an overall reduction of 471

students in these schools compared to 2013, due to two large high

schools dropping into the “satisfactory” category. The district still

managed to reduce the number of target schools and the total number

of students in those schools without the statistical adjustment. The

unadjusted APF classifies 25 schools as target in 2014, a 14 percent

reduction from the 29 target schools in 2013, with 1,665 fewer stu-

dents in these lowest-performing schools.

2013

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Target

Target

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Review

Target

Satisfactory

Review

Review

Target

2014

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

1 1

Enrollment and Capacity Comparison by 2013 vs. 2014 Academic Performance Framework Status

Number of schools Number of studentsNumber of students, excluding schools

missing program capacity data*

Excelling

Achieving

Satisfactory

Review

Target

Total

2013

13

11

57

33

29

143

2014

w/ adj. no adj.

2013 2014 2013 2014

24

10

71

27

13

145

5,817

7,293

38,551

18,262

12,980

82,903

10,117

4,634

48,164

13,330

6,353

82,598

4,507

7,015

36,838

18,262

12,274

78,896

6,758

4,574

46,983

12,739

6,353

77,407

*Calculations exclude schools that are missing program capacity data.

w/ adj. no adj. w/ adj. no adj.

20

10

65

25

25

145

7,906

4,733

44,837

13,807

11,315

82,598

4,884

4,336

43,656

13,216

11,315

77,407

The APF guides this Report Card’s overall assessment of

district progress over the past year, but its main purpose is

to inform the decisions of district administrators. Schools

that struggle on certain measurements included in the APF

receive additional federal funds for such interventions as

Reading Recovery, Lipscomb University’s Literacy Partner-

ships or reading specialists. In addition, the APF informs the

grouping of schools into networks mentored by a “lead prin-

cipal.” These lead principals are, in turn, selected through a

competitive process that includes their school’s APF ranking.

And it is APF trend data, usually in three-year increments,

that helps inform decisions about a principal’s continued

leadership at a school or potential reassignment to another

role. While much of the district’s attention is focused on its

lowest-performing schools, MNPS must push its average per-

formers into the excelling category. Schools should be incen-

tivized with additional resources designed to expand learning

opportunities for proficient and advanced students.

While we believe Metro Schools made progress in 2014, more

urgency is needed in turning around the district’s lowest-per-

forming schools. In our 2013 Report Card, our committee

called for decisive action toward discontinuing persistent-

ly low-performing and under-enrolled schools, and MNPS

is to be commended for transforming two such elementary

schools to model pre-K centers this year. But clearly, with

between 13 and 25 self-identified “target” schools, the pace

of intervention must pick up. There was a justifiable outcry

from the community and school board when the Tennessee

Department of Education announced in August that the

number of state-identified “priority” schools in MNPS more

than doubled to 15. There was not as much focus on the fact

that several of our schools likely dropped into the bottom 5

percent of all schools in Tennessee because Memphis City

Schools successfully reduced its priority schools, closing

nine and transferring 17 to the state-run Achievement School

District. The willingness to take dramatic action toward this

district’s lowest-performing schools in the coming year will

be a true test of leadership for the school board and director

of schools.

1 2

Number of seats (program capacity)*

Percent enrollment/capacity*

2013 2014 2013 2014

4,236

7,016

39,392

21,401

13,960

86,005

6,847

4,882

51,705

14,709

6,400

84,543

106.4%

100.0%

93.5%

85.3%

87.9%

91.7%

97.6%

96.0%

90.7%

95.3%

87.0%

91.6%

w/ adj. no adj. w/ adj. no adj.

98.7%

93.7%

90.9%

86.6%

99.3%

91.6%

5,004

4,515

48,150

13,869

13,005

84,543

The district’s most significant gains in student pro-

ficiency this year occurred at the high school level.

Freshmen and sophomores scored significant gains on

the English I and English II end-of-course exams, more

than doubling the state’s rate of improvement on those

measures. Sixty-two percent of Metro’s ninth-grade

students were proficient or advanced on the English

I assessment, up from 56 percent in 2013. On the

English II test, 55 percent of MNPS sophomores were

proficient or advanced in 2014, up from 47 percent

in 2013. While only 29 percent of MNPS high school

students were proficient or advanced on the algebra

II exam in 2014, that number is up five percentage

points from 2013 and 12 percentage points since the

introduction of the test in 2012 (see Appendix C).

1 3

Grades 4 & 8 Math and High School Algebra I Percentage of MNPS Students Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” 2010-2014

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

2010 2011 2012 2013

High school algebra I

4th-grade math

8th-grade math

Grades 4 & 8 Reading/Language Arts and High School English II Percentage of MNPS Students Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” 2010-2014

2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

28%

47%

33%

31%

35%

38%35% 36%

34%

39% 38%41%

47% 49% 47%

55%

38%42%

52%48%

18%16%

28% 31% 31%37% 38%

37%41%

42%

High school English II

8th-grade reading/language arts

4th-grade reading/language arts

1 4

High school algebra I and English III end-of-course exams

declined in 2014. It should be noted that on both of these

measures, the district’s most advanced students do not take

these tests. These include students completing algebra I in

middle school or high school juniors taking Advanced Place-

ment or International Baccalaureate English. It is unfortu-

nate that the state’s accountability system, in effect, penal-

izes high schools with students who advance beyond these

assessments.

While the district’s graduation rate—the percentage of all

ninth-grade students who graduate from high school within

four years and a summer—increased slightly from 76.6 per-

cent in 2013 to 78.7 percent this year, there has been little

improvement on this measure over the past four years since

the Tennessee Department of Education changed the calcula-

tion for English Language Learners (ELL) and special educa-

tion students in 2011. Prior to that year, ELL students were

given a fifth year to graduate high school successfully and

still count in a district’s graduation rate. Given the signifi-

cant numbers of ELL students in Metro Schools – 19 percent

of MNPS graduates last year had an ELL designation at some

point in their academic history – there appears to be little

room for the district to improve its four-year graduation rate.

This committee still regards ACT performance as a critical

achievement measure for students. The significance of a

student scoring at least a 21 on this measure, particularly

for a district in which 73 percent of the students qualify for

free or reduced lunch, is that it qualifies that student for

the lottery-funded HOPE Scholarship. Hume-Fogg and MLK,

both academic magnet schools, saw 98 and 94 percent of

their students achieve this benchmark. The next highest

percentage – 44 percent – was achieved by students at Nash-

ville School of the Arts, Middle College and Hillsboro High

School. However, in three of the district’s high schools, less

than 10 percent of juniors achieved at least a 21 composite

score. Districtwide, the percentage of 11th-grade students

earning at least a 21 inched up from 28 in 2013 to 29 in

2014. At this rate of improvement, the district will need an

additional two decades to reach its goal of having at least 50

percent of its graduates score a 21 or higher on this import-

ant measure.

Overall progress for middle and elementary school students

continues to lag. Eighth-grade proficiency rates in math and

English showed a one-percentage-point improvement between

2013 and 2014. When only 36 percent of MNPS eighth-

grade students leave middle school proficient or advanced in

English and 42 percent are proficient or advanced in math,

it puts tremendous pressure on the district’s high schools to

remediate. But too many students are also entering middle

school below proficiency. Fourth-graders scoring proficient or

advanced in reading grew to 41 percent, up from 37 per-

cent in 2013, while math proficiency stayed relatively flat

at 38 percent. To its credit, the district is holding central

office administrators accountable for this lack of improve-

ment, reassigning leadership for middle schools in 2013 and

changing elementary school leadership in 2014. But substan-

tial improvement is more likely to come from district-wide,

dramatic intervention at the school building level.

There is an increased expectation on the part of our com-

mittee to see more marked improvement in the coming years

through the district’s implementation of its new strate-

gic plan, Education 2018. The plan calls for personalized

learning for each student as a lever of change, with quality

teaching, transformational leadership and equitable/excel-

lent resources as the district’s key strategies. Ultimately, the

goals of Education 2018 are: grow all students academically,

socially, and emotionally each year; help them achieve high

academic standards; and empower students to have owner-

ship over their learning. As a reflection of our increased ex-

pectations, the committee will begin monitoring the district’s

progress toward reaching the Education 2018 goals in future

report cards.

To read more about Education 2018, the distr ict ’s strategic plan, visit http: / /www.mnps.org/pages/mnps/About_Us/Distr ict_Strategic_Plan.

1 5

James Hartman and Allyson Young, Education Report Card Committee members,

talk with fourth-graders at Eakin Elementary School during a tour.

1 6

Transformation of two low-performing schools into model

pre-K centers

In January 2014, the school board made the diffi-

cult but appropriate decision to close two persistently

low-performing and under-enrolled schools, transforming

them into the Bordeaux and Ross Early Learning Cen-

ters. In addition to receiving a quality pre-K experience,

students at these centers benefit from wrap-around

services and resources to help their families continue

to promote learning at home. The purpose of the model

centers is to ensure that an additional 245 4-year-olds

will be ready to learn and succeed on their first day of

kindergarten in fall 2015. These transformations are a

model strategy for taking action on low-performing, un-

der-enrolled schools—one that can be embraced by stu-

dents and families, as well as the surrounding neighbor-

hood and community. Casa Azafrán is the site of a third

new community-based model pre-K center that opened

in fall 2014, serving 80 children and their families.

Nearly all teachers are accessing new technology

In 2014, 98 percent of the district’s teachers success-

fully completed the district’s new All Star training, an

online professional development module that allows

MNPS to communicate its new expectations for class-

room instruction. The training provides information on

Common Core State Standards, online assessments, and

instructional technology. The training also informed

teachers about the district’s strategic plan – Educa-

tion 2018 – as well as the Learning Technology Plan,

a multi-year blueprint by MNPS and private industry

for incorporating technology into every facet of student

learning. Teachers who successfully completed this

professional development module received a laptop,

with an opportunity to purchase the computer after

three years for $1. Teacher access to laptops is critical

as the district seeks to create more “blended” learning

environments—a combination of online and in-classroom

instruction. According to post-training surveys, more

than 80 percent of teachers said they felt more com-

fortable using technology in their classrooms to educate

students.

