The Network for Public Educatuon just released a careful analysis of the latest CREDO study, which claimed that charter schools get better results than public schools.
Not so fast, writes Carol Burris, executive director of NPE. Burris reviewed the data and methodology and found multiple problems with both. The statistical differences between the two sectors, she saw, were the same in 2023 as in CREDO’s first charter study in 2013, which were then described as insignificant.
Even more troubling, CREDO’s work is funded by pro-charter billionaires. How is this different from a study of nicotine safety funded by the tobacco industry? And yet mainstream media accepted the CREDO report without questioning its data, its methodology, or its funders.
Billionaires behind the bias: Unmasking CREDO’s agenda
The Network for Public Education released a response to CREDO’s third national report, revealing the true agenda of a research arm of the conservative Hoover Institution. In its report, CREDO uses cherry-picked charter management chains and flawed methodology that embellishes results and discredits public schools and “mom and pop” charter schools.
NEW YORK, NY — Today, the Network for Public Education released ‘In Fact or Fallacy? An In-Depth Critique of the CREDO 2023 National Report a well-researched response that traces the funders and the bias in CREDO’s data, reporting methods, and conclusions.
CREDO’s report is meant to compare test score growth in math and reading for students in charter versus public schools. But once the curtain is pulled back, the conclusions are dangerously misleading to the public as well as policymakers who depend on accurate research to make informed education-related decisions and policies.
Carol Burris, Executive Director of NPE and the report’s author, says: “CREDO is not a neutral academic institution. They are an education research arm of the pro-charter Hoover Institution, and it’s time they are treated as such. We call on policymakers, the general public, and parents to disregard the results of CREDO studies that take tiny results and blow them up using CREDO-invented “Days of Learning.” Their studies are becoming nothing more than propaganda for the charter industry.”
CREDO’s latest report identifies two nonprofits as underwriters of the latest study – The City Fund and The Walton Family – which gave CREDO nearly $3 million during the years of the study. The City Fund is bankrolled by pro-charter billionaires, including John Arnold, Reed Hastings, and Bill Gates. They have a well-established history of supporting the expansion of charter schools and funding agendas to break up school districts and turn them into a patchwork of “portfolio districts.” The goal of the City Fund is to transform 30-50% of city public schools into charter schools.
CREDO also masks its connections to the conservative think tank the Hoover Institution, but the CREDO report authors’ current biographies and resumes link the organizations. CREDO’s Director and the report’s first author is the Education Program Director for Hoover.
NPE says it is time for state agencies to end their research relationship with CREDO and offer detailed student data to credible and independent research organizations instead.
The NPE report takes an honest look at CREDO’s report with the following key sections:
- A history of CREDO and its connection to the Hoover Institution.
- Scholarly critiques of CREDO methodology.
- Trivial differences exaggerated by the CREDO-created construct, ‘Days of Learning’
- Bias in the “Virtual Twin” methodology.
- Serious errors in the identification of schools run by Charter Management Organizations.
According to Diane Ravitch, the President of the Network for Public Education, “CREDO and the billionaires who fund them are trying to discredit public schools to persuade the public that public schools are inferior to privately-managed schools. How is this different from the tobacco industry funding research on cigarette safety?”
“It is clear the CREDO reports are now part of a long-game strategy to undermine, weaken, and defund public education. Why does CREDO consider differences that favor public schools in their first report as “meaningless” and “small” but characterize nearly identical differences favoring charters in its third report to be “remarkable”? Same outcomes. Different characterizations,” Ravitch said.
In light of our findings, The Network for Public Education asks CREDO the following question:
Does CREDO represent the interest of its funders and the pro-school choice Hoover Institution or the interests of the public, who deserve an unbiased look at real outcomes for our nation’s charter and public school students?
“Unless CREDO is held accountable, its reports will continue to move from “in fact” to misleading fallacies. And that does a disservice to the charter and public school sectors alike,” concludes the NPE report.
