Spurred by the financial clout and political power of the DeVos family, Michigan has embraced choice. A charter advocate wrote earlier to claim that the state has made unparalleled gains, thanks to choice. I knew this was wrong, but was on a car trip and couldn’t look up the NAEP data. In fact, Michigan’s academic performance relative to other states is in free fall.
On the National Assessment of Educational Progress, the only reliable barometer of test performance, Michigan has gone into a decline over the past dozen years.
Michigan, already sliding toward the bottom nationally for fourth-grade reading performance on a rigorous national exam, is projected to fall to 48th place by 2030 if the state does nothing to improve education.
That finding is included in a report out today from Education Trust-Midwest, a nonpartisan education research and policy organization based in Royal Oak. The organization analyzed more than a decade’s worth of results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress — or NAEP, a tough exam given to a representative sample of students in each state.
In 2003, Michigan ranked 28th in fourth-grade reading. In 2015, the state was ranked 41st.
“We’re certainly not on track to become a top 10 state any time soon,” said Amber Arellano, executive director of the organization. “It’s totally unacceptable for the economy, for business and especially for kids themselves.”
Among the 2015 NAEP results highlighted in the report:
• Michigan ranked 41st in fourth-grade reading, down from 28th in 2003.
• The state ranked 42nd in fourth-grade math, down from 27 in 2003.
• It ranked 31st in eighth-grade reading, down from 27th in 2003.
• It ranked 38th in eight-grade math, down from 34th.
The report is focused on the fourth-grade reading results because of how crucial it is for students to be able to read well by the end of third grade. But students have also struggled in math.
The achievement problem crosses demographic lines. Consider how various demographic groups in Michigan compared with similar demographic groups nationwide in fourth-grade reading in 2015: White students in Michigan ranked 49th, higher-income students in Michigan ranked 48th, and black students ranked 41st.
The problem? Many other states are outpacing Michigan, which has posted mostly stagnant — and in some cases declining — results on the NAEP.
“When you look at leading states … they’re like on a rocket ship and we’re on a snail,” Arellano said.
State officials are busily mapping plans and goals to become one of the top 10 states in the nation. But they are falling farther and farther down towards the bottom. If they keep up the DeVos formula, they will soon rank among the Southern states, where academic achievement has historically been low because of underfunding and high poverty.
Detroit has most of the charter schools in the state of Michigan. It is the lowest ranking urban district on the National Assessment of Education Progress. Many of the charter schools are far worse academically than the chronically underfunded public schools.
Don’t let anyone tell you that Michigan or Detroit have been improved by choice. The only reliable measure is the NAEP, and both Michigan and the city of Detroit are in terrible shape.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thanks, Diane! This is no laughing matter. Charters are bad in so many ways.
Thank you for being the voice of authentic evidence and reason. I wish we lived in a real democracy where evidence matters. Thank you for continuing fight for democratic public education. I hope your efforts can get the public to stand up for public schools. If the public snoozes for the next four years,Trump and his band of deplorables will crush the single most democratizing institution in our country.
Great choice for education secretary. All you have to have is money and you get a position in WDC. Great start Trump. Next.
“the only reliable barometer of test performance,”
Um, NO! The NAEP suffers all the inherent fundamental conceptual (onto-epistemological) errors and falsehoods and psychometric fudgings identified by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700 that render any results and conclusions drawn as COMPLETELY INVALID. Now if something is COMPLETELY INVALID, by definition it cannot be consider as a “reliable” indicator of anything. Validity and reliability are the flip sides of the same coin and cannot be separated. About the only thing that one can about NAEP results is that they are “RELIABLY INVALID”.
Oops hit the post button too soon. Long time readers know what’s coming next:
Brief outline of Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” and some comments of mine.
A description of a quality can only be partially quantified. Quantity is almost always a very small aspect of quality. It is illogical to judge/assess a whole category only by a part of the whole. The assessment is, by definition, lacking in the sense that “assessments are always of multidimensional qualities. To quantify them as unidimensional quantities (numbers or grades) is to perpetuate a fundamental logical error” (per Wilson). The teaching and learning process falls in the logical realm of aesthetics/qualities of human interactions. In attempting to quantify educational standards and standardized testing the descriptive information about said interactions is inadequate, insufficient and inferior to the point of invalidity and unacceptability.
A major epistemological mistake is that we attach, with great importance, the “score” of the student, not only onto the student but also, by extension, the teacher, school and district. Any description of a testing event is only a description of an interaction, that of the student and the testing device at a given time and place. The only correct logical thing that we can attempt to do is to describe that interaction (how accurately or not is a whole other story). That description cannot, by logical thought, be “assigned/attached” to the student as it cannot be a description of the student but the interaction. And this error is probably one of the most egregious “errors” that occur with standardized testing (and even the “grading” of students by a teacher).
