A reader who consistently supports charter schools sent s link to an article on Campbell Brown’s website and flung down the gauntlet: Here is proof that Newark charter schools made impressive gains! I dare you to refute it!
I turned to Jersey Jazzman, the expert on New Jersey charter data, and he wrote this devastating critique of Richard Whitmire’s praise for Newark charters.
He writes:
Bruce Baker and I looked at Newark’s test scores — both charters and NPS — over the period of “reform” in the city’s schools. We found no evidence that Newark has seen any positive changes that couldn’t be explained by overall, statewide trends (I’ll have a similar analysis of graduation rates out soon).
In addition, the data in the post under review was available only to the author, not to the public. Please read Jersey Jazzman’s post for a clear understanding of charters in New Jersey and the politicization of research about them.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
I wish we could clone the talent and savvy of Jersey Jazzman so that comparable critiques of phony claims could be circulated in every sate. Investigative journalism of this quality and clarity is too rare in education.
I came to love Jazzman because of our shared disgust with Floyd Mike Miles.
Thankfully, WTF (Floyd) is no longer a necessary phrase to cope in Dallas ISD.
After telling everyone that, since he got a Texas driver license, he was a Texan for life, he lasted 3 years.
What a metaphor for Broad graduates: big talk, zero credibility.
Jazzman–let me know where Miles applies next so I can bombard their local paper and media outlets with all of the articles about him.
Very well said, @Cupcake. I have some things that I’ve experienced in education, hope I don’t sound like Forrest Gump 🙂
– Taught as a sub in Odessa 83-85, before the dead-on accurate Friday Night Lights (book) was written. Bissenger nailed what was going on in Texas then, I think not much has changed since
– Worked for an outside agency in Newark in the late 80s & 90s, before the state takeover. Yes, there was corruption, a few bad people got their walking papers. Did the takeover lead to a better system? Hell no. The state people just got sneakier, they don’t officially “take over” districts any more, they depend on RACs & egotistical Michelle Rhee wannabes to do the dirty work of subverting community control of schools.
– Miles was on a panel discussion that I attended in Woodbridge NJ in 2011, set up by some of Rhee’s people. Very micromanaged, they quickly shut down any dissent.
– Proud to have met and shaken the hands of both Diane Ravitch & JJ. Not only are both of them amazing writers, but engaging speakers as well.
Jersey Jazzman is a clever researcher who challenges the assertions of charter schools using facts and data. The assertions that charters make are only as true as the information it is based on. What he has found is that in Newark data is often cherry picked as often as students in many charters. He found problems with their methodology and omissions such as Uncommon Schools forgetting to report all the executive salaries when reporting salary costs.
He concludes that what is being presented as evidence is not worth the disruption, and he ends with an insightful conclusion. ” Yes, charter parents deserve a voice in how schools are structured. But so do the parents and students who advocate for NPS schools — families whose voices are repeatedly marginalized or flat-out ignored.
– Market-based school “choice” is not the same as democratic self-governance. But parents should not have to enroll their children in schools that abrogate their rights simply to get them into schools that aren’t crumbling and dangerous.”
I linked directly to the article and posted it
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Jersey-Jazzman-Only-You-C-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Charter-School-Failure_Charter-Schools_Evidence_Expose-160116-576.html
JJ says: “North Star is a school that generally outperforms on test-based measures given its student population. Good for them; they should be proud of that.” His critique is that there is no proof that they are replicable.
Half of Newark families picked a charter school as their first choice (25% picked North Star). 5% picked the most desirable district school (Ann Street) as their top choice.
50% of all applications included North Star (Uncommon) in their top choices. 40% included TEAM (KIPP). 13% of the applications included the most desirable district school (Ann Street) in their choices.
Who can look at this and say that what families want is more district schools and fewer charter schools?
“Half of Newark families picked a charter school as their first choice”
Well isn’t that the obvious result when you underfund public schools and leave them to rot in squalid buildings while you put charters in nice shiny new buildings with all the latest technology and full funding? So are people picking the charter or the funding/resources?
“Who can look at this and say that what families want is more district schools and fewer charter schools?”
People who understand that the downward spiral of district schools is due to disinvestment in those schools and that the proliferation of charters forced upon the residents of Newark really leaves the families without a meaningful choice.
Kind of like Flint – poisoned water or no water?
Among other things: how can someone quote these four words—“given its student population”—and not have a clue that he has just eviscerated his own argument?
Hint: when comparing groups, make sure the groups are comparable.
🙄
What John is arguing for here is for public schools to start making HALF the schools “weed out the unwanteds”. Or maybe 25% of the schools should be “weed out the unwanteds”. So far, every argument he makes about charter schools cheers on the schools for weeding out the unwanteds and he believes that it is GOOD that parents can “choose” a schools without those unwanteds.
Isn’t it funny how John sounds just like the racists down south in the 1960s? After all, the majority of white folks “CHOSE” to go schools that weeded out the unwanteds. John just wants schools not to just be racist, but to weed out based on disability or just poor academic ability. It doesn’t really matter to John what kids are weed out — if a school doesn’t like young African-American boys, he doesn’t care! After all, OTHER students are CHOOSING that school and that — to people like John — is all that matters. I mean, that and the fact that weeding out lots of young and poor African-American boys also results in better test scores. As long as a few perfectly behaved of them are able to do the work, the school will let them stay. They aren’t racist. Just biased against any student who doesn’t get them good test scores! If most of those students just happen to be very poor and often minorities, well John is perfectly fine with that. After all, it’s all about “choice” and how can you expect some parents you want to choose your school if you don’t find ways to get the kids you DON’T want NOT to choose your school. Or leave if they mistakenly made the wrong choice.
That is the future people like John hope for. Let’s just model public schools that way and he will be happy when the 75% of the students who don’t fit just rot.
NYC public school parent,
Once again, you are arguing with something I didn’t say. I don’t want anyone “weeded out”. I just want *all* schools to maintain an orderly learning environment (similar to that suburban parents can expect).
Our current means of dealing with bad behavior and chronic absenteeism is to dilute it by forcing the most economically disadvantaged students to bear the brunt of it with the result of ruining their chances for success.
No suburban parent would put up with that. No urban parent should have to either.
Mainstreaming badly behaved and chronically absent kids is a failure. It hasn’t worked for them and it has failed miserably for the other students forced to be with them. We need another plan.
