I posted about the Néw Jersey Star-Ledger’s coverage of a KIPP charter school in Newark on May 10. I wrote that the newspaper seemed (to me) to be determined to write a positive report about the school. I referred the writer to Bruce Baker and Jersey Jazzman, both of whom have studied and written about charter schools in Néw Jersey.
The story did indeed treat the school as a miracle school that had closed the achievement gaps. Called Newark Collegiate Academy, the school is a KIPP school, formerly known as TEAM schools.
The writer, Julie O’Connor, commented on my post. She wrote:
“Hi Professor Ravitch. Just saw this post. Want to make sure you know that we have repeatedly invited Professor Baker to come in for an editorial board meeting to discuss and clarify his arguments, and he has refused. If he thinks we are misinformed, it’s certainly not willful. After his blog post – which seems unfair, given all those invitations — we’ve invited him again, and I hope he takes us up on the offer.
“I would be happy to talk to you about it, too. We’ve spoken in the past, although you may not remember, and you were a big help on my story back at Columbia, about New York City’s pregnancy schools (when those still existed!) When you say you “sensed nothing I said would make her stop and question her presumptions,” it took me aback, because that’s actually why I reached out to you.
“You deferred to Baker on this issue, and he refused to discuss it with me. I don’t think that does anybody good. I have found you to be quite adept at crystallizing your arguments. When I asked you if you view KIPP as an exception, or more of the same, you replied in your email that there are three possibilities: 1) KIPP students have high scores and go to college, 2) KIPP students are not representative of their district or 3) High attrition rates eliminate the students most likely to succeed [sic]. You said you didn’t know which it is, and that I should talk to Baker. But if you leave it to him to explain his research, and then he forces everyone to rely exclusively on his writings – which, frankly, are pretty obtuse – I don’t think you can dismiss me as a “propaganda machine.”
“The Mathematica study said KIPP’s success isn’t explained by demographics or attrition.
If you believe Baker’s research is better than Mathematica’s, I hope one of you will take the time to come in for a meeting with the editorial board and explain why.”
I sent O’Connor’s comment to Bruce Baker and Mark Weber (Jersey Jazzman), and I invited them to respond.
Bruce Baker left the following comment on the blog.
“As I wrote to Diane,
===========================
“This is just bizarre. first of all, I have spoken with them several times on the phone in the past – at length – her boss Tom Moran in particular. And each time, I’ve been totally ignored or misrepresented. that’s why I took to e-mail and blogging this time.
“That aside, the last statement here is just plain stupid. This isn’t about “baker’s research is better than mathematica’s.” I point out that mathematica’s research is irrelevant to her argument in many ways.
“1) mathematica does not prove that TEAM is a miracle school as she argues, in terms of graduation. Mathematica studied/aggregated KIPP results nationally. Didn’t study TEAM specifically, or the outcomes she mentions.
“2) I provided her with critiques of the limitations of interpretation of mathematica’s study. I didn’t ever say it was bad. Just that she was totally misrepresenting it.
“3) I provided an analysis of the relative growth of all NJ schools to show where TEAM fit in that mix. Mathematica doesn’t do this. It’s a totally different (not better or worse) analysis, intended to put test score growth at TEAM into perspective, among all schools, statewide.
“This is just plain dumb!
============================
“Anyone reading this, please refer to my original post linked above to see where I refer to the Mathematica study, and how I refer to it.
“Mark Weber in follow up posts further elaborates on the misrepresentation of the Mathematica national KIPP (excluding NJ) study.
“Note that I spoke to Tom Moran for, oh, about an hour on the phone before he wrote this rah rah Hoboken charter piece:
“Sadly, I don’t have a transcript of my comments that day, which went entirely ignored.
related post:
Mark Weber wrote in an email to me that KIPP Team Academy, the subject of the Star-Ledger inquiry, was not included in the Mathematica study of KIPP schools. Not all KIPP schools get the same results.
He then wrote a post about the Star-Ledger’s use of data to “prove” the success of the KIPP Team Academy. It is an instructive analysis. He called it a case study in charter school propaganda. I will examine his critique in greater detail in the next post.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
What purpose does it serve to our cause to call a reporter “just plain dumb”? Why not take her up on the offer of speaking with the editorial board?
Antagonism is not going to win any converts.
As noted in the article, he already spoke to them.