Wilson identifies four “frames of reference” each with distinct assumptions (epistemological basis) about the assessment process from which the “assessor” views the interactions of the teaching and learning process: the Judge (think college professor who “knows” the students capabilities and grades them accordingly), the General Frame-think standardized testing that claims to have a “scientific” basis, the Specific Frame-think of learning by objective like computer based learning, getting a correct answer before moving on to the next screen, and the Responsive Frame-think of an apprenticeship in a trade or a medical residency program where the learner interacts with the “teacher” with constant feedback. Each category has its own sources of error and more error in the process is caused when the assessor confuses and conflates the categories.
Wilson elucidates the notion of “error”: “Error is predicated on a notion of perfection; to allocate error is to imply what is without error; to know error it is necessary to determine what is true. And what is true is determined by what we define as true, theoretically by the assumptions of our epistemology, practically by the events and non-events, the discourses and silences, the world of surfaces and their interactions and interpretations; in short, the practices that permeate the field. . . Error is the uncertainty dimension of the statement; error is the band within which chaos reigns, in which anything can happen. Error comprises all of those eventful circumstances which make the assessment statement less than perfectly precise, the measure less than perfectly accurate, the rank order less than perfectly stable, the standard and its measurement less than absolute, and the communication of its truth less than impeccable.”
In other words all the logical errors involved in the process render any conclusions invalid.
The test makers/psychometricians, through all sorts of mathematical machinations attempt to “prove” that these tests (based on standards) are valid-errorless or supposedly at least with minimal error [they aren’t]. Wilson turns the concept of validity on its head and focuses on just how invalid the machinations and the test and results are. He is an advocate for the test taker not the test maker. In doing so he identifies thirteen sources of “error”, any one of which renders the test making/giving/disseminating of results invalid. And a basic logical premise is that once something is shown to be invalid it is just that, invalid, and no amount of “fudging” by the psychometricians/test makers can alleviate that invalidity.
Having shown the invalidity, and therefore the unreliability, of the whole process Wilson concludes, rightly so, that any result/information gleaned from the process is “vain and illusory”. In other words start with an invalidity, end with an invalidity (except by sheer chance every once in a while, like a blind and anosmic squirrel who finds the occasional acorn, a result may be “true”) or to put in more mundane terms crap in-crap out.
And so what does this all mean? I’ll let Wilson have the second to last word: “So what does a test measure in our world? It measures what the person with the power to pay for the test says it measures. And the person who sets the test will name the test what the person who pays for the test wants the test to be named.”
In other words it attempts to measure “’something’ and we can specify some of the ‘errors’ in that ‘something’ but still don’t know [precisely] what the ‘something’ is.” The whole process harms many students as the social rewards for some are not available to others who “don’t make the grade (sic)” Should American public education have the function of sorting and separating students so that some may receive greater benefits than others, especially considering that the sorting and separating devices, educational standards and standardized testing, are so flawed not only in concept but in execution?
My answer is NO!!!!!
One final note with Wilson channeling Foucault and his concept of subjectivization:
“So the mark [grade/test score] becomes part of the story about yourself and with sufficient repetitions becomes true: true because those who know, those in authority, say it is true; true because the society in which you live legitimates this authority; true because your cultural habitus makes it difficult for you to perceive, conceive and integrate those aspects of your experience that contradict the story; true because in acting out your story, which now includes the mark and its meaning, the social truth that created it is confirmed; true because if your mark is high you are consistently rewarded, so that your voice becomes a voice of authority in the power-knowledge discourses that reproduce the structure that helped to produce you; true because if your mark is low your voice becomes muted and confirms your lower position in the social hierarchy; true finally because that success or failure confirms that mark that implicitly predicted the now self-evident consequences. And so the circle is complete.”
In other words students “internalize” what those “marks” (grades/test scores) mean, and since the vast majority of the students have not developed the mental skills to counteract what the “authorities” say, they accept as “natural and normal” that “story/description” of them. Although paradoxical in a sense, the “I’m an “A” student” is almost as harmful as “I’m an ‘F’ student” in hindering students becoming independent, critical and free thinkers. And having independent, critical and free thinkers is a threat to the current socio-economic structure of society.
I think it is wonderful and wise that you refer to NAEP as “the only reliable barometer of test performance.”
That is the accurate description. Too much attention is given to test scores as if these are all that matters in thinking about education.
Reblogged this on Crazy Normal – the Classroom Exposé and commented:
The evidence that school choice doesn’t work never stops. It’s a flood of never ending evidence.
“Academic Performance” has nothing whatsoever to do with education-the same with phony test scores-See Human Development on Red Queen.