John, Former state-appointed Superintendent Cami Anderson closed a number of Newark schools that were turned over to charters. Some families may apply to a charter that would have been their neighborhood public school to avoid children having to take a “hub bus” or take NJ Transit buses to a public school. (The NJT buses do not have seat belts.) Sometimes “choice” is a forced choice.
booklady says “were turned over to charters. Some families may apply to a charter that would have been their neighborhood public school to avoid children having to take a “hub bus” or take NJ Transit buses to a public school. (The NJT buses do not have seat belts.) Sometimes “choice” is a forced choice.”
Yes, you are absolutely right, and that does account for some amount of this “choice”. There are definitely parents who would choose a lower performing neighborhood school over a higher performing one further away, and that choice has been made unavailable to some.
Whether that’s a good thing or a bad thing depends on your perspective and whether you think that the neighborhood school could have improved and/or had enough time and resources to do it. Many parents feel that there was plenty of time but no sign of improvement.
There’s no doubt that the city needs more schools that get better results than their demographics predict. District or charter.
John,
When a state or district pours resources into charters, then adds millions more from Wall Street guys and tech billionaires, that makes charters look very attractive. The one choice denied is the neighborhood school. They are gone.
Why do you take a perverse pleasure in attacking public schools?
Diane says:
“Why do you take a perverse pleasure in attacking public schools?”
Diane, discussing data and outcomes can’t fairly be constructed as “attacking”.
Also, note the irony that you attack public schools every day. They just happen to be public charter schools. When you stick to data, I don’t consider it attacking, I consider it valid criticism. When you veer off in to the personal, it is an attack.
Finally, my kids go to a district school that is great. For you, the distinction between district and charter is everything. For me, it means relatively nothing compared to the importance of the teaching and learning happening in the school.
John,
Charter schools are not public schools. Do you really believe that corporate chain schools are community schools? I attack leeches, greed-hogs, scammers, and phonies.
Diane,
Are The Red Cross, Big Brothers/Big Sisters, Girl’s, Inc., “corporate chains” or community not-for-profits?
“I attack leeches, greed-hogs, scammers, and phonies.”
Yes, you do. You also attack not-for-profit, 501c3 charter schools based solely on their governance structure and their non-union teachers. You also attack teachers with alternative certifications. You attack parents who stand up for their charter schools. Which are these in your list?
I wouldn’t go too far out on a limb defending the Red Cross, unfortunately:
https://t.co/OIJCyWuboc
“I wouldn’t go too far out on a limb defending the Red Cross, unfortunately:https://t.co/OIJCyWuboc”
Yes, thought about that after I hit send. I do think there is more of an opportunity for any national organization to become less responsive to the charitable work on the ground and to spend too much on administration, etc.
But, education is pretty complex, and the top performing charter organizations generally run much better schools than the mom and pop, single school operators. Also, because all charter schools are “opt in” by parents, they tend to be very responsive to their communities. The best of the networks have local schools that have completely local and independent governance and management. “Franchise”/Federated not-for-profits like Big Brothers Big Sisters are probably the much better example.
“Also, because all charter schools are ‘opt in’ by parents, they tend to be very responsive to their communities.”
Actually, no. Local communities, or host communities have no say in the composition of charter boards, no oversight as to spending, nor to disposition of public property in the event of closure.
I have a policy brief about the application results (at least, the little that was released about them) at the NJ Education Policy Forum:
https://njedpolicy.wordpress.com/2015/04/24/one-newark-choosing-great-schools-or-merely-segregated-ones/
Here’s what the data suggests happened:
– The “popular” schools for black students are charters, many with high suspension rates.
– The “popular” schools for Hispanic students are district public schools, generally with much lower suspension rates.
– “Popular” schools have higher average scales scores; however, they generally have lower free lunch-eligible percentages, which is a big predictor of scale scores.
– The growth scores of “popular” schools are mixed, suggesting their “effectiveness” is not a major predictor of their popularity.
In Newark, about 50 percent of students are black; about 40 percent are Hispanic. But no school that has a black student population between 20 and 80 percent is “popular.” These would be the most integrated schools in the city.
All this says to me that the “choices” Newark families make about schools has at least as much to do with the student populations as it does with the effectiveness of the school.
The idea that families are a homogeneous group all seeking the same options is misguided. In fact, as I argue in my post, the logic behind that assertion is directly contrary to the assumptions many “choice” advocates make.
Mark,
Thanks for the post. I want to say that I respect your work, and like many here, always look for your perspective when I read something about Newark schools. I don’t always agree with your conclusions, but anyone who is looking at these issues objectively *has* to read from sources they disagree with. Without that, it’s Fox News; just an echo chamber of likeminded people.
I also agree with what you said about the choice being more about environment than about academic achievement. That matches my personal experience. From the charter perspective, we honestly don’t care if the choice is based on culture, academics, or even the longer school day as child care. It certainly makes things easier if parents understand the importance of attendance, homework, etc., but we attract plenty of families for whom this just isn’t a priority.
It also meshes with what my main point is in another recent thread here. We need a better solution for students with bad behavior and poor attendance than to allow them to define the educational experience for the other 80-90% of students in a school. Urban parents should be able to expect a safe environment, free of disruption, and focused on learning, just as suburban parents do. I believe that is the biggest push behind the move to charters.
Many point out that this exodus leaves these challenging children concentrated in neighborhood schools along with a smaller number of other children to “dilute” them. This is true and unfair to those schools. But, I have to say that I’m very disappointed when a parent decides to withdraw a child with 20+ absences and multiple suspensions simply because they know that that behavior will be tolerated in a neighborhood school and that they will be hassled less.
I can’t speak for any school except mine, but the fact is that we don’t want that family to leave. We go to great lengths to try to turn the situation around, including home visits, supplying alarm clocks, trying to arrange cooperative agreements with families, etc. Our discipline system exists because it works for almost all students. There are definitely some for whom it doesn’t work, and that is a great frustration. We try many different approaches, but I think in the end, the difference is that we do not allow that child to ruin the educational experience of the other children in the school. The end result is frequently that they leave for a place with fewer consequences.
Let’s call John’s bluff. Is North Star’s attrition rate higher than other schools? If so, and John claims that it is the most popular charter around, then John is fully aware that the charter is making kids feel unwanted so they will leave. And he doesn’t care. Reformers only care about the kids they CHOOSE to care about. That is what they really mean when they say “choice.”
John says: “Mainstreaming badly behaved and chronically absent kids is a failure.”