Metro Schools’ Academies of Nashville hailed as a na-

tional model

In their fifth year of full implementation, the Academies

of Nashville continue to receive national recognition

for engaging this city’s business and higher education

community to support high school graduates who are

college- and career-ready. The nearly 300 business and

community partners working closely with 42 academies

in 12 high schools demonstrate Nashville’s commitment

to supporting the education of students through expe-

riential learning opportunities like the “My Future, My

Way” career exploration fair, career-focused field trips,

job shadows, and internships. Sixteen academies, or 38

percent of the total, are now accredited by the National

Career Academy Coalition, with five academies achieving

this designation in 2013-2014. MNPS has now hosted

more than 1,000 visitors from across the country, who

have made a three-day trip to Nashville to learn about

the academies through the Ford Next Generation Learn-

ing Community study visit program. National recognition

for MNPS academies reached a new peak in January

2014, when President Barack Obama visited McGavock

High School to speak about the work in Nashville as a

model for the rest of the country.

C O M M I T T E E C O M M E N D AT I O N S

1 7

English Language Learner students eventually

outperform their peers

The district has taken one of its greatest

challenges – the high number and incredi-

ble diversity of ELL students – and shown

it can help these students find a path to

success that raises overall achievement. By

definition, the district’s ELL population is

in a state of constant transition. Every year,

numerous students with limited English

proficiency are added to this accountability

subgroup, while students who reach English

proficiency exit the program. As one might

expect, students who are starting to learn

English have a difficult time demonstrat-

ing English proficiency on the state’s TCAP

assessment—in fact, only 8 percent of grades

3-8 MNPS ELL students were able to meet

the expectations of the state’s accountability

system in 2014. But once students exit the

formal ELL program, they tend to outpace

their peers in the school system. Students

in their first year of transition out of the

ELL program are 27 percent proficient or

advanced in reading/language arts, while sec-

ond-year transition students are 39 percent

proficient. After the second transition year,

50 percent of former ELL students reach

proficiency in reading/language arts, which is

seven percentage points higher than the dis-

trict’s students who have never experienced

the challenge of learning English. In math,

former ELL students outperform the district’s

other students by even greater margins.

Forty-four percent of students one year out

of ELL programs are proficient or advanced,

and second-year transition students are 51

percent in the same category. This is nine

percentage points higher than students with

no ELL background.

2014 MNPS TCAP Achievement Level by ELL Background (grades 3-8)

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

Reading/Language Arts

MathematicsDe

clin

edEL

L se

rvic

e

Acti

ve E

LL

1st

year

tr

ansi

tion

2nd

year

tr

ansi

tion

Form

er E

LL

NELB

*

No E

LL

back

grou

nd

Decl

ined

ELL

serv

ice

Acti

ve E

LL

1st

year

tr

ansi

tion

2nd

year

tr

ansi

tion

Form

er E

LL

NELB

*

No E

LL

back

grou

nd

12%

8%

27%

39%

50% 50%

43%

23%21%

44%

51%

56%52%

42%

* Non-English language background

1 8

Anita Ryan, Education Report Card Committee member and MNPS parent, compares

favorite authors with students during a visit to Eakin Elementary School.

1 9

Misalignment of standards and assessments

After months of contentious debate during the 2014 leg-

islative session, the Tennessee General Assembly allowed

the state’s adoption of the Common Core State Standards to

remain in place for a third school year. However, legislators

delayed implementation of a new state assessment designed

to measure student mastery of Tennessee’s more rigorous ac-

ademic standards. Tennessee had planned to adopt the state

consortium-produced PARCC assessment in 2015, but was

forced to issue a request for proposals for the administration

of a new test in 2016. The state’s delay of the implemen-

tation of a Tennessee State Standards-aligned assessment

is bad for students, educators and our community. For the

past three years, MNPS has invested heavily to ensure more

rigorous academic standards for English language arts and

mathematics are taught in grades K-12. There remains,

however, a continued misalignment between what the state

requires teachers to teach and how the state assesses stu-

dents’ learning. This results in an inaccurate understanding

of students’ mastery of material because they spend a year

learning one thing but are tested on another.

State-identified priority schools more than double

The number of MNPS schools designated as “priority

schools,” meaning their students perform in the bottom

five percent of schools in Tennessee, rose to 15, up from

six in 2012. In addition to failing to improve performance

at four of the originally identified priority schools, eleven

new MNPS schools fell into the bottom 5 percent statewide.

Only John Early Museum Magnet Middle and Gra-Mar Middle

made sufficient improvement to move off the list. This very

public embarrassment can, in part, be traced back to Nash-

ville’s relative reluctance to take dramatic action toward

its lowest-performing schools. In contrast, Memphis City

Schools, which had 69 priority schools identified in 2012,

closed nine of those schools and ceded 17 others to the

state’s Achievement School District. We are pleased to see

the administration now focusing on the needs of their bot-

tom 25 percent of schools with greater urgency, but wonder

what might have been accomplished had this urgency been

in place two years earlier.

C O M M I T T E E C O N C E R N S

Bailey STEM Magnet Middle School

Brick Church Middle School (converting to ASD charter)

Buena Vista Elementary Enhanced Option School

Inglewood Elementary School

Jere Baxter Middle School

Joelton Middle School

John B. Whitsitt Elementary School

Kirkpatrick Elementary Enhanced Option School

Napier Elementary Enhanced Option School

Neely’s Bend Middle School

Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School

Ross Elementary School (now a pre-K center)

Robert Churchwell Museum Magnet Elementary School

Madison Middle School

The Cohn School (alternative learning center)

Priority SchoolsIdentified by the Tennessee Department of Education, these schools are performing in the bottom 5 percent statewide.

2 0

Common-sense graduation requirement for ELL students

Research indicates it takes five to seven years for English

Language Learners to develop academic English proficiency.

Coupling this fact with district data that students exiting its

ELL program go on to outperform their peers, we believe the

Tennessee Department of Education unfairly penalizes high

schools with a large ELL population with the calculation of

its graduation rate. All high school students, even students

who arrive in this country not knowing English, are expect-

ed to graduate within four years and a summer school to be

included in a school’s graduation rate. ELL students who

graduate within five years are a success story, and should be

included in the graduation rate.

Charter school discussion remains a challenge

Our report card once again notes another school year filled

with divisiveness over the issue of charter schools. The

school board continues to spend a disproportionate amount

of time discussing the charter school policies, retention

rates, educational philosophies and fiscal impact, given they

only enrolled 4 percent of the district’s students in 2014.

The observation is shared by the general public. According

to results from the Chamber’s annual public opinion survey

on education, 54 percent of Nashvillians feel the media and

elected officials pay too much attention to charter schools

at the expense of other issues (see Appendix A).

Our committee continues to support a more strategic view

of charter schools, including the creation of a “request

for proposals” approach to the charter application cycle.

The school board’s articulated priorities for new charter

applicants during the 2014 application cycle was a well-in-

tentioned first effort. Improving the process in 2015 by

broadening the scope of work and adding tangible incentives

for charter applicants would be a welcome opportunity to

move beyond a debate that continues to be a blemish for the

school board, right at a time when MNPS needs to be attrac-

tive to potential director of schools candidates.

Must address student mobility

Tennessee’s accountability system is based on the assump-

tion that schools have their students for a full academic year

and that these students should show a certain amount of ac-

ademic growth. That’s a reasonable expectation for students

who do not move around, but in Nashville, that is often not

the reality. There are a significant number of students in

MNPS who move from school to school within the year, high-

ly correlated with poverty and the cost of housing. A school’s

“mobility rate” is the number of student entrances and

exits after the second week of the school year, divided by a

school’s overall enrollment. Districtwide, the mobility rate

is 33 percent, which involved more than 24,065 students

changing schools. Aside from school programs that have

rolling enrollments by design, there were 12 MNPS schools

and three charter schools that had mobility rates above 50

percent. At Buena Vista Enhanced Option Elementary, the

district school with the highest mobility rate, there were

153 student entries and 132 student exits during the 2013-

2014 school year. For a school with an enrollment of 375

students, that translates into a 76 percent mobility rate. If

Buena Vista is to get off the state’s priority school list, it

will likely need to be a completely different approach from

the usual school turnaround strategies. Access to transpor-

tation and learning technology may be more transformational

than changing the principal or teachers.

2 1

E D U C AT I O N A L L E A D E R S H I P

In addition to analyzing overall school system performance,

the committee selects a further area of study that is crit-

ical to academic success. The committee believes educa-

tional leadership is an issue central to the district’s ability

to achieve its ambitious goals for student achievement, as

evidenced by “transformational leadership” being one of

three key tenets of Education 2018, MNPS’ strategic plan. A

clearer pathway for district leadership development has been

established since this topic was examined in the 2010 Re-

port Card, including executive principal training and ongoing

professional development for teachers interested in becoming

administrators.

Teacher leadership

The district employs nearly 5,500 teachers, many of whom

serve in leadership positions beyond their own classrooms

in such positions as department chair, team lead, mentor, or

multi-classroom leader. In many schools, these positions are

supported with monetary stipends that range from $100 to

$250 per year. Other schools have structured their budgets

to allow for more significant stipends for teacher leaders.

Inconsistently rewarding the teachers who take on addition-

al responsibility calls into question how much the district

really values transformational leadership. Equally concerning

is how this impacts MNPS’ ability to implement one of the

strategic plan’s three strategic drivers.

In contrast to the $255,000 estimated to have been spent

by schools on teacher leadership last year, the district paid

nearly $3.8 million in supplements to middle and high

school sports team coaches and student organization advi-

sors. While teacher leaders earn fixed dollar stipends, athlet-

ic coaches and advisors’ stipends are based on a percentage

of their salary, rewarding longevity and advanced degrees.

Team lead teachers might earn a flat $250 for a year’s work,

while basketball coaches earn 12 percent of their base pay.

Using the district’s average teacher salary, a 12 percent

stipend is equal to $7,200. Given the inconsistency between

stipends for leadership versus student-activity-related re-

sponsibilities, the committee recommends the district reform

the pay supplement system to compensate and incentivize

teachers who assume leadership roles at their schools. We

believe the district should fund these leadership stipends

instead of forcing schools to divert funds from other needs.

Teachers serve students through athletics, school activities,

and in their capacity as leaders among their peers and should

be compensated through an equitable supplemental pay sys-

tem that mirrors the values of the school district.

In addition to taking on responsibility within their schools,

third- through fifth-year teacher leaders can participate in

the Teacher Leadership Institute (TLI). In this competitively

selected program, participants build leadership skills that

can be applied in the classroom, in teacher leader roles, or

in administrative positions. The TLI is designed to develop

and ultimately retain talented early-career classroom teach-

ers. Many TLI graduates, while remaining in their classrooms,

take on increased school leadership responsibilities as

grade-level chairs or as members of their school improve-

ment team or data team. Eighty-six percent of TLI graduates

remain in the district, and of that group, 89 percent have

continued on as classroom teachers. Because of the success

of TLI, in 2015-2016, MNPS will start a similar program for

teachers with six years or more years of classroom experience

in the district.

