The National Education Policy Center produces a valuable series reviewing think tank reports. In this latest one, Professor Francesca Lopez of the University of Arizona takes a close look at a meta-analysis of charter school studies published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. It is useful to know that the Center is a leading proponent of charter schools. What would be truly shocking would be if they published a review critical of charter schools.
Here is a summary of Professor Lopez’s findings, as well as links to the original report and her review.
“The report was published in August by the Center on Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. The report, by Julian R. Betts and Y. Emily Tang, draws on data from 52 studies to conclude that charters benefited students, particularly in math.
“This conclusion is overstated,” writes López in her review. The actual results, she points out, were not positive in reading, not significant for high school math, and yielded only very small effect sizes for elementary and middle school math.
“The reviewer also explains that the authors wrongly equate studies of students chosen for charter schools in a lottery with studies that rely on random assignment. Because schools that use lotteries do so because they’re particularly popular, those studies aren’t appropriate for making broad comparisons between charter and traditional public schools, López writes.
“The review identifies other flaws as well, including the report’s assertion of a positive trend in the effects of charter schools, even though the data show no change in those effects; its exaggeration of the magnitude of some effects; and its claim of positive effects even when they are not statistically significant. Taken together, she says, those flaws “render the report of little value for informing policy and practice.”
“The report does a solid job describing the methodological limitations of the studies reviewed, then seemingly forgets those limits in the analysis,” López concludes.
“Find Francesca López’s review on the NEPC website at:
http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-meta-analysis-effect-charter.
“Find A Meta-Analysis of the Literature on the Effect of Charter Schools on Student Achievement, by Julian R. Betts and Y. Emily Tang and published by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, on the web at:
http://www.crpe.org/publications/meta-analysis-literature-effect-charter-schools-student-achievement.”
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
The actual results were not positive in reading, not significant for high school math, and yielded only very small effect sizes for elementary and middle school math.
“The reviewer also explains that the authors wrongly equate studies of students chosen for charter schools in a lottery with studies that rely on random assignment. Because schools that use lotteries do so because they’re particularly popular, those studies aren’t appropriate for making broad comparisons between charter and traditional public schools, López writes.”
I don’t think we should be comparing charters with other schools at all. Whether a school is effective depends on the nature of the singular school — not whether it is a charter school or not. Wasteful analyses. What should be analyzed are: effects of teaching methods; effects of poverty; job placement; community satisfaction; student satisfaction; community involvement with the school. Many charters do not use novel teaching methods. If I lived in a neighborhood that had a public school that was like a war zone and police state and a school that was smaller and was newer (and full of hope) I would choose the latter. Not because of a belief that charters are better, but because that school seemed a safer and more hopeful alternative. The word “charter” does not have meaning except for its political power. Who controls the schools? Who pays for them? Who designs curriculum? Who gets paid to do meta analyses? Who is on all the school boards? Which parents care about such questions? Parents just want their kids to survive and thrive. The questions about charters are much larger and concerning.
This is surprising? Even the RHEEformers don’t believe their own lies.
How do you know when a reformer is lying? Its lips are moving.
Reblogged this on Save Our Schools NZ and commented:
Another pro-charter report debunked, this time by Professor Francesca Lopez of the University of Arizona:
In Seattle, anyone with any modicum of intelligence and common sense knows that the CRPE = CRAP.
(Which explains why the Seattle Times and the Ed Deformers gravitate towards all CRPE publications disguised as “research”.)
K Quinn, CRPE is a charter-promoting, portfolio-promoting advocacy group. If ever they publish anything critical of charters and privatization, please let me know
Trust me – I’m quite aware or what they believe. They tried to push their portfolio districts on WA State, but none of us fell for it. We’ve been listening to their vision of (non) public education fke quite some time. Unfortunately the Seattle Times and other ed Deformers (and some legislators) turn to them all the time for quotable “research” so they can make sure the echo chamber is resounding solely with their message. What gets me is why the UW is even associated with them. All of their so-called “research” (their term, not mine) is heavily biased and debunked regularly. None of their little minions have education experience unless you count TFA, yet the UW allows them to exist and claim an affiliation with what is supposed to be a research institution. Even more amazing is that Paul Hill is UW faculty as a research professor, yet produces no real research, just propaganda that most laymen could refute with a few hours in front of a database.
Someone asked me once why I wouldn’t consider UW for grad school. Special (money-losing) programs for TFA, the CRPE – why would I? There’s no credibility. How would the biology department – and current and prospective biology students – at UW feel if the Discovery Institute (home of [un]Intelligent Design) started claiming affiliation with UW?
K Quinn, when I was last in Seattle, the Times snubbed me. No surprise. But I was on NPR there.
Yes, definitely not a surprise. You don’t fit into their preferred worldview of failing public schools, Bill-Gates-is-God, and only rich people matter. KUOW (NPR) is about the only media outlet in Seattle that does actually go outside the ed deform echo chamber, do some research, and interview people not given the official Gates stamp of approval. Though how long that will last…?
Anyone want to guess about where NEPC gets its funding?
I do wish folks would concentrate on the merits of the research rather than the source of the funding.