This apparently, is his rationalization – when he looks in the mirror — for supporting charter schools that decide that a 5 and 6 year old is already a failure. Therefore, he agrees that those kids just “got to go”. If your definition of failure is a kid who isn’t responding to your tactics to make a child who isn’t learning fast enough feel extreme misery, then of course John feels it is just doing the right thing by forcing that child to leave. And of course, John NEVER questions when it turns out that 30 or 40% of the African-American boys leave because deep down, apparently, he happily accepts the charter school’s word that those kids are unteachable and don’t belong.
In a nutshell, this is what John is saying. He tries to dress it up, but unlike some honest pro-charter folks who are attacked by his heroes (and maybe himself), he is in it for himself and the “good” kids who make his job easier. Not for the kids who don’t help him brag about his success.
Read Drop-out Nation and the attacks on the author of that blog who has called out the dishonesty. Then read John who refuses to say a word against any charter school that achieves good results regardless of the huge number of students he has deemed unteachable and unworthy.
There are a few too few) honest charter folks, but John is not one of them.
NYC public school parent,
You are repeatedly ignoring what I actually said.
My own kids don’t have to worry about some yelling obscenities at their teacher in the classroom and not being removed, or being removed and coming right back to repeat the behavior.
My own kids don’t have to have remedial work because most of the kids they are with aren’t on grade level.
My own kids aren’t in classrooms where 15% of the kids are absent each day.
I could go on and on. I want kids low income urban schools to have the same thing. But, too many of those schools tolerate bad behavior, don’t have effective remediation programs, promote kids who aren’t ready, etc.
I could rant and rave like you and say you want those kids to fail, but I assume you, like any rational human being, do not. What is your solution to this issue? Do you think it’s fair that only poor black and brown kids have to be forced to live with this and to have their educations and futures suffer as a result?
That is the only thing that I am saying. We need a better solution than to “solve” this problem by creating and sustaining schools where these amazing, capable kids are put on the track to failure simply because their families can’t afford to move.
Since you are disdainful of families who choose charters, and seem unable to acknowledge the inherent racism and unfairness in our “neighborhood”, property-tax driven school system, what is your solution?
John, I am not “disdainful of families who choose charters”. On the contrary, if a family with a well-behaved child who learns easily has a choice between an underfunded public school or a very well-funded charter school that offers all the bells and whistles a private school does, why wouldn’t they choose the charter school? The problem is that so many of those parents — especially when they are low-income and don’t have much education themselves — learn the hard way that the charter school most certainly does NOT choose their kid. But it is illegal for them to just tell them that to their face, to they devise all sorts of devious ways to make sure their unwanted child feels enough misery to cause them to “voluntarily” leave.
Someone posted elsewhere that those very dedicated parents are often so ashamed of their child’s failure that they internalize it. You will be delighted to know that your favorite charter school is doing an excellent job of making all the drop out families internalize that it is all their failure (or their child’s). If only their child was “better”, or if only they were better parents, the charter school would not have placed their child on the “got to go” list. So they accept their shame.
I am disdainful of the charter operators who promote this and cause parents whose kids don’t fit to understand that it is always their own failure. I am disdainful of people like you who think that that when a school gets rid of 40% of it’s African-American 5 and 6 year olds, it is because those kids are failures. And remember the kids leaving are the ones whose parents are the MOST motivated!
That’s why I find you so utterly dishonesty, John. Remember, those charter folks start with the MOST MOTIVATED parents. Then they discourage the lottery winners from even enrolling by making sure they are well-aware that they must commit to all that is asked of them. So their STARTING cohort looks nothing like a typical failing public school. But that’s not enough. It turns out that those at-risk 5 year olds are harder to teach than people like you believe. But instead of honestly acknowledge your utter failure, you LIE. You pretend those kids are violent and awful in order to justify high suspension rates at age 5.
I don’t have the solution, but I do know that when dishonest people are in charge, it makes things worse. And you are dishonest. You get to start with the most motivated families in charters and you still insist that so many 5 year olds are unworthy. When you say “only 20% of the kids leave, you mean 70% of all at-risk kids since you get to start with the kids with the most motivated parents. So your pretense that your results are not dishonest and harmful does tell me how corrupt you are. You are willing to embrace all dishonesty that allows you to justify your own existence and expansion. When I start to hear some honest critiques of the top-performing charter schools, I will believe you aren’t as dishonest as the things you post here. Your pretense for wanting solutions notwithstanding.
No solution will ever come of lies and dishonesty. Period.
Here is an example of everything that is wrong with John:
“too many of those schools tolerate bad behavior…”
See, he always needs to pretend that if 20% of the 5 year olds with the most motivated parents are suspended, it is justified by their “bad behavior” and it’s all the fault of the 5 year old. And if it turns out that 75% of the at-risk kids who are African-American are not wanted by a charter, well that is their own darn fault.
And when other schools do their best to keep those children and teach them, they are “enabling bad behavior”.
Everything that is wrong with charters in a nutshell. They don’t want to teach any child who they “choose” not to teach. But they are utterly dishonest about how many at-risk kids fall into their “unteachable” category.
John,
What strategies do you recommend for children who are walking on tables and calling the teacher MF? Your beloved charter schools counsel them out. Public school teachers are then asked to play the role of Mother Theresa. Instead of gratitude for our ongoing struggle to right all societal wrongs, we are subjected to an unending saga of bad teachers in failing schools who are challenged to hold a number two pencil correctly. How many troubled children have you taught?
Abigail,
I’m confident that you know much more than I do about strategies for dealing with challenging students.
I’m curious though about whether you have the ability to do what you think is best for them and the support of your administration to do it.
I acknowledge that many of these kids end up back in district schools or shuffled from charter to charter. You call it “counseling out”. I believe there are places where that happens, but I also see a lot of charters and charter educators that feel exactly as you do: give me the challenge and let me try to make this work.
However, parents who have a choice often get tired of the chosen strategies. They don’t want to be challenged about their child’s attendance, behavior, homework, etc. They are not supportive of higher standards for behavior. I imagine you’ve had parents who will argue with you about whether it’s acceptable for their child to curse you out in class, etc. When they have a choice, many of these parents opt to go elsewhere. In my experience, the purpose of all this wasn’t to get them to leave, it’s to work with them to improve the behavior and attendance and to avoid disruptions for other students.
But, motives aside, you are correct that it results in more disruptive kids in district schools, and I agree that it is never appropriate to measure one school against another without looking a lots of factors, including the demographics, attrition, etc. At the school I’m involved in, we look upon any child that leaves as a failure for us. By definition, we have not found a way to make things work and it has resulted in them going somewhere else to try something else. In my area, that frequently is a school where they will be “left alone”, get acceptable grades (regardless of what they know), be promoted, etc. Unfortunately, the price for that complacency gets paid later.
