Last week, the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University released a report declaring that the market-driven reforms in the New Orleans schools were a success. The formula for success: Get a big hurricane to wipe out a large swath of your city, close down the public schools, fire all the teachers, eliminate the union, get the federal government and foundations to pour in huge sums of money, and voila! A miracle! The miracle of the market!
When watching an illusionist at work, keep your eye on the action. Watch his hands. Or watch what else is happening (I saw an illusionist last year in Las Vegas and still haven’t figured out the tricks he pulled off while everyone watched his hands).
Watch the master illusionists at the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University. They said that the New Orleans corporate takeover was a roaring success. They said it in 2015. They said it again in 2018. Guess what? On the same day that they published their latest study, Betsy DeVos gave them a $10 Million grant to become the National Research Center on School Choice! What a happy coincidence!
Unfortunately for the ERA, Mercedes Schneider figured out the Big Trick.
You see, after the hurricane in 2005, the state created the Recovery School District (RSD) and took control of most of the NOLA schools, turning them over to charter operators. The best schools, however, remained under the control of the Orleans Parish School Board (OPSB).
The RSD is all-charter. Forty percent of the charters are failing schools. The white kids go to the top-rated charters. The failing schools are almost all-Black.
The best schools in New Orleans are the OPSB schools, some of which are selective-admission charter schools. Not surprisingly, the selective-admission schools have the highest test scores.
The ERA pulled a fast one. In its report, it combined the results of the less-than-stellar RSD with those of the high-performing OPSB.
Schneider titled her post: “How to Make New Orleans Market Ed Reform a Success: Hide RSD Failure Inside an OPSB-RSD Data Blend.”
She writes:
“The problem here is that OPSB schools were never taken over by the state, which means that the New Orleans “failing school” narrative does not include these schools, and that whether they be direct-run or converted to charter schools, OPSB schools have test-score advantages over the “failing” RSD schools taken over by the state. Moreover, a number of OPSB schools are selective-admission charter schools (see also here and here), which gives even more advantage over state-run RSD schools (and which puts a snag in the “open school choice for families” narrative).
“It is the OPSB advantage that allows researches to combine post-Katrina, OPSB and RSD data and actually hide the lack of progress that state-run, all-charter RSD has made, all the while selling a generalized version of New Orleans market-ed-reform success to the public. I have seen this ploy in the past from the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) in its efforts to conceal low ACT composite scores of RSD schools that it was supposed to take over and reform right into higher test scores, and I am seeing it here in the Harris-Larsen study.
”OPSB schools are not only chiefly responsible for the results in the Harris-Larsen study; OPSB schools are concealing the mediocrity (at best) that was the RSD, state-takeover-charter-conversion experiment…”
As it happens, David Leonhardt of the New York Times today published the second part of his two-part encomium about the apotheosis of the New Orleans schools, due entirely to the miracle of the market. Ironically, his article is titled, “A Plea for a Fact-Based Debate About Charter Schools.” Ironic, because he swallows the charter propaganda whole. He apparently doesn’t know that the “miracle” was the result of merging the RSD scores with the OPSB scores. He never acknowledges that 40% of the RSD schools are failing and segregated. He is right, however, that it is time for a fact-based debate about what happened in New Orleans, and his two articles did not contribute to that debate.
Watch the illusionists. Great tricks. Don’t be fooled.

Mercedes is uniquely qualified to reveal the shell game of the economists who wrote this report. Recall that big name economists were also in charge of the hugely stupid Gates Foundation “Measures of Effective Teaching” project.
LikeLiked by 1 person
YES. Mercedes is a true advocate; over and over she “reveals the shell games.” How frustrating that what she knows and what she reveals has become so very necessary on an ongoing and apparently endless basis.
LikeLike
Average scores never tell the truth about what is really happening. It is a only when data are disaggregated that we can see what is happening and determine where the needs are.
Another truth needs to be told before “reformers” can pat themselves on the back for a job well done. The population of New Orleans today is quite different from the one in the city in 2005. Since Katrina the city has embarked on a gentrification campaign. First, they have been reluctant to rebuild housing and supports for the poor, and we know that at least five or six thousand poor never returned to New Orleans. Housing prices in the city have skyrocketed. Most of the newly renovated housing is being purchased by white families. Areas of the city with higher elevation are now majority white, including Bywater, parts of Treme, St. Roch, and St. Claude. New Orleans has reinvented itself into separate and equal islands, which is really what was intentionally planned for in the first place.https://nola.curbed.com/2016/9/6/12821038/new-orleans-gentrification-report
LikeLike
“It is a only when data are disaggregated that we can see what is happening and determine where the needs are.”
Considering that the disaggregated data (standardized test scores being used) itself is COMPLETELY INVALID the only conclusions that will be drawn are COMPLETELY INVALID themselves. . . . .
. . . why would anyone waste any time, effort and resources in collecting said data to begin with? Hell, might as well go down to the city dump and pick through the rotten molding foodstuffs and go prepare a gourmet meal, eh!
