This spring, the D.C. public schools—under tight corporate reform control since 2007–were rocked by a scandal about graduation rates. It started when Ballou High School boasted about its 100% graduation rate, a story that was then celebrated by the local NPR station. After teachers blew the whistle, NPR returned to investigate and discovered that many of the graduates did not qualify for a high school diploma due to their long absences and lack of credits. This prompted a systemwide audit, which determined that a large proportion of the district’s graduates were unqualified. The system was cheating to boost its apparent (but false) success.
Emily Langhorne of the Progressive Policy Institute wrote an article for the Washington Post to declare, proudly, that charter schools were not implicated in the graduation rate scandal. In fact, she asserted, the charter numbers are audited, and every graduate is really, truly a real high school graduate.
“What’s happened in DCPS is tragic — not only that the number of students graduating declined but also that DCPS has been graduating students who aren’t prepared for life beyond school.
“Yet there is a story of real academic progress in the nation’s capital. It’s the story of the other public schools, the ones educating nearly 50 percent of public school students. It’s the story of D.C.’s charter schools…
“In 2017, D.C.’s 21 charter high schools graduated 73.4 percent of their students in four years. Since the PCSB audits every graduating student’s transcript, that number is an accurate reflection of student achievement.”
Unfortunately, this happy account leaves out some very important but inconvenient facts.
I turned to two experts on the District of Columbia Public Schools.
One of them, Mark Simon of the Economic Policy I statute, told me there had never been an independent audit of the graduation rate# at DCPS charter schools. Langhorne refers to an audit by the PCSB, the Public Charter School Board of the District of Columbia. This is not an independent agency. The data were supplied by the individual charter schools. The Progressive Policy Institute advocates for charter schools. No genuinely independent audit was ever conducted of charter school graduates.
I then turned to Mary Levy, a civil rights attorney and fiscal watchdog of D.C. schools for many years.
She wrote me that the Langhorne article was “highly misleading.” First, she agreed with Simon that there had been no independent audit of the numbers, unlike the audit of the public schools’ data.
She added: “About a third of charter school students leave their schools–and the cohort–before the date of graduation. The majority of 9th grade charter students do not graduate from charter schools. [The emphasis is hers.]

Levy added:
We don’t know where those who leave charter schools in the 9th grade go–some surely transfer to DCPS (District of Columbia Public Schools), enlarging that cohort, some move out of DC, some drop out. We also know that DCPS 9th grade enrollment includes a number of students in their second year of 9th grade, due to insufficient Carnegie units, thus inflating the percentage based on Grade 9 enrollment. The extent to which this happens in charter schools is unknown.”
To see all the data download the excel file here.

It is simply Basic American Business Ethics (BASE) that any commercial enterprise will have it advertising arm and the job of that arm is to lie about the value of its product to any extent that the market and paid for media will bear.
LikeLike
Sorry, was rushing off to a meeting … that should be BABE, as in You’ve Come a Long Way, BABE …
LikeLike
The chart is wonderfully clear. The dropout factories are charter schools.
LikeLike
I think I understand Emily Langhorne’s philosophy.
It is better to throw a child in the street than to keep him in your school and try to work with him, because crowing about 100% graduation rates is the goal. If a child will not graduate, he is not worthy of being educated, period. DC public schools should be modeling themselves after charters and tossing those children in the street to rot. Then Emily Langhorne would praise them as the kind of worthy schools she can admire.
I am not surprised that is what Emily Langhorne believes because it is the guiding philosophy of the “progressive” pro-charter movement. And by “progressive” I mean the people who insult and attack the NAACP and cheer on and admire charter CEOS who imply that African-American children are disproportionately violent at age 5.
In their common data set, colleges and universities are required to report graduation rates of their entering freshman class the same way. It is how many of the very same freshmen who entered in one year then graduated 4 years later. If the college replaced them with higher performing transfer students, they could not include those transfer students in the numbers. The data had to look at the exact students who began as freshmen and see how many of those very same students graduated 4 years later.
It would be very good if charters were required to report their attrition rate for their entering students — whether they enter in Kindergarten, 6th grade or 9th grade — the same way as colleges are required to do in their common data set. How many of those Kindergarten students remain by 5th grade? How many 6th graders or 9th graders remain by graduation? Then we would have some real data.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“It is better to throw a child in the street than to keep him in your school and try to work with him, because crowing about 100% graduation rates is the goal. If a child will not graduate, he is not worthy of being educated.” Where compassion and patience used to rule the day, now we’ve reached the point where kids are truly disposable.