I’m curious about what you’ve found about children and parents who come back from charters.
I’m also curious about whether you think that the educational experience of the majority of students in your classroom suffer from the actions of a few, and whether you think it’s fair that they should when suburban students largely don’t.
Thanks
Abigail, one thing I am concerned about is that your question still seems to accept the lie that the ONLY students the charter schools counsel out are only the ones like you describe – who jump on tables and swear. That’s certainly what charters want us to believe. So your question helps promote the lie. John can just say “put them ALL in special schools” without acknowledging what he is really implying is that 75% of all low-income African-American boys don’t belong with the “good” kids.
Yes, there are a few kids who are counseled out of charters who do need special schools, but the charter schools that claim to be high performing are ALSO counseling out the kids who just aren’t getting it fast enough. And pretending that they are all violent and special needs. When I hear the most celebrated charter school operator insisting that over 20% of the 5 year olds are doing violent things worthy of suspension — and those are the ones with the most motivated and dedicated parents — I know something fishy is up. Now maybe it is the fact that if your system is devious and corrupt enough, you will embrace so-called “teaching” methods that turn 5 year olds into miscreants by targeting them over and over again until they act out. And therefore John can pretend that of course we shouldn’t question that 20% of those students are violent. But there is no way that 20% of the kids with the most motivated families start out as violent 5 year olds. If they are acting out, it is because the system targets them for not “fitting” right away. Because frankly, they are more concerned with getting them out than figuring out how to teach them.
NYC public school parent,
You say
“John can just say “put them ALL in special schools” without acknowledging what he is really implying is that 75% of all low-income African-American boys don’t belong with the “good” kids.”
I never said anything about putting kids in special schools. I said that we need a new solution to this challenge and I said that I think mainstreaming hasn’t worked. I do, in fact, think that schools with greater resources, smaller class sizes, wraparound services, and very talented educators might be more effective for these children, but I honestly have not researched pro and con on this enough to have a position.
I also can’t believe that you think that 75% of African American boys don’t belong with “good” kids. That has not been my experience at all. Based on my (limited) experience, it’s more like 10%. I do think that there is a large percentage that can go either way based on the environment they’re in, so maybe that accounts for some difference between our opinions. Again, I don’t know statistics, but I’m sure they vary widely by school and region.
I also need to say that a lot of the most challenging kids get no consequences for bad behavior at home. Consistently holding them responsible for their behavior and having a culture that doesn’t accept it frequently works well. If a kid leaves, it is a failure for us, but I honestly believe that it is frequently a failure of the family to support the concept of consequences for actions and exactly the wrong thing to do with that student. There are a lot of easy ways out, including schools willing to put up with bad behavior to the detriment of the other students and schools willing to promote students who haven’t learned the material so that they are set up for continued failure. Unfortunately, the price gets paid later and is much steeper.
I want to be clear that we are talking about kids who have the ability to behave but exercise poor judgment. IEPs, which are determined by the district, not by us, override our discipline policy.
NYC public school parent,
I am a public school teacher in Newark. I do not support the contention that a vast majority of the children are violent. They are not. I was merely pointing out that charter school creaming makes our jobs harder. I have no objection to teaching children who experience impediments to learning. I do it all day long. I am sick and tired of the attacks on urban public school teachers by people who would not make it through one day walking in our shoes.
John says: “I also can’t believe that you think that 75% of African American boys don’t belong with “good” kids. That has not been my experience at all. Based on my (limited) experience, it’s more like 10%. I do think that there is a large percentage that can go either way based on the environment they’re in, so maybe that accounts for some difference between our opinions. ”
John, I am guessing that you purposely pretended to misunderstand what I wrote. My opinion is that it is RARE for a 5 year old to be violent, especially when he or she comes from a home with very motivated parents who seek out the best education for their child and promise to do all that a charter school asks of them in order to get their child a better education. I don’t think 75% of them are violent — you do! Because despite what you just claimed above, you never question when charter schools that ONLY have the most motivated families suspend 20% and more of their 5 and 6 year old students and claim it is only because they are violent. You accept it as gospel. The most motivated at-risk families, and yet you never question that 20% of the kids are violent. So I estimated that must mean you think that if those kids didn’t come from the most motivated families, you’d have a hard time finding ANY who were acceptable to teach. Would 100% of those kids be on the “got to go” list? I don’t know WHAT would ever make you question a high-performing charter school. If 50% of the at-risk kids disappear? If 75% of them disappear? If 80% of them disappear? How large does the attrition number have to be for you to be critical, John? I truly want to know.
If you REALLY were not lying when you claimed above that only 10% of the at-risk kids belonged elsewhere than a charter school, then you would not defend the charter schools where as many as half of them are made to feel misery until they leave.
Abigail, I believe teachers like you are being given a near-impossible task with very few resources to do it. And the falsehoods spread by the pro-charter folks makes it worse. Much of the public is now convinced that charters have some special sauce to teach the kids just like the ones who are in your school — all of them — and achieve miraculous results with them. Thanks to the pro-charter PR machine and their billionaire backers, much of the public is now convinced that teachers are you are inept and if you were just more dedicated and not so lazy, you would be able to get the same results as they get with the exact same students. So the public doesn’t blink when more resources are directed to charters and less resources to schools like yours where you are all failures. And people like John enable this dishonesty. Very few pro-charter folks talk about the high suspension and attrition rates of at-risk children — often African-American boys. The ones who do are attacked! As being pro-union! Despite their long history of being pro-charter. Because apparently, like John, speaking the truth is not allowed if it might lead to any changes in charter school expansions. I am sorry that it is you and the children you teach who suffer most.
Wonder how you could know 50% of all family living in the Newark without knowing the actual size of population out there. Speaking of fuzzy math.
Apologists like it, trolls like it, and charcoal lovers and cheerleaders like it.
Ken,
It’s 50% of the applications filled out for One Newark, the universal enrollment program for all public schools in Newark.
What is MOST important about a charter school? Whether it is good at marketing or whether it is good at teaching?
What is more important to John? Whether thousands of parents sign for a lottery for a school, or whether a large portion of them who WIN the lottery and enroll their kid end up leaving the school?
John thinks we can measure the worth of a charter school by how well their expensive PR machine works to market to families. But what he ignores is that a much more accurate reading of “popularity” is whether families STAY.