The Network for Public Education is a national advocacy group whose mission is to preserve, promote, improve, and strengthen public schools for current and future generations of students.
###

Perfect analysis-thank you
LikeLike
If a bombshell goes off in the woods, does anyone hear it?
LikeLike
NPE has prominence when it releases bombshells.
LikeLike
Could not disagree more. It’s preaching to the choir. And badly at that. This is the one of the worst written press releases I’ve ever seen in my life. What Journalism 101 student begins a press release with “Today,…”? I’ve read it four times and I still don’t know what the point is. And the few reporters who will read it will have no idea what the lead is. Other than “CREDO is bad.”? If this is “prominence,” then prepare to kiss public education goodbye real soon. Is “well-researched” part of the five W’s that should be covered in the lead? I can’t imagine this will get any coverage outside of the echo chamber. How is this supposed to motivate the average parent who just wants a good public school to become politically engaged? What a waste of time.
LikeLike
Greg,
I’m sorry you feel that way. It’s a very good report.
LikeLike
It doesn’t matter how good the report is if you can’t describe it succinctly to the people who are its intended audience. And this does about as bad a job as possible on that. What’s the takeaway message you want people to get from this that would motivate them to action? I can’t figure it out.
LikeLike
The CREDO so-called “study” got a lot of attention, and NPE’s press release debunks the study, with solid details. I don’t see how that’s pointless. I’m a veteran newspaper copy editor and I don’t see the press release as poorly written. Just the fact that CREDO misrepresents itself as an impartial scholarly research resource when it’s actually deeply embedded in the charter/“reform”/privatization sector is news, and that’s just for starters. Your insult-hurling seems pointless, GregB. If you have solid rebuttals of the NPE report, that might be of interest here, but what empty bloviating tells us is that you don’t have anything solid at all.
LikeLike
Thank you, Caroline. I didn’t see anything wrong with the press release. The report is very important.
LikeLike
Bloviating? If you would read my comment accurateIy, I am not rebutting the report. My criticism is of the press release. Caroline, you claim to be a reporter. What is the what of this press release? This is an essay, not journalism.
Here is Diane’s key comment: “And yet mainstream media accepted the CREDO report without questioning its data, its methodology, or its funders.” Why, one must ask, do they accept it without questioning its data?
Diane laid it out succinctly in 2010. Is public education better off today than it was then? I’ve been here since Summer 2016. We have been losing and losing bad ever since. Whatever victories achieved can be distilled into, that could have been worse. Public education in this country is on life support. Blaming others as the ship goes down seems to be the best that can be done.
LikeLike
The people at CREDO and their allies must be laughing their asses off if this is the worst they’ll face.
LikeLike
You mean that documenting that CREDO’s latest report is fundamentally flawed makes them happy?
LikeLike
No, I mean they are ecstatic if NPE is their biggest fear to get debunked. The only people who know about NPE are the people here. I meet Democrats all the time who don’t have the slightest clue about education policy and how much of the damage is done by their own.
LikeLike
Definitely true about Democrats who have no clue about any of this, as most of the commenters on this threat know. But GregB, what do you suggest would be effective?
LikeLike
Hint: virtually all of the lead is in the final two paragraphs of the release. In journalism, one starts with the most important point one wants to get across or highlight. In an essay, the main point is in the conclusion. See the difference?
LikeLike
This is fun: https://dianeravitch.net/2012/08/25/the-kipp-boast/
Wasn’t able to find 2012 KIPP 990 form, but in 2016, the KIPP Foundation’s net assets were $60 million. In 2017, $50 million. In 2021 $116 million.
This is winning?
LikeLike
Greg,
When billionaires funnel millions to KIPP, along with the U.S. Department of Education, we can’t stop them. With the GOP in charge of the House, the federal Charter Schools Program got an increase, while every other part of the Education Department was cut in the House budget.
