That choking sound you hear is me writing the headline for this post.
Just when you thought the charter advocates could not sink any lower in seeking rationalizations for privatization, they go lower yet again.
Writing for the National Education Policy Center, Julian Vasquez Heilig critiqued a University of Arkansas study that purports to show that charter schools are more productive and profoppduce a higher return on investment than public schools. The study under review is called “Bigger Bang, Fewer Bucks.”
What would you care about when comparing two sectors, one of which is staffed by professional educators, the other staffed mainly by TFA temps? Would you care about test scores? Parent satisfaction? Teacher turnover? Student projects? Graduation rates? College acceptance rates? Would you consider how the creation of a second sector affects the health and vitality of the first sector? Would you Permit the Second sector to cripple the first sector?
How about return on investment?
This is a mode of thinking with which I am not compatible. I’m reminded of reading I did in the 1990s, when I learned about efficiency experts who studied the curriculum. I was writing a book called “Left Back,” published in 2000. These scientific curriculum experts worked out a way to compare the cost and value of different subjects. They concluded that Latin was not worth teaching because the unit cost was too high. They would understand this new Arkansas study.
Heilig writes the abstract of his critique:
“A report released by the University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform contends that charter schools produce more achievement per dollar invested, as compared to public schools. This newest report is focused on city-level analyses in eight US cities (Atlanta, Boston, Denver, Houston, Indianapolis, New York City, San Antonio, and Washington D.C.) and uses cost effectiveness and Return on Investment (ROI) ratios. It concludes that charter schools deliver a weighted average of an additional 4.34 NAEP reading points and 4.73 NAEP math points per $1000 invested. The report also argues that that charter schools offer an advantage of $1.77 in lifetime earnings for each dollar invested, representing a ROI benefit of 38%. However, there are a variety of methodological choices made by the authors that threaten the validity of the results. For example, the report uses revenues rather than actual expenditures – despite well-established critiques of this approach. The report also fails to account for the non-comparability of the student populations in charter and comparison public schools. Three other problems also undercut the report’s claims. First, even though the think tank’s earlier productivity report included a caveat saying that causal claims would not be appropriate, the new report omits that caution. Second, the report’s lack of specificity plagues the accuracy and validity of its calculations; e.g., using state-level data in city-level analyses and completely excluding race and gender. Finally, the authors again fail to reconcile their report with the extensive literature of contrary findings.“

“It concludes that charter schools deliver a weighted average of an additional 4.34 NAEP reading points and 4.73 NAEP math points per $1000 invested. The report also argues that that charter schools offer an advantage of $1.77 in lifetime earnings for each dollar invested, representing a ROI benefit of 38%.”
Ah, more mental masturbation using completely invalid NAEP scores. Sure does feel good for those charter supporters, eh!
LikeLike
Here is a link to that education analysis pornography:
Click to access bigger-bang-fewer-bucks-the-productivity-of-public-charter-schools-in-eight-u-s-cities.pdf
LikeLike
From the executive summary of that report. Notice the opinions being passed off in this statement:
“While public education dollars have risen at a relatively fast pace historically, education policymakers and practitioners should be seeking to economize, given the uncertainties of future funding levels
and underfunded pension liabilities.2 Meanwhile, the number of public charter schools has increased exponentially. From 1991 to 2014, charter school legislation passed in 42 states and the nation’s capital, and student enrollment increased to around 2.7 million.3”
LikeLike
Good catch. Had to bash teacher pensions, neglect corporate tax breaks and income inequality–time for educators in traditional public schools to tighten their belts and so on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I read Duane’s comment about mental masturbation re: using invalid NAEP scores. YUP, agree.
What I find interesting is these pay for play folks have NO CONCEPT of “MARINATION” re: learning.
The way those deformers want us to teach is wretched. This TOP-DOWN model being used in so many schools across this nation designed by AIRHEADS who think that SCREEN is learning, have no clue. They prance in and out of classrooms pretending to observe and listen, but their ability to truly observe and listen is clouded by their LACK OF KNOWLEDGE re: teaching and learning and their HIDDEN agendas — control and power, plus profits for the few.
I wonder if these deformers have lied so often and for so long that they don’t know the difference anymore and believe their own propaganda? Or are they just plain arrogant and myopic?
The things people do for money and power at the expense of the “common good” are well … jaw dropping.
LikeLike
Yvonne, You got me with the “marination”. Not sure what you mean. Thanks for explaining.
LikeLike
If Heilig or anyone else is here who has read the NEPC report and can make full sense of it, I’d be grateful for assistance.
Click to access Urban%20Charter%20School%20Study%20Report%20on%2041%20Regions.pdf
Perhaps just to start we could look at Heilig’s Table 1 and accompanying analysis pp 8-9
He claims “Only in Boston do Black CS students modestly outperform TPS in reading and math”. But how does that asssertion relate to the data in the TPS vs CS columns where one finds positive numbers for both reading and math for other cities also? And are the figures he provides there accurate or do they understate the relative test-taking success of CS students? How do the figures in the TPS vs CS columns relate to the other columns? At first glance the last “TPS vs CS” columns look to reflect what’s in the CS column relative to the TPS column, e.g., zero difference between Atlanta Math and CS math… But Look at Denver with TPS at -.16 Math and and CS at -.2… shouldn’t CS relative to TPS show a positive .14 in the math column instead of a negative .04? For Washington DC, where there’s a -.38 under TPS math and -.3 in CS math, shouldn’t TPS vs CS show a positive .35 instead of .08?