Can you imagine if charter schools were forbidden to talk about how many kids enter their lottery (which is a result of marketing) and were forced to disclose how many students who win the lottery STAY (which is a result of their teaching.)
I think the value of a charter school is revealed by how many students leave. If half the students leave, the school is doing something very, very wrong, regardless of the results. And the highest attrition rates are in the lowest performing schools and the HIGHEST performing schools. There are likely some charter schools that most parents choose to stay in who get results about as good as a typical public school. Those are the GOOD ones. The ones that lose so many kids are terrible, no matter how you slice it. Someone posted below that the North Star lost 40% of their African-American male students. Anyone who pretends that the fact that they may get the most applications TRUMPS the fact that they get rid of the most students does not care at all about kids. They care about promoting themselves and their charters. The question is, whether John is one of them.
NYC public school parent,
“The question is, whether John is one of them.”
I’m getting very tired of your personal attacks. I don’t think anyone much cares about me and what I “am” except you.
Most everyone else here seems willing to discuss the issues objectively. You seem more intent on misquoting me or making up things that I’ve never said and don’t support and ascribing them to me.
Please cut the personal crap. I don’t think anyone wants to read it except you.
Your comment addresses the topic of evaluation, and applies to teachers s well as schools.
No tests are needed for parents to know if their child is learning, growing and moving forward in skills and knowledge acquisition.
As Explained in an earlier post, I was there i nYC for the agent school experiment.
In a local neighborhood (the upper East Side) our tiny school occupied the 5th floor of a big OLD elementary school.
Local children applied, and we looked at what they brought to our school, examined their records, looked at citywide achievement test scores (this was 1990) and then watched as the kids sat in our classes for a week.
Then, we decided who we could/would/should accept…running the risk of being called ELITIST!
BUT THE NEED WAS THERE! parents wanted a chance to put their child into a middle school that was not dragged down by things that plagued public schools, which lacked resources to deal with them. We, too had no dean of discipline, or psychologists on board to deal with behavioral issues. The teachers worked after hours to keep parents informed and so the usual immature kids who derailed lessons ro did not do the work, soon found out that daddy and mommy were on board!
But I remember those weeks when NY kids came to ‘try out’ my class.
I chose to include kids whose academic record was not great, but whose enthusiasm for learning and attitude during the week they sat in my room showd promise. We–the teaching team–worked together to ensure the kids caught up in skills… our 7th grade science text was on a reading high level. We did not do a favor to a child who could barely read second grade, to enter that class and fail!
IN one year the parents on the East Side and around the city (we took 50% from all boroughs, not just Manhattan) knew there was a school where learning was ongoing.
Harvard came to observe when Pew funded their STANDARDS RESEARCH.
Our school population swelled. OF COURSE PARENTS CHOSE A SCHOOL WHERE THE BEHAVIOR of the student body was one that facilitated learning. We had a huge ethnic variety..this was NYC! We took kids who wanted to be there!
And, of course, since I wrote the seventh grade curricula for English and Communication Arts, and made it work by motivating kids to do hard work–not difficult with already motivated kids, the school rose to the top of the city… I BECAME FAMOUS, (AND AS I EXPLAINED IN EARLIER POSTS HERE ) AND I BECAME A TARGET FOR THE EIC, which ran our Department of Education from the top down, even before the CC and VAM entered the picture. CAN’T HAVE REAL TEACHING GOIN ON , WHEN THE CC IS WAITNG IN THE WINGS.)
Click to access eic-oct_11.pdf
If education works ‘THEY” want it SHUT DOWN.
I HEAR THAT the school has new digs, in a BIG building, and is no longer the intimate school where teachers knew every kid, and worked in teams to enable learning.
Sigh!
John, the only thing I know about you are the things you post on here. Things like the following:
John says: “50% of all applications included North Star (Uncommon) in their top choices. 40% included TEAM (KIPP). 13% of the applications included the most desirable district school (Ann Street) in their choices. Who can look at this and say that what families want is more district schools and fewer charter schools?”
That quote demonstrated your desire to prove the popularity of charters by the numbers of parents who rank them, NOT the number of parents who LEAVE them.
Does North Star have a higher attrition rate than Ann Street? Do you actually care if North Star has a higher attrition rate than Ann Street? Or a higher attrition rate than a charter that only 15% of the applicants ranked?
Who can look at the huge number of at-risk African-American children often boys, who LEAVE charter schools and say that what families want is more district schools and fewer charter schools?
Who can look at the huge number of at-risk African-American children who leave charter schools and still claim that what charter schools want is to educate at-risk children? Does it matter whether parents want a charter if in the end, the charter most certain does not want THEM?
Feel free to attack me, John, if it is easier than addressing the question.
NYC public school parent,
You look at attrition rates without comparing them to similar traditional school rates, which are often hidden because of backfilling.
You also don’t consider geographic mobility, which is typically 10-15% per year, and which when compounded, results in huge amounts of attrition of students.
You also ignore every single time that I say that attrition is a problem and discuss why it is happening, ways to mitigate it, etc.
You never discuss what you think charter schools (or any school) should be doing with students who are disruptive in class, or the changes you would make in the progressive discipline system at most charters that can result in a parent withdrawing their child.
Nor do you address schools that allow that disruptive student to stay in the classroom or administrators who send that kid back into the classroom a few minutes later. Or students who are chronically absent because they or their parents can’t get them up in time for the bus. Or students who are so many grade levels behind that they have no chance of understanding what is being taught. These are the reasons for attrition.
Finally, have you considered that just about every student who attends a charter school is attrition from the traditional public school they would normally have attended? You never address why these students leave those schools.
And no, I won’t attack you. Find any post in which I question your motives, accuse you of anything, question who you are, or anything like that like you do of me in just about all of your posts. I also address my posts to you, not to everyone else here saying “New York City Parent is x or y and thinks a or b”. Frankly, your obsession with what I think or who I am is a little disturbing.
John, you make such cogent observations.
That person is typical of the broader public, and here ,at this wonderful place where ideas fly, people complain… and the general public expresses opinions — while not knowing diddly-squat about how learning really is enabled, or about the hidden war on public education. NY parent is not reading here, as I have for the last year, and gets only the slant from a media — which is controlled by the very people who are using public money to create private schools.
One fact offers a look a the problem of such endless ‘opinions’. There are 15,880 school systems, and NY parent barely knows what is afoot in his own city, let alone in the state or across the nation.
He/she makes an argument based on purely subjective beliefs an opinion informed with some intelligence, buy the way, by what is observed.