What do you suggest we do? Throw in the towel? You will but not I. Some things are worth fighting for even against the odds.
LikeLike
I do not suggest throwing in the towel. I’m pretty sure that’s been done but public school advocates haven’t received the message yet.
No, what I am suggesting is that we need to sit and realize we are losing. I was once a coach and have organized or been a part more than a few national political initiatives. In both cases, you begin be realistically assessing the situation and making a plan and start doing something. The nice thing about athletics is that it’s all in front of you and you get results. In a political campaign, you need a simple effective message and then find and train the people to deliver it.
Steve was close to the mark in his earlier comment, but unfortunately resorted to the same old talking points (and far too many of them for average people to process) that haven’t been working for 20 years. I suggested tying in public education to national infrastructure. Not saying that is the answer, but we need to get out of the patting ourselves on the back for doing the Lord’s work.
WHAT WE HAVE BEEN DOING FOR THE PAST 20 YEARS HAS NOT BEEN WORKING. WE ARE LOSING. AND WE MAY WELL HAVE LOST ALREADY.
Caroline gets to the point but then misses it completely: “The CREDO so-called ‘study’ got a lot of attention, and NPE’s press release debunks the study, with solid details. I don’t see how that’s pointless.” NPE may debunk the study, but they’re not getting “a lot attention.” Claiming they have more money is cop out. We have no message that resonates.
LikeLike
Greg,
Saying that NPE has not gotten a lot of attention on the day that its study was released is defeatism. How do you know that the NPE study won’t get attention?
What have “we” been doing for the past 20 years?
I don’t see how you can launch a major struggle by expressing defeatism. “We have lost, it’s over,” now let’s fight back. That’s not a winning message. Try rallying anyone with your very down message.
LikeLike
Greg,
You have already thrown in the towel. Please do not disparage and mock those who haven’t followed your lead.
LikeLike
Gloating isn’t really productive.
All we can do is shine a light. GregB, I was also active (as an unpaid volunteer) in researching and reporting on Edison Schools when it was being hailed far and wide — across the media and political leadership, nationally and internationally — as the miracle that would save public education.
It’s not a matter of winning or losing, but I and others reported that Edison was running a con job, and Edison did collapse since it was indeed running a con job.
The so-called education “reform” sector continues to suck in vast amounts from the billionaires, so it certainly is “winning” if you count up the dollars.
For a good 25 years, the so-called education “reformers” have been touting their miracles as innovations that would revolutionize education, with competition magically spurring wondrous results in public schools. Clearly, that hasn’t happened.
Those of us who’ve been pointing out for all that time that this isn’t the road to improving public education are, sadly, being proven right. It would be great if we were wrong. So I’m not really sure if that’s winning or not.
(I’m a veteran daily newspaper copy editor, for the record.)
LikeLike
Claiming the opposition has more money. Done with this. We’ve been losing for more than 20 years and became aware of it 13 years ago. Any coach coming to fix that kind of losing streak doesn’t keep doing what they’ve been doing. Why do we?
LikeLike
What do you propose, Greg, other than saying the fight is over and we lost?
LikeLike
Maybe NPE should hire Coack K!
LikeLike
Who the f#ck is gloating? I’m not gloating about failure. I’m saying it’s time to look in the mirror and actually assess the situation as it is rather than patting ourselves on our backs for fighting a good losing fight. This really has become a waste of time.
LikeLike
GregB, you were the one who said KIPP is winning despite my and many others’ work revealing its various deceptions and abuses, based on the fact that it has far more money now than back when Diane was reposting some of my research.
What do you suggest those who recognize that the so-called education “reformers” are running a con do instead of what we are doing?
LikeLike
*of — sorry ‘bout typo.