LikeLike
“charter CEOS who imply that African-American children are disproportionately violent at age 5.”
Well … are they? What’s the evidence?
LikeLike
I read a lot of ed reformers and The Progressive Policy Institute may win the award for most insufferably arrogant, and there is STIFF competition.
They uniformly bash public schools and cheerlead charters. It is a charter marketing company thinly (and poorly) disguised as an education org.
I don’t know why they pretend. They’re not “public education advocates”. They’re advocates for charter schools. They contribute absolutely nothing to public schools, other than politically-motivated attacks.
It’s fine to promote charters. Why pretend? Why bring public schools into this marketing effort at all?
LikeLike
Ed reformers have one and only one use for public schools- they use our schools and students as political props to promote their preferred private schools and charters.
They offer absolutely nothing to public school families. Why not just leave us out of their political campaigning?
LikeLike
There is no secret sauce…the emperor has no clothes…there is nothing that they are doing that I as a publc school teacher would want to or need to adopt because their policies and ways are unfair and unequal.
LikeLike
When money moves into the hands of private entities, the students are no longer priority #1. The goal is to create maximum profit and protect the brand. We have seen this less than honest reporting of results from charter advocates that are more interested in hype and spin than facts. The acquisition of information is a challenge for research purposes once the money leaves the public domain. As private entities, charters are no longer accountable to taxpayers. The “reform” cabal steps in to control the data which they cherry pick in the same manner that they cherry pick students.
LikeLike
Want to bring entrepreneurial thinking to your classroom?
Hoping to turn your building into a “Google school?”
Eager to “emoji-cize” student learning?
#ISTE2018, which kicked off this weekend in Chicago, is the place for you.
I really, really hope public schools can resist the relentless promotion and sale of ed tech by ed reformers.
Please find someone who will give you sound advice on purchasing these products. Find someone who isn’t a salesperson.
Ed tech is an industry. They’re selling you something. All of this touchy feely language about “personalization”? That was cooked up in a marketing department.
They are selling product and that’s ALL they are doing. Ignore the hard sell. They want you to stop thinking and just buy, buy, buy. Don’t do it.
LikeLike
Technology is an adjunct…it is not the main source or covers everything …to think that it is, is being delusional and it is harmful to students. Yes, there are some great ed programs on the computer…and charters were once ahead of public schools with technology but that was long ago, public schools have just as much or more tech than charters at the present time. The elite private schools put tech in its place and emphasize experiences and projects, community outreach, the arts. Those are the enrichments that our students need and you do not get those staring at a screen.
LikeLike
A friend sent me an article from the current Financial Times (behind a paywall) about a far-out school in San Francisco for the super-elite: no tests, no grades, no curriculum, just projects that the kids want to do. Wonder why those same tech titans promote the opposite for everyone else’s children?
LikeLike
And the most elite colleges admit those students at disproportionately high rates (i.e., they may admit 50% or even 75% of the applicants from certain connected private schools) despite their having lower standardized test scores than the many public school students they reject. Because their “far-out schools for the super-elite” certify that their students are superior in a way that no test can ever measure.
It is these “private-school certified superior” students who are often admitted with lower standardized test scores over Asian students (and middle class white students) from public schools.
One thing I wondered when I saw that the group of Washington, DC private schools were dropping all their AP classes:
What scores did their students receive when they took those AP exams during the last 5 years? I would not be surprised if they were finding that the majority of their students weren’t getting 5s on the tests — especially now that they are competing with tens of thousands of public school students and have to take the exact same exams as them.
LikeLike
Diane’s referring to the Waldorf school in Silicon Valley. Its students are the sons and daughters of Silicon Valley’s most elite leaders. There have been a number of pieces done on it over the last 5-10 years:
LikeLike
Progressive Policy Institute?! Talk about the abuse of language; now the term progressive has been hijacked and and turned inside out, reversed and sucked of all meaning as has “liberal.”
LikeLike
David Osborne of the Progressive Policy Institute recently wrote a book about how awesome charter schools are and is on an author’s tour (may be done by now) promoting his views. PPI was created during the Bill Clinton to push for “third way” policies, like public-private partnerships, competition between public and private sectors, charters, “reinventing government,” etc.
LikeLike
Attrition. The secret sauce of charter “success”. Always has been, always will be…
LikeLike