LikeLike
Mercedes separated the OPSB from the RSD in order to get a better picture of what was happening. If she didn’t separate them, she wouldn’t have noticed the differences.
I would love to see standardized testing fall by the wayside, but I think it will get much worse due to Gates vision and money before it gets better. We’re heading toward the surveillance state, and none of it is good for young people.
LikeLike
That better picture is one big black blind spot on a wall painted black.
Concur with your second paragraph.
LikeLike
How to Manipulate Test Scores
1) Manipulate the standards
2) Manipulate the test items
3) Manipulate the cut scores
4) Manipulate the test takers
5) Manipulate the responses
6) Manipulate the media
Number six is the only overt form of cheating, however all the other methods are forms of de-facto cheating. Number 1, 2, 3 were used by reformers to prove that our schools were failing; numbers 4, 5. 6 are used by reformers to prove that the charter experiment is working. Six reasons why Common Coercion test-and-punish reform was a criminal enterprise.
LikeLike
Correction: Number five is the only form of overt cheating. Also referred to as, “The DC Rheeform Miracle” a tactic so successful that Atlanta gave it go. And charters have not ignored it either . . .
LikeLike
The main statistical principal used by the authors of the report that is being illustrated by Mercedes is “Crap in, crap out”.
LikeLike
Pls urge brilliant Mercedes to send an op-ed to NYT as rejoinder to clueless Leonhardt who published this morning in NYT another op-ed favorable to privatization without any mention of Mercedes’ resaerch or Diane’s. Leonhardt hides behind a fog of “the middle way” by claiming that conservatives favor charters while “progressives” favor the traditional school system(!!)–remarkably clueless for a journalist whose labor and economic reporting is worth reading. Pls send in a counter-statement.
LikeLike
I’ve posted Mercedes’ research on The NYT Facebook page, and I got no response. Whoever is in charge of social meeting is getting the information. Perhaps there are none so blind as those that will not see. Diane has said that the NYT has blacklisted her.
LikeLike
David Leonhardt claims that critics of the punitive reforms in DC, NYC, and NOLA are “cherrypicking.”
It is obvious he has not read the critics.
LikeLike
The Times rejected her effort to respond to Leonhardt. They don’t post “responses.”
LikeLike
Mercedes mentioned in a comment on one of her recent posts that the NYT will NOT accept her articles. It’s sickening. Mercedes is one of my heroes!
LikeLike
I read David Leonhardt’s first editorial, which was the positive piece about the Tulane research on New Orleans schools — a glowing report. He promised to write about the “cons” in his second piece. I read that today. There were no “cons.” Today’s editorial was just a defense of charters and why those who don’t support them are stubborn and out-of-touch. It was ironic in that his editorial chastised those whom he feels don’t want to discuss public school “reform,” yet his column was merely an attack on those who disagree with him, which I’ve found is typical of those who wish to privatize public education. Rather than engage in a dialogue to open discussion on both sides, they pivot to merely discrediting those who disagree. Mr Leonhardt promised an editorial on the “cons” of the New Orleans school research, and I looked forward to reading that. What I got in my morning paper was a defensive diatribe about why those who hold opposing views to school privatization are wrong. It was disappointing, yet not surprising.
LikeLike
Well said. Several weeks after the hurricane The NY Times magazine section did an expose on the ‘new schools’ being created and in the cover was a young schoolboy, about 10 years old. I wish The NY Times would find this young man, where is he today, and did the charter school do everything for him that was promised. That’s the real test. That would not be an illusion.
LikeLike
Mercedes should write to the NYT under a pseudonym.
LikeLike
So should I.
LikeLike
Oh, & also get it on The WaPo (where “Democracy Dies in Darkness”) via Valerie Strauss.
LikeLike
I sent a letter to NYT with Mercedes’ post embedded in the email. I also found this tidbit in Mr. Leonhardt’s first op-ed piece regarding New Orleans.
Here, Mr. Leonhardt describes what he thinks of school boards:
“Think about how different (in New Orleans) this is from the norm in American education. In most districts, a single entity — a board of education — is responsible for both running schools and evaluating them. That combination is not a recipe for rigorous evaluation and consequences. It’s akin to letting students grade themselves.”
As someone who appears to have no personal experience rubbing shoulders with the unwashed in the public schools (Horace Mann School at $50K per year and Yale obviously don’t count), he is oblivious to the importance of having an elected school board that is held accountable by the state. The job of an elected board of education is to operate as a “legal agency of the state and thus derives its power from the state’s constitution, laws, and judicial decisions.” In short, it ensures that state and federal guidelines are followed so that all students are supported, not just the easy ones. Anyone with that low of an opinion of democratically elected school boards is not going to be bothered by any sort of rigorous fact-checking, even when the facts are staring at them in the face.
This quote sets the stage for his inherent bias towards charter schools. I’ve read his bio; he appears to be well-schooled (well, with that education background, you’d think so, but not necessarily) but can’t seem bother analyzing or questioning the reports/data he cites, or even attempts to examine the funders/backers of the “rigorous research” he references.
LikeLike