LikeLike
For Caroline: any good coach knows that strategy is never completely based on what the opposition does or exclusively preparing to counter it. It’s certainly a part of every individual game’s tactics. But virtually all training, especially at the beginning of a season, is on fundamentals that add to the the idea of the greater strategy a team wants to implement. The tactics of playing a superior opponent demands pragmatic adjustments, but not of the overall strategy. Losing coaches think the job is only about responding and adjusting. What was it Einstein said about doing the same thing over and over again?
LikeLike
That wasn’t very specific, GregB. Can you be specific, step by step, about what you feel advocates of public education should be doing to counter the propaganda about charter schools/privatization/so-called education “reform”? And of course it’s propaganda that lures billionaires into pouring money into so-called education “reform.”
Given the big picture, it seems kind of nitpicky to start with the complaint that the NPE press release buried the lede. Are (in your view) poor-quality press releases really the problem?
I’m not a sports person, but I have used a sports analogy to describe the “charters are superior” story to newbies. Say you’re in a sportsball league whose mission is to accept all applicants on your teams and try to turn them into skilled sportsball players. But the charter sportsball teams are actually secretly holding tryouts and creating other requirements that serve to rule out the less-motivated sportsball prospects (say you have to run two miles to get to the signups). And it’s not even that secret, but somehow the charter teams manage to keep the “we accept all applicants just like those other sportsball teams” story going. The players like being on the charter teams for obvious reasons. And even with all this, the charter teams aren’t doing much better overall, though a few stand out, and the players feel the charter teams are “safer” (this is what I always hear about charter schools from parents). Also, the charter teams have way more money for uniforms and amenities. The only way that analogy doesn’t work is that some of the players in this league wouldn’t even want to play sportsball at all and would be hostile to it, but would still be required to join a team.
How does the coach of the honest sportsball teams — the ones that accept those the charter sportsball teams spurn — counter that situation?
I can think of so many other areas in our world that are working poorly and where advocates for improvement struggle to gain traction: our insane health care system. Our non-functioning mental health infrastructure. Our terrifyingly changing climate. Our near-daily mass shootings. Our opioid/fentanyl epidemic. In my city and many/most U.S. cities, our homeless population.
There are areas in which change has happened. Obviously racism exists, but open racism is generally unacceptable — even the far right has to pretend. Homophobia obviously exists, but LGBTQ people now can express pride and many can live honest lives, which was near-impossible 60-70 years ago. Women are still oppressed in many ways, but it’s no longer acceptable to openly say there are men’s jobs and woman can only be nurses, teachers and secretaries. Have those changes occurred because of effective advocacy that followed smart coaching strategies? Tell us more, please!
LikeLike
I’ll look forward to seeing the specific suggestions!
It’s true that I know nothing about sportsball competition.Yes, the sportsball coaches of the non-charter teams will presumably assess the situation and get the picture, but then what do they do about it? Because that’s the situation public schools are in. But I guess that’ll be included in the upcoming comment with the specific suggestions.
LikeLike
Can Burris contact the media covering the fall from grace of Stanford’s president (his flawed research) to see if the story may have legs i.e. a systemic problem at Stanford? It’s up to the reporters to craft the story, clarifying if it’s allegations.
I’d speculate there some nervousness in the Stanford environs.
LikeLike
What with Elizabeth Holmes and Chanel Miller (survivor of the “Stanford swimmer” sexual assault) and recent student suicides and the Bankman-Frieds and so many other scandals, Stanford would have reason to be nervous if it weren’t a world capital of Masters of the Universe. But under the circumstances, it can remain safely smug.
LikeLike
(Disclosure that my mother, stepfather, both maternal grandparents and both my mother’s brothers went to Stanford. I didn’t.)
LikeLike
Caroline,
And, there’s the pension researcher/professor whose work was criticized in the strongest terms I’ve ever read, Stanford
hired him after the embarrassment.
One step that Stanford should take- cv’s of all professors, especially those influencing public policy, should be on-line for the public to read.
Btw- a Stanford freshman at the student newspaper brought down the President. Youngest person to receive a prestigious award for his investigative work. He’s got a head start on a career. Good for him.