2 2

Principals – executive and assistant

An effective school leader – a principal – is accountable for

developing and maintaining teacher talent, creating a safe

learning environment for students, establishing a school’s

culture of high expectation and performance, and effectively

communicating with parents and other community stake-

holders. Within the district, there are 130 principals – 72

in elementary schools, 38 in middle schools and 20 in high

schools.

In the previous three years, the dis-

trict has developed several programs

to support the development of these

key leaders. One example is SAIL

(Supporting Aspiring Instructional

Leaders), a selective opportunity for

teacher leaders interested in becom-

ing administrators. The curriculum

examines Education 2018, the dis-

trict’s strategic plan. It also develops

expertise in student-centered teaching

and leading. Of 131 total participants

in SAIL’s three-year history, 94 per-

cent are still employed by the dis-

trict. Nearly half – 42 percent – have

assumed leadership roles including

assistant principals, deans of stu-

dents, academy coaches and commu-

nity school coordinators.

Assistant principals are assigned to

schools primarily based on a staffing formula informed by

the number of students in a building. Other considerations

include programmatic needs, student demographics, and

academic performance. There are 163 assistant principals

in the district. Sixty-three serve in high schools, and an

additional 57 and 43 are in elementary and middle schools,

respectively. Monthly meetings for all assistant principals

are an important part of their ongoing professional devel-

opment. These meetings – often led by members of the

district’s executive team – are twofold. They cover common

issues facing every school, such as family engagement and

mobility, as well as provide differentiated sessions based on

assistant principals’ level of experience, needs and profes-

sional interests. Assistant principals have the opportunity

to receive mentoring from executive lead principals, as well

as request personalized career coaching. Their professional

development, improvement and growth as leaders are also the

responsibility of their executive principal and part of their

annual performance expectation.

Assistant principals who have been in

their roles for at least five years may

choose to participate in PLAN (Princi-

pals’ Leadership Academy of Nash-

ville), a professional development

opportunity offered by the district in

conjunction with Vanderbilt Univer-

sity’s Peabody College. It is a lead-

ership theory-oriented program, and

– like SAIL for teachers interested

in becoming assistant principals – is

an opportunity, not a prerequisite for

becoming a principal.

MNPS administration believes that

because of SAIL, PLAN and a delib-

erate focus on professional develop-

ment, the quality of assistant prin-

cipals has improved. Thirteen of the

district’s last 16 principal hires were

internal candidates. Out of 24 current

high school principals, eight are former assistant principals.

In the 12 zoned high schools, there has been no principal

turnover for the previous three years. Missing, however, is a

way for the district to evaluate the effectiveness of its train-

ing from the perspective of new administrators. MNPS should

consider having a third party – perhaps a higher-education

partner – administer an anonymous survey to first-year assis-

tant principals and first-year executive principals who have

participated in the district’s leadership training so they can

provide feedback on how it might be improved.

Excellent schools require

transformational leaders.

Transformational leaders must set

clear and compelling direction,

shape a culture for learning, lead

and manage change, transform

teaching and learning and manage

accountability for results. To do this

effectively, school leaders require

the ability to make decisions, based

on their knowledge, expertise and

professional discretion, particularly

with respect to staffing, budgeting,

program coherence and professional

development.

- Education 2018 executive summary

2 3

Education Report Card Committee members joined Metro Councilmen Walter Hunt, Lonnell Matthews, Anthony Davis and Scott Davis on a

tour of Isaac Litton Middle Prep. Use of technology and project-based learning are hallmarks of educational delivery at this school.

2 4

In recognition of the importance of having an excellent

school leader in every building, the district is two years into

using a new, more rigorous hiring process for both assistant

principals and principals. It begins with an assessment of

what applicants believe about the potential for achievement

of all children, regardless of race, ethnicity or socioeconom-

ic status. Next come evaluations of leadership skill and the

completion of case studies that demonstrate ability to use

data when setting student and staff expectations. Finally,

there are multiple interview phases involving school leaders

and district administrators. Last year, 300 internal candi-

dates for assistant principal positions were winnowed down

to a pool of 20 finalists.

The committee heard two philosophies of talent attraction

from our interview with district administrators – grow your

own or seek outside talent. Certainly there has been substan-

tial investment in the internal talent pipeline. The district

must make sure that, as it aggressively seeks to turn around

its lowest-performing schools, it remains open to actively

recruiting talented leaders away from districts facing similar

issues to our own. Metro Schools must also better ensure

that its employees reflect the diversity of the students in

their schools. The district still lacks a specific strategy to

recruit educators from diverse ethnic and cultural back-

grounds—a 2013 Report Card Committee recommendation—

and this includes its corps of school leaders.

Leadership opportunities continue after one becomes a prin-

cipal. MNPS has “lead principals” who serve as peer leaders

for a network of five other schools and their leaders. These

principals, who spend time outside their own buildings men-

toring the principals in their network, are selected after a

rigorous application process that looks at school performance

trends, among other things. They receive a $12,000 annual

stipend as well as a district-funded additional position at

their schools. After several years of successfully piloting this

model, next year, every school will belong to a five-school

network overseen by a lead principal.

School-level autonomy, originally implemented in iZone

schools three years ago, is now the standard at all high

schools and middle schools, as well as select elementary

schools. Next year will see this autonomy extended to every

principal in the district. Under this model, principals are

responsible for developing their budgets and creating unique

school improvement plans that meet the needs of their

students and are informed by the district’s strategic plan.

They can also eliminate or add positions without first seeking

district-level approval, with the requirement that all state

and federal staffing policies are still met. Last year several

principals exercised this aspect of autonomy by eliminating

in-school suspension monitor positions. Money was reallo-

cated, in one instance, to fund an additional instructional

position and, in another, to a position focused on reducing

students’ chronic absenteeism.

This committee commends the district for empowering those

leaders closest to students to make important budgetary and

staffing decisions. In preparation for the full implementation

of school-level autonomy, we recommend the district catalog

those issues most commonly identified as impeding princi-

pals’ autonomy in order to identify potential policy or statute

changes. There may be laws, policies or statutes that could

be changed through legislation once identified. The district

should continue to identify and share best practices among

principals and ensure these leaders receive relevant, ongoing

professional development, as they assume more responsibility

than ever before.

Governance

Leadership at the top sets the tone for the rest of the or-

ganization. For Metro Schools, ultimate responsibility for

student success lies with the nine-member elected board of

education and its director of schools. Although each school

board member represents a district of constituents, policy is

only decided through a majority vote of the entire board. In

addition, under state law, school boards only have authority

over one school district employee – the director of schools.

These limitations can be challenging for many school board

members, who might have run for office with the promise to

prioritize the interests of their part of the city. It can also be

2 5

tempting for school board members to respond to constituent

issues by using their position of authority to influence the

decisions of other school district employees.

Recognizing these challenges, the MNPS school board ad-

opted “policy governance” as a model for operating in 2002.

Pioneered by John Carver (for more information, visit www.

policygovernance.com), policy governance outlines the dis-

tinct roles of a board and its CEO. Essentially, the governing

board is responsible for setting the organization’s goals, or

“ends,” as well as hiring and evaluating a CEO to achieve

those expectations within any board-prescribed limitations.

The CEO has responsibility for managing all other staff to

achieve the organization’s goals. Policy governance also

serves as a framework for how the board makes decisions and

speaks with one voice. Vigorous debate and differences of

opinion are encouraged prior to a board decision, but once

the board takes a majority vote on an issue, all members are

expected to support the board’s action.

Over the past year, it is clear that the Metro school board

has struggled to articulate a common vision for the school

system. This may be due, in part, to significant turnover on

the board. As of August 2014, five of the nine members had

served fewer than two years. Even more disruptively, some

board members routinely criticize their director of schools

through social media and news media articles between of-

ficial board meetings, creating a perception of dysfunction

and lack of leadership. Given these dynamics, we believe

the board would be wise to invest more time and resources

toward becoming a more cohesive governing body. We recom-

mend that the school board recommit its adherence to policy

governance by engaging in ongoing professional development.

Engaging an outside trainer on a regular basis to work with

the board on updating its policy governance model would en-

sure all members, regardless of length of tenure, have a thor-

ough understanding of the model. In addition, these ongoing

sessions could be designed to help the board accomplish

necessary tasks, such as coming to consensus on expecta-

tions for their next director of schools.

Dr. Jesse Register’s September 2014 announcement that

he would not seek an extension of his contract creates the

potential scenario that he will retire on June 30, 2015, after

serving five and a half years as MNPS’s director of schools.

Our committee believes that Metro Schools has made import-

ant progress under Dr. Register’s leadership and has in place

a foundation that can lead to greater academic gains in the

near future. To realize that potential, the school board must

be able to attract the best possible director candidates from

across the country. Whether they are able to do so will de-

pend on their ability to come together as a board and speak

with one voice on the strategic challenges facing the district.

The school board’s success is also likely to be affected by

how they structure the search process. If the best candi-

dates are the ones who must be recruited away from suc-

cessful careers here or in another community, the school

board would do well to try and mitigate potential doubts and

unknowns from a candidate’s thinking. One huge unknown

is who Nashville’s next mayor will be. While the director of

schools position reports only to the school board, the mayor’s

considerable influence over the school system’s operating

and capital budgets makes the new mayor a make-or-break

relationship for any director. Because of this, the commit-

tee recommends the hiring of a new director of schools take

place after the election of Nashville’s mayor in 2015. Doing

so would remove a major risk factor from the minds of poten-

tial candidates and allow the next leader of our city to forge

a relationship with the new leader of Metro Schools from the

very beginning.

2 6

Eakin Elemtary School fourth-graders host guided tours for community visitors and prospective families.

2 7

A P P E N D I X A

Right

Wrong

Don’t know/no opinion

Education Economy Crime

27.0%

16.0%

13.0%

2013

In general, do you think Nashville is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?

In your opinion, what is the most important issue or problem facing Nashville?

2010 2011 2012 2013

The following graphs represent results from a telephone survey commissioned by the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce.