Imagine, if this person was to opine about how to solve the problem of aortic aneurysms.
Oh, but medicine is a complex discipline and a professional opinion is needed.
But everyone KNOWS what learning looks like in the charter school down the block.
The very idea that the psychology of the HUMAN BRAIN is studied by teachers, so that they can PLAN lessons the way little Jonny and Janita learn, is lost.
After all, the media makes it clear that ANYONE CAN TEACH, and 6 months of training gives us the TFA novice enough training to replace the experienced teacher-PRACTITIONER whose professional practice has added to that knowledge, so LEARNING can be facilitated… even Johnny hasn’t heard language in his home, or had a book read to him. No one wants a trained ‘medic’ to do more that triage, but parents don’t grasp that more than trained personnel is needed to show the emergent mind how to ACQUIRE COMPLEX THINKING SKILLS.
This NYC parent is a model for the opinionated people in this nation who rant and rail if you present FACTS. HOW ELSE DOES A CLOWN LIKE TRUMP GET TRACTION.
I TAUGHT IN NYC, http://www.opednews.com/author/author40790.html
AND I inderstand the frustration of this parent!
IN fact, if my son still lived on 106th street,instead of in Austin, I betcha I would look to place my grandkids in a charter school… because it is the only game in town, as was th plan…instead of funding schools to make them work. I REMEMBER THE PUBLIC SCHOOL NEXT DOOR TO HIS APARTMENT, and I can tell you that my grandkids would no t thrive there… as It is, they are homeschooled in Austin.
Incidentally , and to the point here is my post to the language arts component that my daughter-in-law created for the homeschoolers, and which she, ( filmmaker and director) is now offering to Austin. Go to the links in my comment after the article— see what my grancdhildren are doing to enable them to speak and use language in some links which will demonstrate what kids can do when motivated by REAL LEARNING EXPERIENCES.
http://www.opednews.com/Quicklink/Prepare-for-Hamlet–Impro-in-Best_Web_OpEds-Children_Education_Language_Schools-160118-602.html#comment579665
One sample, because I cannot resist, here are young kids, cooperating and learning to speak… the boy is MINE
Here is what happened in NYC .
Anyone here who has not seen “GRASSROOTS: AN INCONVENIENT TRUTH WAITING FOR SUPERMAN” must watch it. Can’t..it makes me cry, because it is the evidence, the proof of how they did it, removed the creme of the professional teaching staff o this could happen, and the CC could replace REAL LEARNING STRATEGIES.
Maybe, NY parent will listen to the professionals who talk here. Anyway, John, don’t waste your time talking to a deaf-person, who is also blind to what is happening behind the scenes… and is obviously not reading what the voices of the REAL TEACHERS say here.
John, I think you are projecting here. I don’t care who you are – why should I? I care about what you post! And I respond when I find what you post to be (intentionally?) misleading. I call it out. I’m not going to let a post with misleading information stand no matter who posts it. Sometimes I respond to things you would consider “pro-union” as well, so don’t take this all so personally. If you stopped posting misleading things, I would stop responding to you.
Here is an example of your misleading statements, John:
John says: “You look at attrition rates without comparing them to similar traditional school rates, which are often hidden because of backfilling.”
John, I am looking at attrition rates for high performing charter schools versus attrition rates for mediocre performing charter schools. As I said before (but you – purposely? – ignored), I find it very odd that the charter schools with the highest attrition rates FOR AT-RISK STUDENTS are the lowest performing schools AND the highest performing schools. Anyone looking at that would find it very odd that parents would leave a top performing charter school in droves. You don’t question it because you are certain that those parents are moving away or just choosing a far worse
And this statement fully demonstrates why I respond to you:
John says “You never discuss what you think charter schools (or any school) should be doing with students who are disruptive in class, or the changes you would make in the progressive discipline system at most charters that can result in a parent withdrawing their child.
Nor do you address schools that allow that disruptive student to stay in the classroom or administrators who send that kid back into the classroom a few minutes later. Or students who are chronically absent because they or their parents can’t get them up in time for the bus. Or students who are so many grade levels behind that they have no chance of understanding what is being taught. These are the reasons for attrition.”
No, John, those aren’t the reasons for attrition. Those are the EXCUSES that charters use in order to get rid of the hard to teach kids as fast as they can make them feel enough misery.
You don’t need to keep a child in a classroom if he is being disruptive. You can put him in ANOTHER classroom with fewer kids and perhaps one-on-one attention. Your appalling statement that getting rid of the child somehow changes the circumstances you mentioned above speaks volumes about you. Getting rid of the student changes nothing except the financial situation of the charter school that no longer has to teach him. KEEPING the child and dealing with him differently when he doesn’t respond to the one way your inexperienced and overworked teachers are taught is what PUBLIC schools do. If you want me to support charters, show me the high performing charters that are doing THAT. Don’t pretend that the high performing charters who can’t wait to get rid of all those kids are something to admire. You should be CRITICIZING them if you really cared about those kids. Your failure to do so, and your desperation to defend such schools, is why I respond to you.
But I find it amusing how much of your own obsession you project onto me.
The people of Newark feel beaten. I used to walk down Commerce Street, downtown, a year ago and see the posters of Cami Anderson and Chris Christie in the window with the blood red word LIAR written across their foreheads. Those posters are gone. It seems very few parents show up for meetings.
When Ras Baraka was running for office, I had occasion to speak with locals about the situation; none of the people I spoke with wanted charters, and all of them were behind Ras Baraka. Now that Ras Baraka is playing nice with Christie and Cerf, what has happened to the parents? I can’t explain it.
I don’t know what the figures were for choosing schools. I find it interesting Ann St. was a top choice–does that mean it rivals or betters the darling North Star? Ann Street is, indeed, a neighborhood school. North Star is in a scary neighborhood, with boarded up rat and squirrel filled houses directly across the street. Carjackings are occurring with frequency at 7a.m. en route to North Star. If I lived across town, you can bet your bottom dollar I would not be clamoring to get my kid into North Star.
Donna,
I certainly agree that the people of Newark feel beaten and that they are facing issues that most of us can only imagine.
There are many people in Newark who were upset about school changes because of their role of employer. A lot of jobs were eliminated and a lot of them were held by minorities. Newark certainly already doesn’t have enough jobs and there is no doubt that this hurt.
But, it is shortsighted to allow failure in schools to continue so that it can be a jobs program. I have no doubt that the anecdotes that you share are accurate, but the data doesn’t lie. Parents are choosing the schools that they believe are best for their children. They don’t care if they are charters or district schools.