Right, because we’ve gotten a lot of converts by being nice.
But you’re right, “dumb” isn’t quite right. “Sold her soul” would be closer to the mark.
I would agree; however, how many times do you need to point out the obvious. Couldn’t the paper print Baker’s emailed objections to the reporter’s misinterpretations? Why does he need to meet with the editorial board?
Antagonism? Antagonism???? Ha! What about the antagonism of the charter school cheerleaders who constantly demean, defame, debase and demonize the real public schools. If the charter school activists want to blow their own horns and claim to be miracle schools, that’s their prerogative. But that’s not enough for them; they constantly bash the district schools, portray them as failure factories and inferior to charter schools. This is a slap at the teachers in the real public schools who are just as hard working and just as devoted as charter school teachers. The charter school cheerleaders encourage antagonism because they seem to feel that they are at war with the real public schools and so they feel no compunctions about disparaging (unfairly) the real public schools.
Charters are all about marketing their product and the politicians and press fall for it. It is like the Sea World ad on TV now and how they love their whales and we do too! How do you beat that?
Films like Blackfish, the Cove, and other independent media projects have done a lot to turn the public against Sea World, and social media has done a lot to help spread the word.
It is a good idea to generate your own press, like Diane does here on the blog. Public school advocates should do more creative publicity of various kinds and stop preaching “the other side is dumb!” to the choir.
Maybe Bruce Baker should start making vines or something, if he feels like his message has been repeated ad nauseam but reporters still need to hear it again.
https://vine.co/
Julie O’Connor, who is a reporter for the Star-Ledger in New Jersey, asked me to post the following comment in response to Bruce Baker. The gist of the dispute is that the Star-Ledger frequently writes admiringly about the KIPP schools; Bruce Baker has questioned their results and their demographic composition.
O’Connor writes:
“I have spoken with Prof. Bruce Baker on the phone one time only, several years ago, about counting poverty with free/reduced lunch data in the Elizabeth school district. If I recall correctly, we had no disagreement on that issue. But he implies here that we have spoken several times, on the issue of charters. That is misrepresenting my reporting process. In fact, Baker refused to get on the phone with me at all to discuss charters. Don’t think that’s helping kids, or your cause. Is he afraid to engage with experts on the other side, who might disagree? KIPP’s published report card data shows its Newark schools are among its highest performing. Mathematica included 43 KIPP schools, so it’s arguably a more comprehensive look at KIPP’s methods. And what about KIPP’s college matriculation, on par with much wealthier communities? If Baker thinks his research is more convincing, why not come in and make that case? Our invitation still stands.”
It appears that big charter school networks all use the same PR template. Choose random statistics about one particular grade in one particular charter school during a single year and compare that to public schools to prove how good you are. Do not address any questions about how many students disappeared from the testing cohort, why those same students the following year performed worse, etc., the real at-risk population of your school. If asked, refer to averages among all charter schools and don’t address the statistics that pertain to the individual charter school that you have just said has such remarkable results!
Finally, and most importantly, have a gullible reporter/stenographer report only the cherry picked facts that you give her because it is just too much work or just too complicated to figure out the data on her own. I think Judith Miller’s reporting on Saddam Hussein having WMD was the model for many education reporters on the charter school beat. When the privatizers have succeeded in destroying public education and all the misleading facts reported by people like Ms. O’Connor come to light, she can do as Judith Miller did, and whine that she was “just reporting what people told her.”
Baker’s posts are only obtuse if you have absolutely no idea how to read research articles and are unwilling to learn. And if you can not read research articles then you should not be writing articles based upon one.
” Baker’s posts are only obtuse if you have absolutely no idea how to read research articles and are unwilling to learn. And if you can not read research articles then you should not be writing articles based upon one.”
Bears repeating, LOUDLY.
When someone you know not to be a fool or just plain stupid engages in behavior and rhetoric as described by Mr. Baker, that behavior must be understood as a weapon. Ms. O’Connor is either defending her failure to perform her due diligence, shilling for the reformers or some faction thereof, attempting to neutralize a potent critic, or all of the above. There is no incompetence here, just malicious intent leveled against Mr. Baker. “When you eliminate the impossible, whatever remains, no matter how improbable, is the truth.” Ms. O’Connor’s actions and commentary were not taken in pursuit of dialog but of a stealth attack.