The survey was designed, written and analyzed by McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations in Nashville. The Parker Consulting

Group of Birmingham, Ala., randomly surveyed 500 Davidson County residents May 5-10, 2014. The survey has a margin of

error of approximately plus or minus 4.4 percent for the total sample.

2014

65%

21%14%

69%

15% 16%

75%

14% 11%

67%

19%14%

72%

15% 13%

Education: 24.4%

Mass transit/traffic problems: 16.0%

Crime: 13.0%

Economy: 11.2%

Other: 10.6%

Don’t know: 8.4%

Growth/development: 7.0%

Roads, sidewalks: 4.2%

Taxes: 2.6%

Illegal immigrants: 1.4%

Health care: 1.2%

2012 2011

2014

2010

Nashvi l le Public Opinion on Education May 2014

31.0%

23.0%

8.0%

30.0%

24.0%

10.0%

30.0%

22.0%

18.0%

2 8

Nashville will elect a new mayor in 2015. What issue or problem should be the No. 1 priority for the next mayor?

Thinking about public schools in Nashville, do you think the Nashville school system is heading in the right direction or the wrong direction?

When you think of K-12 public education in Nashville, would you say it is better than it was one year ago, would you say it is worse, or do you think it is about the same?

Right

Wrong

Don’t know/no opinion

Better

Worse

About the same

Don’t know

Education: 31.0%

Economic development/jobs: 13.5%

Transportation/traffic: 11.4%

Other: 10.5%

Crime/public safety: 9.9%

Don’t know: 7.6%

Growth: 7.1%

Taxes/government spending: 6.5%

Health and wellness: 2.2%

Parks and recreation: 0.3%

2012 2013 2014

37%44%

19%

33%

45%

22%

35%

45%

20%

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

16.0%

51.0%

15.0% 15.0%14.0%

58.0%

13.0%18.0%

14.0%13.0%

58.0%

15.0% 15.7%14.7%

55.9%

13.7%19.4%15.8%

52.4%

12.4%

2 9

When it comes to education, what do you think is the most important issue facing Metro Public Schools today?

Overall performance of Nashville’s public school system, rated on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor, 3 being average and 5 being excellent:

How would you rate public middle schools, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor, 3 being average and 5 being excellent?

How would you rate public elementary schools on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor, 3 being average and 5 being excellent?

How would you rate public high schools, on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being poor, 3 being average and 5 being excellent?

5

4

3

2

1

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

5

4

3

2

1

0

2014

2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

2.82 2.78 2.85 2.86 2.873.30 3.30 3.08 3.11 3.23

2.82 2.80 2.79 2.77 2.802.58 2.54 2.47 2.60 2.61

2013

Parental involvement: 25.6%

Other: 16.4%

Teacher effectiveness: 14.6%

Discipline: 12.0%

Funding: 11.0%

Student achievement: 10.4%

No opinion/Don’t know: 6.4%

Effectiveness of principals: 3.6%

2012 2011

3 0

How important is it to you personally for Metro to improve public education?

Very important

Somewhat important

Not very important

Not important at all

Don’t know

2014 2013 2012 2011 2010

83.9%

12.5%

1.6%

1.2%

0.8%

84.0%

10.0%

2.0%

3.0%

1.0%

85.0%

12.0%

1.0%

1.0%

1.0%

87.8%

8.5%

1.5%

1.0%

1.2%

84.8%

12.2%

1.4%

0.4%

1.2%

Charter schools are public schools that are run independently from the school district. Which of the following statements most closely matches your opinion of charter schools in Nashville?

Every student should have access to a computer with an Internet connection at school and at home.

2014

2014

2013

6.6%

2013

Don’t know

There should be as many charter schools as possible

A limited number of charter schools should operate in Nashville

Charter schools are not necessary

Strongly agree

Somewhat agree

Strongly disagree

Somewhat disagree

Don’t know

42.1%

30.4%

11.1%

19.0%

39.0%

29.0%

13.0%

Colleges should raise their entrance requirements for students planning to enter the teaching profession in order to attract more qualified students, even if that discourages some people from becoming teachers.

43.0% 22.6% 14.2%13.6%

Strongly agree: 29.6%

Somewhat agree: 23.6%

Strongly disagree: 17.8%

Somewhat disagree: 18.0%

Don’t know: 11.0%

50.0% 27.0%

3.0%10.0%

10.0%

The news media and elected officials pay too much attention to charter schools at the expense of other issues.

Strongly agree: 32.4%

Somewhat agree: 22.1%

Strongly disagree: 13.4%

Somewhat disagree: 15.3%

Don’t know: 16.8%

16.4%

3 1

A P P E N D I X B

MNPS Funding

MNPS Operating Budget

MNPS Capital Budget

MNPS operating budget is

approximately 41 percent of Metro

Government’s total budget.

Mil

lion

s of

dol

lars

2007 2008 2009 2010

2010

2011

2011

2012

2012

2013

2013

2014

2014

2006

900

800

700

600

500

400

300

200

100

02015

2015

Capital dollars fund new school

construction, deferred maintanence and

purchases of technology and school buses.

$542.2 $564.9$597.6 $620.7 $620.7

$62.9 $62.3

$100$105

$114

$0

$633.3$674.0

$720.4$746.4 $773.9

Mil

lion

s of

dol

lars

1 .2

1.0

0.8

0.6

0.4

0.2

0.0

3 2

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

40%

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

State Share of BEP FundingState funds as a percentage of the MNPS operating budget, 2005 - 2015

31% 30% 30% 31% 30% 31% 32% 33% 34% 34%35%

MNPS receives state and local education

funding based on the Basic Education Program

(BEP) formula. This formula determines the

funding level required for each school system

in order to provide a common, basic level of

service for all students.

3 3

A P P E N D I X C

MNPS Demographic and Achievement Data

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

Metro Schools Enrollment 2005-2014 Demographic TrendsWith 82,806 students, enrollment continued a seven-year growth trajec-

tory. This is up from an all-time district low of 63,178 students in 1985,

but still well below the all-time high of 95,500 students in 1970.

This section represents a summary and analysis of data about MNPS. The most recent data included in the report are from

the 2013-2014 school year. Unless otherwise noted, the source of the data for this report is the 2014 Tennessee Department

of Education State Report Card, accessible at www.tn.gov/education/reportcard.

All

Economically disadvantaged

Students with disabilities

Limited English proficient

3 4

Racial Subgroup Data

Asian

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

%

4

4

4

4

4

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

3

Number

3,298

3,215

3,162

3,343

2,853

2,577

2,383

2,659

2,370

2,445

2,361

2,323

2,253

2,244

2,255

Demographic Subgroup Data

All

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

2006

2005

2004

2003

2002

2001

2000

%

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

100

Number

82,806

81,134

74,680

73,117

71,708

70,378

70,140

70,140

73,144

71,926

69,445

68,321

68,227

68,016

68,345

Economically disadvantaged

%

73

72

72

75

72

76

73

72

61

55

52

51

49

46

45

Number

60,200

57,954

56,268

55,076

51,882

53,233

50,861

49,889

44,449

39,775

36,459

34,638

33,251

31,426

30,960

%

12

12

13

12

12

12

12

13

14

13

15

15

15

9

15

Number

10,297

9,749

9,396

9,001

8,746

8,615

8,658

9,324

9,773

9,710

10,347

9,975

10,583

5,892

10,593

%

15

15

14

14

14

13

11

9

7

6

7

6

7

6

5

Number

12,675

11,945

11,287

11,010

10,489

9,374

7,934

7,230

5,128

4,603

5,069

3,825

4,643

4,012

3,212

Students with disabilities

Limited English proficient

Black

%

45

45

46

46

48

48

48

47

47

48

46

46

47

46

45

Number

37,218

36,767

36,252

37,138

35,706

35,719

35,144

36,864

34,378

34,596

32,014

31,222

31,885

31,355

30,892

Hispanic

%

20

19

16

17

16

15

14

13

11

10

9

8

6

5

4

Number

16,247

15,099

12,965

13,422

11,882

11,196

10,399

10,467

8,119

7,264

6,369

5,329

4,164

3,401

2,597

Native American

%

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.1

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

0.2

Number

168

147

107

128

105

115

119

134

73

144

139

136

136

136

137

White

%

31

32

34

33

33

33

34

36

37

38

41

43

44

45

47

Number

25,766

25,810

26,489

26,972

24,554

24,701

25,012

28,483

26,770

27,476

28,750

29,241

29,837

30,811

32,464

3 5

Total

Black

White

Hispanic

Asian

Native American

Subgroup Enrollment 2005-2014

100,000

80,000

60,000

40,000

20,000

0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

3 6

Enrollments and Withdrawals

Year Number

End-of-year enrollment

2013-2014

2012-2013

2011-2012

2010-2011

2009-2010

2008-2009

2007-2008

79,680

78,103

76,046

74,683

73,329

71,995

71,600

New enrollment in MNPS

Withdrawal TN public

Withdrawal out of state(public or private)

Withdrawal TN private

Number % Number % Number % Number %

8,226

8,166

8,003

7,734

8,067

8,598

8,315

10.5

10.7

10.7

10.5

11.2

12.0

10.4

3,552

3,363

3,321

3,207

3,550

3,930

3,850

4.5

4.4

4.4

4.4

4.9

5.5

4.8

2,727

2,972

3,115

3,052

3,200

3,152

2,652

3.5

3.9

4.2

4.2

4.4

4.4

3.3

892

1,089

765

711

762

811

911

1.1

1.4

1.0

1.0

1.1

1.1

1.1

New Transfers and WithdrawalsThe following table reflects the number and rate of students withdrawing from MNPS and enrolling in another Tennessee

public school system, a Tennessee private school, or a public or private school outside the state, as well as the number and

rate of students transferring their enrollment to MNPS from any of these sources. These numbers reflect the district’s final

enrollments and withdrawals for any given year. They do not include pre-K enrollment.