I think you misunderstood the data re Ann Street. It was the top choice on 5% of applications. North Star was the top choice on 25% of applications. The data is at http://www.nps.k12.nj.us/blog/mdocs-posts/one-newark-enrolls-year-1-data-presentation/.
John,
The people of Newark were never asked to vote on whether they wanted to hand their public schools over to private organizations and entrepreneurs. Why are reformers antagonistic to democracy? This is about power and money, not children.
Diane,
There is democracy in which one goes to the voting booth and elects a school board and approves a budget.
There is democracy in which one gets to decide which school one’s child goes to.
Both are messy. The first can lead to an overemphasis on taxes, the tyranny of a majority and mistreatment of minority, inappropriate mucking with elections, etc.
The second can lead to an overemphasis on individual children and mistreatment of those who don’t participate.
What we have now, especially in cities, is some of the worst of both. Couple that with the ability to “opt out” by moving out if you have money, and democracy becomes an ideal that is pretty distant from the reality.
In my city, minority members of the school board are routinely harassed and ignored until they quit. The board spends zero time talking about teaching and learning. They spend more time arguing about inconsequential things than anything else. They are not in any way functioning to serve education. The paragon of democracy that you hold on to is largely nonexistent. A very small minority participate at all, and the resulting governance structure is largely powerless. That only works for those who are happy with the way things are.
“There is democracy in which one goes to the voting booth and elects a school board and approves a budget. There is democracy in which one gets to decide which school one’s child goes to.”
John , those democracies have been stripped away from the very communities we are talking about. Chicago has an appointed board. Detroit has been under an appointed outsider for 5 years. Newark has had neither of these for almost 20 years. Philly, too, has taxation without representation. In Boston, without an elected school committee, the mayor seems hell-bent on turning over the best public schools in the nation to charters, playing along with the Waltons, and acceding to the Gates Compact that voters have not even seen, let alone approved. McKinsey did a study which recommends the closing of 36 schools, paid for with tax dollars of $660,000, but we have had to file a FOIA to see the report.
Where are our democracies?
Christine,
True, but these decisions were also made by elected officials. This is why I think that parents “voting” with their children can be more democratic than publicly elected school boards or officials.
Snyder was elected and has subverted democracy by changing the scope and term limits of the Emergency Manager’s role. Snyder’s Earley has now poisoned children (and others) in Flint and is responsible for the situation in Detroit’s schools.
That’s not how democracy works when it functions well.
I hear you, John, and it makes me so sad.
I went to public school down the block from i946 until 1959 when I graduated (with Bernie Sanders) form James Madison HS. LOL.
My sons went to the public schools in Pomona NY, from 1974 until 1988, and one went on to Cornel, then to Yale and Harvard and is a doctor. Not allis teachers were great, but learning was the object.
The other went to Washington University and graduated in 3 years, thanks to his high school AP classes.. He is CEO of his own company (GLUU)
That school system has been decimated.
I taught from 1963 to 1998 when the assault hit me! Public schools worked.
It is now 16 years later, and what you describe is the plan, anti works because the LEGISLATURE defunded schools. The corruption is at the highest levels. The new world order is taking over our nation, and the first thing they did was steal the national wealth and the homes and jobs of the people
Now, they are finishing their plan to end public education, so they can re-write history and ensure an ignorant population, which is stressed and has no access to income equality… because THAT John, is what is what happens when the choice is NO CHOICE.
While public schools were not perfect, they took everyone, and they could have been improved with a little money and a real determination to do it right like in Finland.
http://blip.tv/hdnet-news-and-documentaries/dan-rather-reports-finnish-first-6518828
We need a movement John. The children are not children for long. Children’s education matter. THEY are the FUTURE!
We need to get out there and tell the people what YOU say here, what Ellen says here and what Diane reports on her tireless effort to describe the events that are shaped our nation for th next century.
“…but the data doesn’t lie.”
And therein lies the fundamental disagreement you have with most people on this board and until you understand the argument we’re making we will continue to talk past each other. The “data” you’re talking about is test scores which, at best, “measure” the thinnest and least important slice of actual learning. In fact, there is considerable evidence that higher test scores can, in fact, mean worse education. SA, for instance, boasts high test scores, but that’s because they’re spending large blocks of time on math and literacy test prep at the expense of interesting, meaningful curriculum. In addition, in order to enforce their nearly unbearable curriculum, they have to use “no excuses” tactics which drive out all but the most controlled and obedient children. What we’re saying is that we don’t care what your “data” says – human experience says otherwise.
Dienne,
Are these “meaningless” tests correlated with dropping out of high school, unemployment, and incarceration?
I acknowledge that tests are blunt instruments and that all data needs to be taken skeptically. But, when the data correlates with the outcomes, one either has to ignore and rationalize both (as it seems many here do), or accept the data as an insufficient but meaningful measure.
The simple fact is that failure on a state test is more likely the result of illiteracy and innumeracy than something wrong with the test. The tests are the proverbial “messenger” being attacked for the message.
To be clear, I think the narrowing of curriculum is wrong. My daughter recently told me that her class is behind the other 3rd graders in science. The reason is that they have taken longer with their ELA and Math and therefore haven’t had science as often. The removal of history and minimizing of science in NY k-12 has definitely led to a de-emphasis on them. The minimizing of art and music in order to pursue small changes in test scores is also ridiculous.
However, it’s too convenient to say that test scores don’t matter because they don’t measure everything, or because they are very imperfect measures. I agree that the difference between a “3” and a “4” on a single NYS exam for an individual student is almost meaningless. But, I assure you that the 95% of kids coming into my school having never passed a state test haven’t because they are years behind, not because the data is bad.
Further to my point, yes, data do “lie”. Test scores have been manipulated for decades now to show, depending on the rephormers’ interests at the time, that schools are either “failing” (for example, setting cut scores so high that they know that 70% of kids will fail) or “improving” (because Politician Bob wants to be re-elected and he needs to “prove” that he’s been “serious” about education).
Dienne,
I agree that data can lie. Looking at or comparing “passing rates” without looking at cut scores, attrition, demographics, etc. is totally useless.
But, that doesn’t make the data inherently bad. It just means that it has to be used responsibly and in context.
It’s unfortunate that we get so much “data” in the form of sound bites or talking points, which almost always represent the opinion of the presenter, not reality.
I have followed your conversation on data, and it makes my head swim.