I could go on…
LikeLike
You are partially correct. First, the sentence was changed in the editing process.
It originally read “Only in Boston do Black students exhibit a positive in math and reading and outperform TPS.”
It needs to be changed back. That edit should not have been made and I missed the change during my final review.
However, the decimals are calculated correctly. The difference between .30 and .38 is .08. I could have left the zeros in the table.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oops, thanks for correcting my arithmetic. Much appreciated!
LikeLike
“Reformers” are grasping at straws to convince the public that there’s value in those charters. This faux research is typical of what has emerged from reform ideologues with methodological errors, cherry picked data, comparing apples to oranges and refusing to disaggregate data by race, class and gender in order for their “study” to support their preconceived conclusions. This is more fake research from the people that brought us fake public schools, teachers and training institutions. It is a house of cards built on sand.
LikeLike
“Magnet schools post a return on investment”.
Is there anyone in this country who doesn’t believe that if you did the same study with the NYC specialized high schools versus all the charter schools in NYC, the charters would look like one of the biggest frauds and wastes of money ever?
And to be totally fair, we would compare the attrition rates of those charters with the attrition rates of magnet schools to show that the charters are not only doing so much more poorly when compared to specialized high schools, but that they are also losing a ridiculously high number of students.
The answer is obviously to shut down those wasteful charters and establish a lot more magnet schools in NYC for every wasteful charter school shut down.
Will the Waltons and Broads pay me a $500,000 salary for my research? Because it is absolutely just as valid as the research they paid their hired academic employees at U. of Arkansas to do.
LikeLike
A new Cancer Treatment Center of America funded-study proves that for-profit Cancer Treatment Centers like CTC of America have a far better return on investment than Sloan-Kettering and MD Anderson.
“When researching the outcomes of the patients at Cancer Treatment Centers of America and comparing them to outcomes of patients at Sloan-Kettering and MD Anderson, “researchers” at the CTC School of Medical Research at Trump University found that the patients at Cancer Treatment Centers of America had far better outcomes — with less money spent on them! — than the patients at MD Anderson.”
Education Reformers like Eli Broad DEMANDED that MD Anderson and Sloan-Kettering immediately shut their doors and let Cancer Treatments of America take over their hospitals.
Eli Broad and the Waltons noted that these kinds of CTC-supported studies prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that MD Anderson and Sloan-Kettering have been wasting money that should have gone to CTC of America. From now on, no more government money would be allowed to be spent at MD Anderson but instead all money would now go to CTC of America.
I know this study is true because someone whose entire career is utterly dependent on the people who want a certain result told me it was so.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Anyone that gets cancer should go to one of the Cancer Centers of Excellence as designated by the National Institute of Health. They are also research centers, serve the most deadly types of cancer, and most of the clinical trials operate there. Billionaires should stop meddling, and stay in their own lane. You cannot compare institutions that serve the most difficult types of cancers or heart surgeries with a generic institution. The statistics do not factor in the that some hospitals serve many more at-risk patients, https://www.cancer.gov/research/nci-role/cancer-centers.
LikeLike
Good tongue in cheek analogy NYCpsp!
LikeLike
People like Broad do not want us to spend money on regular folks. He wants a tiered health care system similar to what he foresees for education. Broad would rather us spend our money on more corporate welfare for him and his wealthy cronies.http://prospect.org/article/disclosing-costs-corporate-welfare
LikeLike
This is a splendid review. Among many zingers, from Dr. Heilig is the failure of these ROI calculators to recognize lifetime income differences by gender and race.
One might concluded that the fix for reducing the cost of education is to award money for further education based on three levels of classification for NAEP scores.
BASIC or less on NAEP = these students will be a drain on society, invest less in the education of these students, or send their share to students who scores PROFICIENT.
Take some money from the “merely proficient” to enrich education for the students whose NAEP scores are classified at the level of ADVANCED.
Unfortunately this thinking has become more common even without the ROI exercise in this report and others. The cost of education does matter, but if it only matters on the basis of future earnings that is not just pathetic, it is dangerous.
Even the Robinhood Foundation calculates the ROI on preschool using more sophisticated measures…and I am no fan of financing preschool based on those financial calculations.
Marguerita Rosa, a scholar then working at the Gates-funded CRPE, circulated the results of a “study” of per-pupil costs for high school education in three districts. Among the conclusions, the most costly courses were foreign language, AP courses, and music.
Rosa’s policy recommendations can be seen in the following article. The article refers to a study which cannot be judged credible because there is no clear attribution of who the author is or whether the study was peer reviewed. http://educationnext.org/breaking-down-school-budgets-2/
The basic idea of “unbundling” the costs of schooling (whether by type of school, or student, or course or on a per-pupil basis) is not different from the principle of unbundling costs in the world of business, notably on airlines and with internet services where money is everything and profit is always best.
LikeLike
Hmmm, I wonder why foreign language courses would be the most “costly”?
Someone help me out, I am baffled by that thought.
LikeLike
Duane, These were not a required course. Also these teachers and those teaching AP had higher salaries and more experience in the three districts. This study was one of several from the CRPE(s) arguing for tiers of education with one basic, other tiers available with optional purchase by parents and others available online or through workers in the gig economy. Because high school arts courses required special facilities, tools, and supplies, they were budget busters. Not a peep about health and physical education or dedicated facilities for these.
LikeLike
The money quote: “By any reasonable interpretation, it is clear that the authors have again produced a product that is still ‘little more than political arithmetic’ (p. 9)
LikeLike