Charter Enrollment HistoryThese numbers provide a year-to-year comparison of number of students enrolled in charter schools, as well as what type of

schools those students were enrolled in on the last day of the previous academic year. Numbers provide an end-of-year to

end-of-year comparison.2010-2011Enrollment

Previous end-of-year at charter

Not in MNPS at end of previous year

Previous end-of-year at MNPS non-charter

End-of-year charter enrollment

664

81

429

1,174

2011-2012Enrollment

834

264

1,052

2,150

2012-2013Enrollment

1,543

281

1,190

3,014

2013-2014Enrollment

2,103

487

1,231

3,821

3 7

Innovation Cluster Percentage of “Proficient” or “Advanced” in 3-8 Reading/Language and Math*

School

Bailey STEM Magnet MS

Buena Vista Enhanced Option ES

Gra-Mar MS

John Early Museum Magnet Middle

Napier Elementary Enhanced Option

Robert Churchwell Museum Magnet ES

Cameron MS*

Brick Church MS*

Margaret Allen MS

Jere Baxter MS

2012 2013

11.4

19.3

25.5

29.8

13.7

20.8

29.9

15.3

30.0

24.7

2014

3-8 Math

3-8 Reading/

Language 3-8 Math

3-8 Reading/

Language 3-8 Math

3-8 Reading/

Language

17.3

18.1

20.8

28.0

14.5

20.5

20.9

16.8

33.3

24.0

11.8

15.0

31.5

26.0

16.1

19.2

31.8

8.7

45.9

26.1

17.1

7.5

25.6

24.2

16.1

18.6

25.8

20.0

37.9

17.7

16.2

15.1

23.7

23.8

17.3

21.9

30.1

8.7

36.9

15.8

19.9

19.3

32.5

26.9

24.0

24.5

50.0

8.7

43.9

25.5

MNPS Innovation Cluster Schools MNPS placed 10 schools in an Innovation Cluster starting in the 2011-2012 school year, giving new principals greater auton-omy for hiring staff, as well as budgetary independence. The objective was to turn around the lowest-performing schools in the district. Since that time, some schools have moved out of the iZone, and others have moved in. In many of these schools, leadership changes have taken place across multiple years. Schools that have been in the iZone since its creation are in bold.

*Brick Church and Cameron are being converted to charter schools one grade at a time. Cameron’s conversion is through an

MNPS partnership with LEAD Public Schools. Brick Church’s conversion is through an Achievement School District

partnership, also with LEAD Public Schools. Only the non-converted grades are represented in this table.

MNPS Innovation Cluster Schools – APF Status

School

Bailey STEM Magnet MS

Buena Vista Enhanced Option ES

Gra-Mar MS

John Early Museum Magnet MS

Napier Elementary Enhanced Option ES

Robert Churchwell Museum Magnet ES

Cameron MS

Brick Church MS

Margaret Allen MS

Jere Baxter MS

Type 2012 APF Status

iZone School

iZone School

iZone School

iZone School

iZone School

iZone School

Transformation Partnership

Transformation Partnership

Innovation Design School

Innovation Design School

Target

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Review

Review

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

2013 APF Status

Target

Target

Satisfactory

Target

Target

Target

Target

Target

Achieving

Review

2014 APF Status

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Review

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Excelling

Satisfactory

Satisfactory

Review

3 8

ACT scoresAnother achievement measure reported by the state is the ACT test. An ACT composite score equal to or greater than 21 is

the minimum necessary to qualify for a lottery-funded HOPE scholarship. A minimum score of 19 is the entrance requirement

for four-year state colleges and universities. This graph shows the percentages of MNPS students attaining a 21 or higher

composite score on the ACT.

Percent of MNPS Classes of 2010 and 2014 Scoring 21+ on ACT

2010

2014

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%

Hum

e-Fo

gg

MLK

Hill

sbor

o

Mid

dle

Coll

ege

NSA

Hill

woo

d

Big

Pict

ure

John

Ove

rton

McG

avoc

k

LEAD

Aca

dem

y

East

Nas

hvil

le

Anti

och

Cane

Rid

ge

Glen

clif

f

Hunt

ers

Lane

Stra

tfor

d

Whi

tes

Cree

k

Map

lew

ood

Pear

l-Co

hn

Tota

l

n/a

n/a

n/a

98%94%

44% 44% 44%

29% 28% 27% 25% 24% 23% 18% 16%

13% 13% 12% 7% 6% 5%

29%27%

3 9

Percent of MNPS Students Scoring Above ACT Composite Benchmark 21+: Classes of 2010 and 2014

School Class of 2010

Antioch

Cane Ridge

Big Picture

East Nashville

Glencliff

Hillsboro

Hillwood

Hume-Fogg

Hunters Lane

John Overton

LEAD Academy

Maplewood

Martin Luther King, Jr.

McGavock

Middle College

Nashville School of the Arts

Pearl-Cohn

Stratford

Whites Creek

Total

18%

N/A

N/A

23%

10%

39%

21%

94%

10%

27%

N/A

7%

95%

22%

48%

40%

3%

6%

10%

27%

Class of 2014

18%

16%

28%

23%

13%

44%

29%

98%

13%

27%

24%

6%

94%

25%

44%

44%

5%

12%

7%

29%

4 0

Accountability DataTennessee uses accountability data to determine a school or district’s accountability status under the state’s waiver from the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Accountability data include gains on student assessments, gap closure between groups of students and graduation rate. In Tennessee, students are classified as “below basic,” “basic,” “profi-cient” or “advanced.” In grades 3-8 TCAP tests, students are measured based on their scores in reading/language arts and math. Included on subsequent pages are the percentages of students scoring proficient or advanced in grades 4 and 8, which represent the culminating years for most MNPS elementary and middle schools. High school students are measured based on their end-of-course exams (English II, English III, algebra I and algebra II) and for meeting a specific on-time graduation rate (77.7 percent in 2011-2012). English III and algebra II were added to the state’s accountability model beginning with the 2012-2013 school year.

Achievement Measures: MNPS met the majority of its achievement goals.MNPS met slightly more than half of its achievement goals. In particular, results in third-grade math and reading declined.

The reduction in algebra I is explained, in part, because an increasing number of eighth-grade students are taking this

course, and their test results are not counted by the state towards the district’s total score.

Achievement

Goal met

Improvement

no

declined

3rd-Grade

Math

7th-Grade

Math

3rd-Grade

Reading/

Language

7th-Grade

Reading/

Language

3-8

Reading/

Language

3-8

MathAlgebra I Algebra II

yes

improved

no

declined

yes

improved

yes

improved

yes

improved

no

declined

yes

improved

English II

yes

improved

English II I

yes

declined

Grad

Rate

no

declined

Gap Closure Measures: The district is closing the achievement gap for economically disadvantaged students, though not do-

ing nearly as well for its LEP students.

Gap Closure Goal Met

All Students v. African Am., Hispanic, Native Am.

Economically Disadvantaged (ED) v. Non-ED

Math (3-8)

Reading/language (3-8)

Algebra I & algebra II (9-12)

English II & English II I (9-12)

yes

no

yes

yes

Limited English Proficient (LEP) v. Non-LEP

Students with Disabilities (SWD) v. Non-SWD

yes

yes

yes

yes

no

no

yes

no

no

no

no

no

Subgroup

ImprovementAfrican American

Math (3-8)

Reading/language (3-8)

Algebra I (9-12)

Algebra II (9-12)

English II (9-12)

English II I (9-12)

Asian

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

declined

Hawaiian Pacific Islander Hispanic

Native American White ED LEP SWD

declined

declined

declined

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

---

---

---

---

improved

improved

declined

declined

improved

declined

improved

declined

---

---

---

---

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

declined

improved

improved

improved

improved

improved

improved

declined

improved

declined

improved

improved

declined

4 1

Percent of MNPS Students in Grade 4 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Reading/Language Arts by Subgroup

Grades 4 and 8 Reading/Language Arts and Math Proficiency

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

41

38

39

34

All

56

57

58

48

Asian

31

28

28

24

Black

33

27

32

27

Hispanic

58

53

56

51

White

31

29

30

26

Economically

Disadvantaged

30

30

28

26

Students w/

Disabilities

17

13

15

14

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grade 4 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Math by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

38

37

31

31

All

63

56

51

51

Asian

28

28

20

21

Black

32

29

25

23

Hispanic

53

51

46

45

White

29

29

23

23

Economically

Disadvantaged

30

32

25

29

Students w/

Disabilities

23

20

16

16

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grade 8 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Reading/Language Arts by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

36

35

38

35

All

47

52

54

50

Asian

47

27

28

25

Black

27

28

29

29

Hispanic

54

48

55

52

White

27

27

29

26

Economically

Disadvantaged

29

26

28

23

Students w/

Disabilities

4

4

9

8

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grade 8 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Math by Subgroup*

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

42

41

37

16

All

50

69

60

31

Asian

21

32

25

10

Black

27

36

33

14

Hispanic

37

52

52

25

White

21

34

29

11

Economically

Disadvantaged

19

22

22

17

Students w/

Disabilities

19

19

19

7

Limited English

Proficiency

4 2

Grades 9-12: English II, English III, Algebra I and Algebra II Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grades 9-12 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in English II by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

55

47

49

47

All

63

52

53

59

Asian

46

37

40

36

Black

50

42

37

37

Hispanic

71

66

67

67

White

46

38

39

37

Economically

Disadvantaged

27

19

28

26

Students w/

Disabilities

16

13

16

13

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grades 9-12 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in English III by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

23

26

22

All

29

36

35

Asian

29

17

13

Black

19

20

14

Hispanic

39

42

39

White

17

18

14

Economically

Disadvantaged

4

8

6

Students w/

Disabilities

4

2

3

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grades 9-12 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Algebra I by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

48

52

42

38

All

53

61

49

42

Asian

43

43

36

34

Black

47

53

41

33

Hispanic

57

64

52

47

White

45

47

38

33

Economically

Disadvantaged

25

25

22

22

Students w/

Disabilities

35

35

28

26

Limited English

Proficiency

Percent of MNPS Students in Grades 9-12 Scoring “Proficient” or “Advanced” in Algebra II by Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

29

24

17

All

53

50

34

Asian

19

13

10

Black

21

22

11

Hispanic

43

38

29

White

22

16

11

Economically

Disadvantaged

7

7

2

Students w/

Disabilities

16

10

8

Limited English

Proficiency

4 3

Graduation RatesIn Tennessee’s accountability system under the ESEA waiver, there is a one-year lag between when a school district’s high

school graduation rate is reported and when that rate is applied towards district accountability. This delay allows for the

inclusion of summer graduates in the graduation rate calculation. MNPS did not meet its graduation rate target of 79.8 per-

cent in 2013, which was applied to 2014 accountability. However, the district’s graduation rate of 78.7 percent in 2014 did

exceed the target of 78.1 percent, so MNPS has already met one of its state accountability targets for next year.

* Prior to 2010-2011, ELL and special education students were given a fifth year to complete a regular diploma.

**Policy changes in 2013 required more detailed documentation for students leaving the district, making the 2013

graduation rate less comparable to previous years.