During the time when i sent my kid to schools — LOCAL public schools — they a received fabulous education, as I had thirty years earlier, and went on to professional careers BUT there was not a second where I had to examine data or choose… no more than I had to examine data to choose which bus or train I would take to work, or which milk I purchased would not poison me.
The schools they attended took ALL children, and graduates included a large ethnic population, many of whom went on to productive lives and jobs.
Public education raised all children; learning — which was easy to spot if one looks at real performance not data — showed parents that it was working.
I am stunned by all the dissection of what works and what doesn’t work, as the schools are gobbled up by private interests, and public education ended.
All those ‘choices’ has left the parents bereft of a local school for their kids, where learning is the task… the way it used to be.
Not saying that there were not problems… by the nineties, the need was there for more schools, more teachers–all of which provides smaller classes– which is PROVEN to improve learning.
The need for a an overhaul of teacher education programs at the college level was drastically needed, too, so that the college degree and the license ENSURED that in that classroom was a genuine PROFESSIONAL , who GRASPED not merely content, but the psychology behind how the brain acquires skills (i.e.LEARNING).
Austerity politics did the opposite… stripping funding from the public sector, and ‘schools’ took the big hit.
The insight that psychology gives to those who PRACTICE in the ‘schools’ is crucial.
There was a wonderful piece on NPR’s Freakonomics, with Steve Dubner, yesterday (1-16-16) which discussed this insight and how it focuses onWHAT WORKS
What struck me was something that he said: “In the private sector innovation is also slow, but FAILURE is not an option… going out business is not acceptable, and that is what happens when poor execution is TOLERATED.”
In the public sector, failure is tolerated (talked about endlessly by the professionals , but tolerated by the people who run the show– our legislators and governors…who need to be shown the EXIT!)
The mental mode has to be shifted, he says, in order to be effective.
He said that in the public sector, the models do not focus on delivery, on scale.
INSIGHTS FROM PSYCHOLOGY MUST BE applied and SCALED to fit the problem.
Massive testing– this one size fits all– does not work. It’s only purpose from day one was toOBSCURE the TAKE-OVER of PUBLIC EDUCATION by confusing the public.
Ok.We know that….let’s talk endlessly about why… even though we know why it is not working.
It ignores the ‘psychology’ of LEARNING and ignores the effective delivery in the classroom of those PRACTICES WHICH WORK with the human brain…like awards for real achievement and hard work.
Click to access polv3_3.pdf
These insights FROM PSYCHOLOGY OF THE BRAIN— is what PRODUCED THE NATIONAL STANDARDS research; the results of which are sitting in the volumes in front of me, now, as I write!
They disappeared with the zillion dollar Pew research when Bush and the EIC produced the NCLB act. Talk about conspiracy. Am I alone in knowing this? !2 districts nationwide, tensor thousands of teachers, hundreds of administrators, and altho folks at Harvard an the Univ or Pittsburgh, and PEW …and not a peep about but what I say here?
Do you grasp how crucial that DATA, those results are, if this 3rd level research has been ERASED, to be replaced by the data driven reforms?
The billionaires have taken control of the conversation and convinced the public sector to do its ‘innovation,’ TESTING— which was a lie from the start.
The “schools” (i.e. the INSTITUTION of public education) are in a catastrophic collapse.
Time to get THAT conversation OUT THERE, unless you can get the public to come here and learn WHY testing does not work… something THEY ALL KNOW.
Tie to tell them what does work, and to put working policies BACK into our public schools, so that parents of this e”unwanted ‘ populations of children, see them LEARNING in smaller classes, in schools with support services and programs that engage young minds, and support the teachers.
THAT will offer parents REAL CHOICE… and bogus charter schools, for all their data- will be seen for what they are… charlatan-run scams.
YOU teachers have to get the conversation changed… out THERE, and to do that, YOU CANNOT BE A LONE VOICE —YOU ALL have to organize and communicate with the public — which is getting all the crap from the pundits an talking heads. They are drowning in talk, and NONE of it addresses what must actually be in place in a school for KIDS TO LEARN!
Here’s What real, LEARNING LOOKS LIKE: 8 things that you can SEE in your school ( an it ain’t test data)
1-
2-
3-
ETC
Christine,
Newark has an elected board that serves in an “advisory” capacity.
The people of Newark elected Booker and the rest as we say is history.
Has anyone studied attrition at charter schools? Or is the attrition level at charter schools some secret number that no one is allowed to know?
I am unclear how many kids leave this high performing school in Newark. And how many new ones are brought in to replace them. The attrition rate of the youngest students as they move through the grades tells you the most about the school. If a school is high performing and the attrition rate is high, then something funny is always going on. Always. That’s why the one thing high performing charters will never talk about is their high attrition rate.
NYCpsp, Google Jersey Jazzman attrition North Star Newark. You’ll find plenty to read. Dr Bruce Baker, Rutgers U Grad School Ed professor, has worked w. Mark Weber/doctoral candidate aka J Jazzman on attrition research.
A quick description is that ~40 percent of black male students leave North Star between 5th or 6th grade and graduation.
Thanks, booklady. Sadly, I think that there is a huge correlation between good test scores and high attrition rates for black male students in every charter school that crows that it is “getting results”.
Unfortunately, the pro-charter folks who post here prefer to see no evil. In fact, that makes them just as bad, but they rationalize the fact that they are actually cheering on such practices by pretending the ends — getting a small % of students a far more expensive education — justifies the means — letting most poor and minority students (especially boys) rot. Nothing justifies their dishonesty, except massive self-interest.
NYCpsp, I just read Curmudgucation/Peter Greene’s 1-16 article re Relay Grad School. He links to an impressive post by Bruce Baker, School Finance 101 blog Dec 2. 2010 “Truly Uncommon in Newark” that cites North Star attrition, % free lunch, with lots of graphs. Highly recommend
The attrition rates would be another telling bit of information conveniently omitted fact that charters often exclude when reporting their “success” rates.
Oh. Hmm.More Data? Yeah… lets see what we already know… the schools are losing kids… that will surely change the narrative.
Has anyone studied the ‘data’ on learning’ from the real national Standards research..see comment above, or see all my comments on this blog that remind YOU ALL that the research is DONE, AND missing!
Susan Lee Schwartz, you make a good point about learning.
However, the reformers have been using misleading data for years and most people who don’t pay as much attention are buying it. It is hard to talk about anything if the public believes that 100% of at-risk kids who enter a charter school are turned into scholars. When you actually explain to most people that 100% is really 40% or less of an already motivated group of students, those same supporters realizing what a group of hucksters those charter folks are.