Archives for the month of: July, 2013

The National Education Policy Center commissioned a review of the 2013 CREDO charter study, the one that allegedly discovered big gains for charters. In its 2009 study, CREDO found that only 17% of charters outperformed public schools. Now, reviewers concluded that the differences between charter schools and public schools are “significantly insignificant.”

The reviewers were Andrew Maul and Abby McClelland. Maul is an assistant professor in the Research and Evaluation Methodology (REM) program at CU Boulder. His work focuses on measurement theory, validity, and generalized latent variable modeling. McClelland is a Ph.D. student in the REM program. The National Education Policy Center is housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education.

The review found:

“Even if concerns over the study’s analytic methods are set side, however, Maul and McClelland point out that the study itself shows only a tiny real impact on the part of charter schools: “less than one hundredth of one percent of the variation in test performance is explainable by charter school enrollment,” they write. Specifically, students in charter schools were estimated to score approximately 0.01 standard deviations higher on reading tests and 0.005 standard deviations lower on math tests than their peers in traditional public schools.

“With a very large sample size, nearly any effect will be statistically significant,” the reviewers conclude, “but in practical terms these effects are so small as to be regarded, without hyperbole, as trivial.”

Bruce Baker has studied Newark charters repeatedly. As he shows in this post, their greatest success is their ability to skim the students who are most likely to succeed. Some if his findings about their academic growth–or lack thereof-may surprise you.

Charters are parasites, he concludes, that harm their host. Making the entire district charter does not change that:

“But sadly, those who most vociferously favor charter expansion as a key element of supposed “portfolio” models of schooling appear entirely uninterested in mitigating parasitic activity (that which achieves the parasites goal at the expense of the host. e.g. parasitic rather than symbiotic). Rather, they fallaciously argue that an organism consisting entirely of potential parasites is itself, the optimal form. That the good host is one that relinquishes? (WTF?) As if somehow, the damaging effects of skimming and selective attrition might be lessened or cease to exist if the entirety of cities such as Newark were served only by charter schools. Such an assertion is not merely suspect, it’s absurd.”

Indianapolis has developed a plan that they call “neighborhoods of educational opportunity.” Every child in the future will go to a high-quality school, which is sure to be a charter school that destabilizes the neighborhood and excludes students who are not likely to get high scores.

It is the usual Reformy con job. Promise the moon, shutter public schools, hand the money off to private operators who are free to set their own admission policies and discipline policies.

At some point soon, the American public will stop buying pie-in-the-sky promises and ignore these hucksters who want to privatize our nation’s public schools.

Steve Rhodes tries to understand how
the Chicago Public Schools claims $600 million in cuts to “central office.”

Rhodes says the claims defy both mathematics and physics.

In fact, the cuts are not cuts, and “central office” does not mean central office.

He writes:

“But this is CPS make-believe land, which is a quasi-quantum place where the rules of earthbound mathematics do not apply.

“[T]he entire central office budget for the current 2012-2013 fiscal year is just $233 million, up from about $200 million in 2010,” Karp reports.

“How do you cut $600 million from $200 million? Just make the claim 400 million times!

“But it turns out Central Office spending is actually up $33 million since 2010.

“Now, CPS claims it has cut $600 million from the Central Office since 2011, so maybe in between 2010 and 2011 the budget went up by $633 million. That’s the only way CPS’s claim can be true.

“But the story gets even more extraordinary.

“The biggest addition since that time was the Office of Portfolio, created in 2011 to authorize and manage new schools.

“The portfolio office went from an initial budget of $5 million to $88 million in 2013, and has now been incorporated into a new Office of Innovation.”

“How is an increase in Central Office spending a cut in Central Office spending? By redefining the terms!”

In a brilliant piece of investigative journalism, Sarah Karp tries to understand the claim by the Chicago Public Schools that it cut $600 million from central office when the entire budget for central office is $233 million.

Furthermore, the budget for central went up, not down.

By now, there must be no one still employed at central offices of CPS.

Andy Borowitz at his best today.

He has figured out what ALEC really wants in Florida and everywhere else.

A reader explains the appeal of charters to communities fearful for their children in a world fraught with danger:

“Perhaps this site can be a venue for discussing the manner in which racial segregation and military discipline are packaged so as to market charter schools to families legitimately concerned with the dangers their children face growing up in communities that lack good jobs, good health care, and adequate housing, and other resources available to more privileged sectors of society. One should not underestimate the short-term appeal that such “discipline” has for people who are besieged, worried about the temptations their kids may succumb to and have, in the present moment, relatively little power. Many of the charters have lifted a page, not from the civil rights or radical Black power movements, but rather from the cultural conservatism of Booker T. Washington and Elijah Muhammad. This time, however, the executioners of the “plan” are largely, though not exclusively, upper middle class whites.”

This comment just arrived in response to the post about California having the nerve to defy all-wise, all-powerful Arne Duncan:

“State Superintendent Tom Torlakson is a former teacher. When he gathered a group of educators to hammer out the blueprint for the future of CA schools, he wisely selected classroom teachers to be on the task force. I was honored to be co-chair of the Teacher Evaluation committee.

“We believed then and do now that evaluating a teacher via an algorithm is a poor and cheap way to do the hard and time-consuming work of evaluating a teacher effectively. Students deserve more.

“I am proud to call Tom Torlakson my leader.

Martha Infante
Teacher
Los Angeles

A reader writes:

yes, yes! As a black educator and unfortunately a TFA alum who has now been a teacher for 15 years, I don’t understand why Obama and Booker have embraced this corporate style of reform. I worked tirelessly to elect Obama but I continue to find his governance particularly his stance on education and civil rights disappointing. I will not do the same for Booker and I hope that the teacher’s union does not endorse him. Booker does not have grassroots support, many Newark residents see the destruction he has wreaked on their schools and do not support him. He is the darling of the media and white liberal/moderate crowd as well as hedge funds and business community. We all know that TFA and the privatization movement it has spawned is directly responsible for the decline in the black middle class. Black female educators have been disproportionately impacted by layoffs and “evaluations.” Obama as the first black president and Booker as the heir to this legacy and possible contender for higher office should recognize this and change their position on what’s right for schools before it is too late. They should support public schools, community schools and educators. Sometimes it feels like we (anti-reformers) are screaming at people like Obama and Booker through a sound proof glass door. They can see us, we can see them but they can’t hear us and they won’t open the door because they don’t want to hear the truth.

The Los Angeles Times explains today that California has stubbornly resisted Arne Duncan’s demand that teachers be evaluated by junk science.

Despite the fact that researchers overwhelmingly agree that “value-added assessment” is flawed and unstable, that it reflects whom you teach, and that good teachers may be rated ineffective, Duncan blithely insists that it is essential.

Was Duncan successful in Chicago? Is Chicago a national model of school reform? Did Duncan’s Renaissance 2010 create a renaissance?

Why is this man allowed to tell every state in the nation how to evaluate teachers?

How awkward for California Democrat George Miller, one of the lead authors of NCLB, a favorite of DFER, and senior Democrat on House Education committee

Bravo, Governor Jerry Brown!

Bravo, Tom Torlakson.

Stay strong. Don’t let Arne bully you.