MNPS Graduation Rates*

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0%2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

61.9%

68.8% 70.0% 72.6% 73.1%

82.9%

76.2% 78.4% 76.6%**

2014

78.7%

4 4

Graduation Rate (%) by High School

High School

Antioch

Cane Ridge

East Literature

Glencliff

Hillsboro

Hillwood

Hume-Fogg

Hunters Lane

John Overton

Lead Academy

Maplewood

Martin Luther King Jr .

McGavock

Middle College

Nashville Big Picture

Nashville School of the Arts

Pearl-Cohn

Stratford

Whites Creek

Davidson County District

2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

2014 target

(for 2015

accountability)

66.5

---

97.3

53.3

63.6

63.3

99.0

69.4

72.0

---

41.2

99.4

56.1

---

---

89.7

46.2

50.5

53.7

61.9

66.9

---

97.8

63.4

74.4

68.7

98.5

72.7

75.1

---

42.6

98

68.5

---

---

90.9

65.1

54.5

65.8

68.8

75.3

---

99.2

68.4

70.9

75.8

99.5

78.3

79.6

---

58.2

99.3

74.3

---

---

95.2

67.7

73

64.5

70.0

71.5

---

99.3

66.6

81.0

75.8

98.5

77.7

79.1

---

69.3

99.4

76.3

---

---

96.5

66.1

64.6

64.7

72.6

74.7

---

97.3

73.3

81.6

67.7

100.0

76.5

77.9

---

69.5

99.3

75.8

97.0

---

98.1

68.0

67.6

67.5

73.1

82.2

---

98.4

81.1

82.7

86.0

99.5

80.7

87.3

---

87.4

99.4

81.6

95.3

---

95.1

80.5

79.6

78.5

82.9

72.2

81.6

94.1

69.7

79.8

82.4

100.0

71.1

77.9

---

68.2

100.0

72.3

97.3

95.7

91.8

77.7

64.9

68.2

76.2

69.8

82.1

96.1

71.6

80.3

84.0

99.6

77.8

78.8

---

68.4

99.4

77.6

94.1

94.6

94.5

69.3

64.4

71.0

78.4

75.2

79.0

100.0

70.7

84.2

84.4

98.7

77.6

72.7

---

74.9

100.0

73.7

95.7

94.7

95.2

73.8

59.9

68.3

76.6

75.2

82.5

100.0

76.3

82.4

82.8

100.0

77.2

81.6

93.5

82.4

100.0

76.9

97.4

89.7

97.9

69.4

75.0

73.4

78.7

76.7

80.4

100.0

72.5

85.2

85.4

98.7

79.0

74.4

N/A

76.5

100.0

75.3

96.0

95.1

95.5

75.4

62.4

70.3

78.1

2014 target met

2014 target not met

2014

4 5

Year K - 8

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

2009

2008

2007

AttendanceK - 8 attendance has remained steady for the past

six years, and high school attendance has remained

steady for the past two year. The new accountability

system under the ESEA waiver no longer includes an

attendance target.

9 - 12

95.5

95.4

95.5

95.2

95.2

95.4

94.1

94.9

92.1

92.3

91.9

91.3

91.8

91.4

87.4

90.2

Attendance (%) by Grade Tier

Suspensions*The percentage of students suspended remained flat for the third consecutive year. African American students continue to be

significantly overrepresented compared to other demographic groups.

* Suspension = Student who is not allowed to attend school for a period of time not greater than 10 days and remains on the school rolls.

Suspensions as a Percentage of the Number of Students in Each Subgroup

Year

2014

2013

2012

2011

2010

Disciplinerate

14.1

14.1

14.0

12.8

12.9

% Asian

4.2

4.1

4.6

4.0

4.4

% Black

21.6

21.5

17.7

18.6

18.7

% Hispanic

8.8

8.4

9.0

8.8

8.6

% White

8.1

8.2

7.6

8.0

7.6

4 6

Davidson County Compared to Peer Systems in TennesseeAll four large urban school systems are in need of achievement target improvements in at least one student subgroup. MNPS

(Davidson County) ranks third out of the four districts in graduation rate, state achievement letter grades and ACT scores.

MNPS also has a larger percentage of students who are economically disadvantaged than the other three counties, as well as

an ELL population more than twice the size of the next closest district.

Comparison of the Four Large Urban School Systems in Tennessee

Year

Accountability status

Achievement measures

Gap closure measures

Reward Schools (2014)

Priority Schools (2012-2013 through

2014-2015)

Focus Schools (2012-2013 through

2014-2015)

2014 graduation rate

Student enrollment

Grades 3-8 TCAP criterion-

referenced academic achievement

letter grades (math, reading,

science, social studies)

Grades 4-8 value-added growth

standard letter grades (math,

reading, science, social studies)

Percent scoring 21 or above on 2014

ACT

Economically disadvantaged

students

Students with disabilities

English Language Learners

Per-pupil expenditure

Davidson County Shelby County Knox County Hamilton County

In Need of Subgroup

Improvement (Asian)

Achieve - Not Exemplary

Miss - In Need of

Subgroup Improvement

18 out of 168 (11% of

state’s Reward Schools)

15 out of 85 (18% of

state’s Priority Schools)

9 out of 144 (6% of

state’s Focus Schools)

78.70%

82,806

B C C C

A C B B

29.30%

72.70%

12.40%

15.30%

$11,452.70

In Need of Subgroup

Improvement (White,

Native American,

Hawaiian/Pacific

Islander)

Achieve - Not Exemplary

Miss - In Need of

Subgroup Improvement

42 out of 168 (25% of

state’s Reward Schools)

50 out of 85 (59% of

state’s Priority Schools)

13 out of 144 (9% of

state’s Focus Schools)

74.60%

149,928

B C C B

N/A

25.40%

68.90%

13.30%

6.60%

$10,333.20

In Need of Subgroup

Improvement

(White, Hispanic,

students with

disabilities, English

Language Learners)

Achieve - Not Exemplary

Miss - In Need of

Subgroup Improvement

5 out of 168 (3% of

state’s Reward Schools)

4 out of 85 (5% of

state’s Priority Schools)

9 out of 144 (6% of

state’s Focus Schools)

88.70%

59,232

A A A A

A C B A

45.90%

49.50%

14.20%

3.70%

$9,341.50

In Need of Subgroup

Improvement

(students with

disabilities, English

Language Learners)

Achieve - Not Exemplary

Miss - In Need of

Subgroup Improvement

6 out of 168 (4% of

state’s Reward Schools)

5 out of 85 (6% of

state’s Priority Schools)

3 out of 144 (2% of

state’s Focus Schools)

82.60%

43,531

A B B B

A C B B

36.30%

58.70%

13.20%

4.50%

$9,752.30 4 7

Brian Shaw, co-chair of the 2014 Education Report Card

Committee, talks with a fourth-grader during a committee

tour of Eakin Elementary.

4 8

Performance Among Middle Tennessee and TN Urban School Systems (2013-2014)

Grade 3-8 Reading/

Language

Prof. + Adv. (%)System

Davidson County

Cannon County

Cheatham County

Dickson County

Hickman County

Macon County

Maury County

Montgomery County

Robertson County

Rutherford County

Murfreesboro

Smith County

Sumner County

Trousdale County

Williamson County

Franklin SSD

Wilson County

Lebanon SSD

Hamilton County

Knox County

Shelby County

Tennessee

40.7

40.9

47.7

57.6

44.6

43.3

46.0

53.5

47.8

60.8

53.3

53.2

57.8

56.7

83.5

68.9

61.2

51.0

46.9

53.5

41.0

49.5

Grade 3-8 Math

Prof. + Adv. (%)

Grade 9-12

English II

Prof. + Adv. (%)

Grade 9-12 Algebra I

Prof. + Adv. (%)

Percent scoring 21

or higher on ACT

44.6

45.7

51.9

59.2

49.6

44.7

39.3

51.1

53.0

63.0

64.3

54.5

57.3

72.0

80.8

71.6

60.2

54.0

54.4

53.5

41.7

51.3

55.1

58.0

71.3

71.9

48.2

57.5

62.4

68.1

63.3

74.4

N/A

64.3

69.5

75.7

89.3

N/A

74.8

N/A

58.1

70.3

52.4

63.4

47.8

35.3

53.0

69.2

44.7

72.3

65.4

63.9

72.9

67.6

N/A

67.3

66.1

90.1

84.4

N/A

72.1

N/A

51.3

60.9

53.9

62.4

29.3

26.5

40.2

35.4

26.8

32.8

33.5

39.8

32.6

43.8

N/A

37.6

44.2

36.5

72.6

N/A

41.7

N/A

36.3

45.9

25.4

36.9

A P P E N D I X DM

iddl

e Te

nnes

see

(Nas

hvil

le M

SA +

Mon

tgom

ery)

TN U

rban

Sy

stem

s

Performance of Middle Tennessee and Urban System Distr icts

4 9

A P P E N D I X E

Academic Performance Framework Schools

Tier

Glendale ES

Granbery ES

KIPP Academy

Liberty Collegiate Acad

Lockeland ES

MLK Magnet

MLK Magnet

MNPS Middle College

Nashville Prep School

New Vision Academy

Old Center ES

Percy Priest ES

Stanford ES

STEM Prep Academy

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

Schools Excelling for Both 1 Year and 3 Years

Tier

Tier

Academy at Old Cockrill

Crieve Hall ES

Harpeth Valley ES

Hume-Fogg Magnet

LEAD Academy

Meigs MS Magnet

Rose Park MS

KIPP Academy

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Academy

LEAD Prep

Liberty Collegiate Acad

Nashville Prep School

New Vision Academy

STEM Prep Academy

HS

K-8

K-8

HS

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

Additional Schools Excelling or Achieving for Both 1 Year and 3 Years

High Performing and High Percentage Black, Hispanic or Native American

Tier

Dan Mills ES

Head MS

West End MS

K-8

K-8

K-8

Additional Schools Achieving for 3 Years

Tier

Cameron College Prep

Cameron MS

Cockrill ES

KIPP Academy

KIPP College Prep

Knowledge Academy

LEAD Academy

LEAD Prep

Nashville Prep School

New Vision Academy

Old Center ES

Rosebank ES

STEM Prep Academy

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

HS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

High Performing and High Percentage Economic Disadvantage

% Econ. Dis.

