I posted a summary of Professor Francesca Lopez’ review of a charter school meta-analysis published by the Center for Reinventing Public Education at the University of Washington. In my introduction, I referred to CPRE as a “leading proponent of charter schools.” Robin Lake wrote me to challenge that characterization. I associate CPRE, which receives extensive funding from the Gates Foundation, with the idea of portfolio districts, in which struggling public schools are replaced by a portfolio of privately managed schools. I invited Robin to send me any CPRE publications critical of charter schools, and I will post about them when I receive them.

Dr. Lopez writes:

Recently, I wrote a think tank review for NEPC on a CRPE report that was summarized on Diane Ravitch’s blog. I was contacted by Adam Gish, an English teacher at Garfield High School in Seattle, Washington, who had read the blog post and then asked CRPE’s Robin Lake about her opinion of the NEPC review. Mr. Gish sent me the exchange with Dr. Lake’s response, which he gave me permission to publish, with the thought being that a public exchange could help prompt a larger dialogue.

Here’s what Dr. Lake wrote:

“I patently disagree with the review. It seems to present statements out of important context and ignores what the authors say. For example the authors say that the time trend is positive but not statistically significant but the review cites the authors as having called the trend significant. That’s either a misunderstanding of basic statistical analysis or an intentional misrepresentation. There are numerous other inaccuracies and misinterpretations.

Julian Betts is one of the most cautious, rigorous, and respected analysts I know. That’s why we chose him to do this review. His analysis made minimal and evenhanded conclusions and was peer reviewed by one of the best statisticians in the country.

I really don’t see any legitimate critique here.

Hope this helps you know my view.

Best,

Robin”

Mr. Gish, in his note to me, asked “what [my] rebuttal would be,” so I would like to offer it here. It is Dr. Lake who is incorrect; nowhere in the NEPC review did I “cite the authors as having called the trend significant.” What I do point out is the authors’ claim that there is a positive trend, which is a misleading claim since they also (as I explain on pages 3 and 4 of the review) reported non-significant findings. To use the phrasing of Dr. Lake, this is “basic statistical analysis.” One cannot call something “positive” or “negative” when it is not significant. The point of the trend analysis was to determine if the trend was positive or negative. Because it was not, calling it “not significant” while at the same time calling it “positive” is inaccurate and misleading.

Dr. Lake did not offer sufficient details for a more elaborate rebuttal, but I welcome a discussion regarding what her perceived “numerous other inaccuracies and misrepresentations” might be.

Francesca López