96.4%

91.9%

93.4%

91.3%

84.4%

82.4%

82.7%

93.4%

80.4%

81.8%

85.8%

87.6%

84.3%

% B/H/NA

97.2%

94.4%

94.1%

86.4%

83.9%

91.3%

92.4%

81.5%

Tier

Cameron College Prep

Cameron MS

Cockrill ES

Intrepid Prep

Old Center ES

Rosebank ES

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

High Performing and High Mobility Rate

Mobility Rate

43

42

35

73

36

41

5 0

MNPS Academic Performance Framework Measures, Score Ranges and Weights

Measures

Composite (total points)

Not yet available

Target

0.0-19.99

<5.0%

<-2.0

<-5.0

<20.0%

0.0-4.9%

0.0-9.9%

<65.0%

>20.0%

<60.0%

<25.0%

Academic progress (weighted 50%)

Attainment & college readiness

(weighted 30%)

Achievement gap

(weighted 5%)

School culture (weighted 15%)

Review

20.0-27.99

Satisfactory

28.0-54.99

Achieving

55.0-64.99

Excelling

65.0-100

Key

indi

cato

rs

Adjusted achievement level

increase % of points*

K-8 TVAAS NCE gain*

HS TVAAS SS gain*

% Proficient/advanced*

K-8 projected % ACT 21+

HS % ACT 21+

HS graduation rate

Achievement gap*

TELL TN (teacher) survey favorability

Parent perceptions

Tripod (student) survey % of points

5.0-29.9%

-2.0-0.99

-5.0-1.01

20.0-29.9%

5.0-9.9%

10.0-19.9%

65.0-69.9%

12.1-20%

60.0-69.9%

25.0-39.9%

30.0-59.9%

1.0-4.99

-1.0-3.99

30.0-59.9%

10.0-39.9%

20.0-49.9%

70.0-79.9%

4.1-12%

70.0-79.9%

40.0-54.9%

60.0-74.9%

5.0-7.49

4.0-7.99

60.0-74.9%

40.0-59.9%

50.0-69.9%

80.0-89.9%

0.1-4%

80.0-89.9%

55.0-64.9%

75.0% or greater

7.5 or greater

8.0 or greater

75.0-100%

60.0-100%

70.0-100%

90.0-100%

0% or less

90.0-100%

65.0-100%

Tier

Andrew Jackson ES

Cameron College Prep

Cameron MS

Cockrill ES

Dupont Hadley MS

Eakin ES

Hermitage ES

Intrepid Prep

J.T. Moore MS

KIPP College Prep

Knowledge Academy

LEAD Prep

Rosebank ES

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

Additional Schools Excelling or Achieving for 1 Year

Tier Tier% ELL SWD

Cameron College Prep

Cameron MS

Cockrill ES

Crieve Hall ES

Intrepid Prep

STEM Prep Academy

Cockrill ES

Dupont Hadley MS

Eakin ES

Hermitage ES

J.T. Moore MS

KIPP Academy

KIPP College Prep

LEAD Prep

Nashville Prep School

West End MS

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

K-8

38.4%

34.1%

20.2%

24.8%

26.5%

26.0%

16.3%

15.4%

17.0%

17.3%

15.8%

14.2%

20.0%

16.4%

15.3%

17.5%

High Performing and High Percentage English Language Learners

High Performing and High PercentageStudents with Disabilities

5 1

A P P E N D I X F

Status of Education Report Card Committee Recommendations from 2013 Report

1. Metro Schools should take decisive action toward

discontinuing their persistently lowest-performing,

under-enrolled school programs under the new district

Academic Performance Framework.

Implemented. In May 2013, Ross Elementary and Bordeaux

Elementary were transitioned into early learning centers.

These neighborhood-based centers now provide a pre-K

opportunity for an additional 300 4-year-olds in Davidson

County. Well before the school year ended, MNPS staff

began working with families to transition to new schools the

200 students from Ross and the 300 students from Bor-

deaux affected by the closing of these persistently low-per-

forming, under-enrolled schools.

The district continues to use the APF as an evaluation tool

for gauging the effectiveness of schools in educating stu-

dents, for evaluating principals, and for allocating need-spe-

cific resources such as additional staff or programs. At the

individual school level, principals use APF data to monitor

and improve upon the performance of their student sub-

groups and take measure of their schools’ climates based on

family and teacher satisfaction rates.

2. Metro Schools should implement an aggressive strategy to

recruit and retain high-performing bilingual teachers.

Not implemented. MNPS has not yet developed a strategy

to recruit and retain high-performing bilingual teachers.

On average, the district hires 700 new teaching positions

annually. It is possible that a lack of resources has prevent-

ed the human capital office from implementing a differen-

tiated recruitment strategy for specific types of teachers,

including ones who speak more than a single language. And,

while the ELL population of MNPS continues to grow, it isn’t

clear that bilingual teachers are the district’s highest hiring

priority. Other types of specialized teachers in high need are

those with experience teaching in low-poverty, highly diverse

districts, teachers with experience working in turnaround

school environments, and career and technical education

teachers in high-demand fields.

The district has updated the teacher application to ask

candidates to indicate what languages they speak fluently

in order to identify bilingual candidates. It has participat-

ed in job fairs at various Hispanic-serving institutions and

at large, diverse universities. It is also considering several

additional options for the recruitment of bilingual teachers,

including targeting graduates from universities in states with

diverse populations as well as a “grow-our-own” strategy

aligned with MNPS’s two teaching academies, located at

Whites Creek and Antioch High Schools.

MNPS responds: For the 2015-2016 school year, the district

will participate in local and national bilingual teacher recruit-

ment fairs and actively recruit in cities with large bilingual

teacher workforces, including Miami, Orlando, Houston and

Los Angeles. The district is also scheduled to participate in

the National Association of Bilingual Education and the Cali-

fornia Association of Bilingual Education conferences. Addi-

tionally, MNPS recruiters will be traveling to Puerto Rico to

actively recruit experienced teachers.

5 2

3. Metro Government should allow enrolled K-12 students to

ride Metropolitan Transit Authority buses at no cost to the

student, making school choice a real possibility for Nash-

ville’s students and families.

Implemented. This recommendation has seen a substantial

degree of implementation. During his 2014 State of Metro

address, Mayor Karl Dean announced the city’s commitment

to allow MNPS high schoolers to ride MTA buses at no cost

to students. Shortly after school began in August 2014,

the district issued coded identification cards to 21,000

students, allowing them access to bus rides any time. At

the end of the first nine weeks of school, MTA showed a 15

percent increase in student ridership.

The availability of free-to-students public transportation is

a critical step in allowing more extensive school choice to

students and increasing city-wide access to cultural and

entertainment activities, as well as employment opportuni-

ties. The committee lauds the Mayor’s Office, Metro Council,

MNPS and Metro Transit Authority for this groundbreaking

initiative. We look forward to the future expansion of this

recommendation.

4. The Tennessee General Assembly should stay the course

in implementing Common Core State Standards and the

corresponding PARCC assessments.

Partially implemented. During the 2014 legislative session,

the Tennessee General Assembly took action supporting the

continued implementation of Common Core State Standards.

That same legislation, however, delayed implementation of a

new assessment to measure student mastery of the current

standards until the 2015-2016 school year. Since 2010,

Tennessee has made substantial investments – including

teacher trainings and technology upgrades – to support the

implementation of more robust academic standards. It is a

disservice to Tennessee’s students and teachers to require

the teaching and learning of a rigorous set of standards

while the success of both is measured by an unaligned

assessment. Until the state guarantees the administration

of an assessment designed to evaluate what is being taught,

there is no accurate way to gauge student learning. There

also is genuine concern about evaluating teacher perfor-

mance using a misaligned state assessment.

5. Metro Schools should implement a strategy to communi-

cate with parents, teachers, students and the broader public

about the increased rigor and higher expectations that corre-

spond with Common Core State Standards.

Implemented. Last year, MNPS convened more than 30

school-based community meetings to help families and

teachers gain a better understanding of the district’s im-

plementation of Tennessee State Standards. Additionally,

the district met its ambitious goal of putting nearly 6,000

teachers through All Stars Training — specialized profes-

sional development training on the topics of instructional

delivery, using technology in the classroom, and differentiat-

ed instruction, all key components to successfully teaching

Tennessee State Standards.

5 3

Dr. Jewell Winn, Education

Report Card Committee member,

shares a smile with students

during a school tour.

5 4

A P P E N D I X G

Experts Interviewed

Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County

The Honorable Karl Dean, mayor

The Honorable Steve Glover, Metropolitan Council member, District 12

Metropolitan Board of Public Education

The Honorable Sharon Gentry (chair), District 1

The Honorable Elissa Kim (vice chair), District 5

The Honorable Amy Frogge, District 9

MNPS Central Administration and Staff

Dr. Jesse Register, director of schools

Fred Carr, chief operating officer

Dr. Paul Changas, executive director of research, assessment and evaluation

Katie Cour, executive director of talent strategy

Dr. Alan Coverstone, executive director, office of innovation

Dr. Vanessa Garcia, executive officer for elementary schools

Dr. Kelly Henderson, executive director of instruction

Chris Henson, chief financial officer

Dr. Julie McCargar, executive director of federal programs and grant management

Dr. Kecia Ray, executive director of learning technology and library services

Derek Richey, director of operational innovation

Dr. Jay Steele, chief academic officer

Dr. Tina Stenson, research coordinator for research, assessment and evaluation

Susan Thompson, chief human capital officer

Dr. Michelle Wilcox, executive officer for high schools

Dr. Antoinette Williams, executive officer for middle schools

Ronnie Wilson, MNPS bus driver

MNPS Principals and School Leaders

Kellee Akers, principal, Hermitage Elementary School

Jon T. Hubble, principal, Apollo Middle Prep School

Dr. Adrienne Koger, executive principal, Antioch High School

Chris Reynolds, CEO of LEAD Public Schools

Dr. Ron Woodard, executive principal, Maplewood High School

MNPS Teachers

Paige Taylor, Glendale Elementary School

Alecia Ford, J.T. Moore Middle Prep

Leticia Skae, Hillsboro High School

Higher Education

Dr. Jason A. Grissom, assistant professor of public policy and education, Vanderbilt University

Dr. Hank Staggs, director for educational leadership and off-campus cohorts; associate professor of education, Lipscomb University

The Education Report Card Committee is grateful to the students, teachers, administrators, elected officials and community

representatives who made time to talk with us. The following individuals shared their candid opinions and insights, providing

the information necessary for us to complete this report. We offer our sincere thanks and appreciation.

5 5

Community and Advocacy Groups

Frank Daniels III, columnist, The Tennessean

Bill DeLoach, chair of the board, Tennessee Charter School Center

David Fox, MNPS school board (2006-2010)

Shannon Hunt, president, Nashville Public Education Foundation

Erica Lanier, president, Director’s Parents Advisory Council

Kathy Nevill, CFO/COO, EFTSource, MNPS school board (2000-2006)

Consultants and Topic Experts

Barbara Gray, president, Tennessee National Education Association

Stephen Henry, president, Metropolitan Nashville Education Association

Roger Shirley, editorial director, McNeely Pigott & Fox Public Relations

Dan Ryan, principal, Ryan Search and Consulting

Schools Visited by Committee Members

School visits are an integral part of the work of this

committee. We are especially appreciative to these schools

and their leaders for affording us the opportunity to talk with

administrators, teachers, parents and students.

Buena Vista Enhanced Option Elementary School – Michelle McVicker, principal

Eakin Elementary School – Dr. Timothy Drinkwine, principal

Isaac Litton Middle Prep – Tracy Bruno, executive principal

J.F. Kennedy Middle Prep – Dr. Sam Braden III, executive principal

John Overton High School - Dr. Andrew Shuler Pelham, executive principal

Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School – Sonia Stewart, executive principal

STEM Preparatory Academy - Dr. Kristin McGraner, founder and executive director

MNPS Liaison to the Committee

Fred Carr, chief operating officer

5 6

Members of John Overton High School’s orchestra perform during an academy VIP tour in fall 2014.

5 7

A P P E N D I X H

Glossary

Academies of Nashville

MNPS high school transformation strategy initiated in 2006,

in which the district’s 12 zoned high schools have been re-

organized into freshman academies for ninth-grade students

and career and thematic academies for grades 10-12.

www.myacademyblog.com

ACT – American College Testing

A standardized test, typically taken in 11th grade, to mea-

sure high school achievement and college readiness. The EX-

PLORE test, taken in the eighth grade, and PLAN test, taken

in the 10th grade, provide students with a projection of how

they will score on the ACT. www.act.org

AMOs – Annual Measurable Objectives

State performance targets that serve as the basis for Tennes-

see’s accountability system. Tennessee’s accountability sys-

tem has two overall objectives: growth for all students every

year, and closing achievement gaps by ensuring faster growth

for students who are furthest behind.

APF – Academic Performance Framework

Standardized accountability metrics developed by MNPS to

complement increased school level autonomy and provide a

transparent set of indicators to assess school performance.

The APF is used to inform decisions regarding rewards, sup-

ports and resource allocation for schools, as well as evalua-

tions of school leaders’ performance.

BEP – Basic Education Program

The funding formula through which state education dollars

are generated and distributed to Tennessee school systems.

CCSS – Common Core State Standards

K-12 academic standards in English language arts and

mathematics that were developed to ensure every student

graduates from high school prepared for college and career.

www.corestandards.org

Charter School

A public school governed and operated independently of the

local school board, often with a curriculum and educational

philosophy different from other schools in the district. Char-

ter schools have a contract, or charter, with their local school

board to operate within that district.

Education 2018: Excellence for Every Student

MNPS’ 2013-2018 strategic plan, which was approved by the

MNPS Board of Education on Sept. 10, 2013.

ELA – English Language Arts

ELL – English Language Learners

Students who have been assessed and identified as needing

ELL instruction, and are actively receiving ELL services.

EOCs – End-of-Course Exams

EOCs are given in specific high school subjects that are used

for accountability purposes and value-added analysis.

ESEA Flexibility

The U.S. Department of Education offers states the option of

requesting flexibility in the form of a waiver regarding spe-

cific requirements of No Child Left Behind in exchange for

rigorous and comprehensive state-developed plans designed

to improve educational outcomes for all students, close

achievement gaps, increase equity and improve the quality of

instruction. www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility

5 8

Focus Schools

Under Tennessee’s accountability system, focus schools are

the 10 percent of schools across the state with the largest

achievement gaps, subgroup performance below a 5 percent

proficiency threshold, or high schools with graduation rates

less than 60 percent that are not already identified as prior-

ity schools. This designation does not indicate low achieve-

ment levels. Schools identified as focus schools retain the

designation and varied support for three years.

Formative Assessment

An assessment to monitor student learning and provide on-

going feedback used by instructors to recognize and address

areas where students are struggling.

iZone

MNPS created the Innovation Zone (iZone) in 2011 to turn

around its lowest-performing schools by engaging in strategic

redesign. www.innovation.mnps.org

Lead Principal Network

An MNPS initiative in which certain principals receive more

autonomy and decision-making power in return for supervis-

ing and sharing effective practices with small networks of

schools.

LEP – Limited English Proficient

Students who are actively receiving ELL services, as well as

students who are fewer than two years removed from exiting

the ELL program.

MNPS – Metropolitan Nashville Public Schools

www.mnps.org

NAEP – National Assessment of Educational Progress

Also known as the “nation’s report card,” this assessment is

given to a sample of students across the country, allowing for

comparisons across states in fourth- and eighth-grade read-

ing and math. www.nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard

NCLB – No Child Left Behind Act

The 2001 reauthorization of the federal Elementary and

Secondary Education Act, meant to hold primary and sec-

ondary schools measurably accountable to higher standards.

Requires 100 percent of students within a school or school

system to make adequate yearly progress and reach the same

set of state standards in math and reading by 2014. Tennes-

see has been granted a waiver from NCLB and is now mea-

sured by a separate accountability system.

NELB – Non-English language background

Students who do not speak English as their first language. An

NELB student is not neccessarily an ELL student.

Priority Schools

Under Tennessee’s accountability system, priority schools

are schools in the bottom 5 percent of overall performance

across tested grades and subjects. Schools identified as pri-

ority schools retain the designation and varied support

for three years.

Reward Schools

Under Tennessee’s accountability system, reward schools are

schools in the top 5 percent for performance, as measured

by overall student achievement levels, and the top 5 percent

for year-over-year progress, as measured by gains in student

achievement – a total of 10 percent of schools in all. This

designation is determined annually.

SPIs – State Performance Indicators

Evidence of a student’s knowledge and skills measured in the

state assessment. Common Core State Standards will replace

SPIs in English language arts and mathematics.

STEM – Science, Technology, Engineering and Math

Summative Assessment

An assessment to evaluate student learning at the end of an

instructional unit by comparing it against some standard or

benchmark.

5 9

During a fall 2014 tour, Education Report Card Committee member

Freddie O’Connell chats with students about their favorite school day activites.6 0

TCAP – Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program

The annual assessment in Tennessee given to grades 3-8 in

math, reading, social studies and science.

TFA – Teach For America

A national program implemented in Nashville in 2009 that

selectively recruits college graduates from around the country

to teach for at least two years in high-poverty, high-need

K-12 public schools. www.teachforamerica.org

Title I

Federal funds aimed to bridge the gap between low-income

students and other students. The U.S. Department of Educa-

tion provides supplemental funding to local school districts

through states to meet the needs of at-risk and low-income

students.

TVAAS - Tennessee Value-Added Assessment System

A statistical analysis performed by Dr. William Sanders at

SAS Institute, Inc., estimating the academic progress or

growth of individual students. TVAAS summary data are re-

ported at the school and school system levels.

6 1

John Overton High School academy ambassadors host guided tours for community visitors and prospective families.

6 2

The purpose of the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce

is to facilitate community leadership to create economic

prosperity. As we work toward our No. 1 priority of improving

public education, we rely greatly on our dedicated volun-

teers, including the 21 business and community leaders who

serve on the Report Card Committee. Meeting nearly every

Friday morning from August through December, these mem-

bers give their time, energy and talents toward the successful

completion of this report.

Those who serve for three consecutive years rotate off the

committee so others have a chance to serve. We would espe-

cially like to thank Co-Chairs Jackson Miller and Brian Shaw,

as well as Dawn Cole, Derrick Hines, Sara Longhini and Al-

lyson Young, for their commitment to this work over the past

three years.

We would also like to thank the many presenters who took

time to share their expertise and viewpoints with us. Their

candor and insights allow us to more accurately report the

successes and challenges of our educational system, and to

propose creative solutions for improvement.

We would not be able to produce this report without the full

support and cooperation of Metropolitan Nashville Public

Schools, especially the MNPS liaison to the committee, Chief

Operations Officer Fred Carr, who attends every meeting and

offers valuable information and feedback throughout the

process. We are also grateful to Alison Buzard in Family and

Community Partnerships for allowing the committee to partic-

ipate in a half-day poverty simulation with Pearl-Cohn Enter-

tainment Magnet High School faculty early in the committee

process. This interactive cultural competency training helped

provide better understanding around the many challenges

MNPS families face. These people, all from MNPS, were

invaluable in their willingness to answer our multitude of

follow-up questions, often with very little notice – Paul Chan-

gas, Katie Cour, Chris Henson, John Kuster, Matthew Nelson,

Chaney Mosley, Derek Richey, Jay Steele, Michelle Wilcox

and Earl Wiman. Special thanks go to Buena Vista Enhanced

Option Elementary School, Eakin Elementary School, Isaac

Litton Middle Prep, J.F. Kennedy Middle Prep, John Overton

High School, Pearl-Cohn Entertainment Magnet High School,

and STEM Preparatory Academy faculty and students for al-

lowing us to tour their schools, providing a firsthand look at

the hard work taking place every day at the school level. The

committee also thanks Stansell Electric, which hosted our

weekly meetings. Jimmy Stansell, Raymond Matthews, Barba-

ra Smith, Larry Tibbs and committee member Rob Elliott are

to be commended for their unparalleled hospitality.

Finally, we would like to thank the Chamber staff who pro-

vided support for the committee’s work. Courtney Cotton and

Lindsay Chambers ensured this document was visually

stunning as well as grammatically correct. We appreciate

Marc Hill, chief policy officer, whose knowledge of Nash-

ville’s education landscape provided context and guidance.

We also appreciate Whitney Weeks, vice president of policy,

whose charm, wit and efficient manner helped ensure our

meetings were both lively and productive.

This report is the collective work of many. We hope it will

spur ongoing interest and dialogue around the progress of our

public schools, while serving as an important resource for

education stakeholders and the broader community.

A C K N O W L E D G E M E N T S

6 3

nashvillechamber.com

Photography provided by

Emanuel O. Roland