LikeLike
Linda, the freshman who broke the Stanford story is the son of Peter Baker of the NYT and Susan B. Glassner of The New Yorker, so not just any student.
LikeLike
His selection of Stanford was not a wise education choice unless he wanted to be in a swamp.
LikeLike
The NPR Reports are extraordinarily well researched. Kudos to Carol and her team for these!
We know that this is a David and Goliath situation. Ranked against us on the Education Deformer side are the most powerful fortunes in the country. Billions and billions, LITERALLY, of PR money.
What to do about that? Well, Diane wrote an entire book on this subject, Slaying Goliath, that describes effective grassroot actions to stop charters, vouchers, and other Deform outrages. Models.
It simply is not the case that we have failed entirely. We have had many successes.
But one place where I don’t think we’ve made much progress is with getting rid of the federally mandated state testing. Why? Well, the opposition has poured billions, literally, into convincing politicians and bureaucrats that these tests work and that they matter.
I can and have explained clearly and succinctly why the federally mandated state tests in ELA are invalid–why they do not measure what they purport to measure. Here:
I’ve worked in curriculum, textbook, and assessment development all my life. But who is a high-level state bureaucrat or a Senator or Representative sitting on an education committee going to listen to, me or Bill Gates?
Bill, who hasn’t the slightest idea what he is talking about, but has the wealth of a sovereign state.
I’m open to ideas.
I’m also open to going full Tony and Ezekial. I get so frustrated about this that sometimes I do.
LikeLike
I have come to believe that there is one way and one way only that we will eliminate the federal testing mandate, which has had such blood-sucking costs over the years, direct costs and opportunity costs in loss learning, and which has brought about a dramatic devolution in our curricula and pedagogy.
The tests will remain in place until the national teachers’ unions take up the cause of ending them, until they call a national strike to do that. This would take real guts, real leadership. But until the teachers’ unions do that, until they institute a national action to end the testing, they are COMPLICIT IN CHILD ABUSE. I mean that. It’s not hyperbole. The testing is child abuse. It robs kids of large percentages of the time that they could be spending learning. And it robs them of coherent curricula and pedagogy. Instead, they get random exercises on random “skills” from the puerile Gates/Coleman “standards” bullet list and its progeny around the country.
ENOUGH. It’s been an utter failure. It’s been devastating. Time to end it.
LikeLike
I really do not get the back and forth about Ms. Grannan’s use of the sports analogy. I thought it worked extremely effectively to illustrate her point, and I am pleased to have her skilled advocacy on our side.
LikeLike
And in answer to the question, “What is to be done?” (There’s a long history of interesting books with THAT title, LOL), let me repeat that the whole of Diane’s magnificent Slaying Goliath is stories that answer that question, that provide examples of successful grassroots action to counter Ed Deform, replicable grassroots actions.
Read it.
LikeLike
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/What_Is_to_Be_Done%3F_(disambiguation)
LikeLike
IN-CREDO-BULL
LikeLike
lol
LikeLike
https://www.manhattanprep.com/gre/blog/popvocab-the-credible-hulk/
LikeLike
It’s SUCH a basic journalistic standard to include a disclaimer that the source of the information isn’t impartial. Most journalists who fell for the report probably weren’t aware of that, and you have to dig a bit to see the connections, but some certainly did — I’m calling out EdSource, whose reporter certainly did know that and failed to mention it.
LikeLike
The CREDO report was lavishly praised in EdWeek and other publications, as well as by Jonathan Chait in New York magazine.
LikeLike
Jonathan Chait is also fatally ethically compromised in writing about education “reform,” since his spouse is a paid charter sector employee. And isn’t EdWeek funded by the usual suspect billionaires too?
LikeLike
Yes and yes.
LikeLike
Most journalists who fell for the report probably weren’t aware of that
Every journalism school teaching this, starting from Intro to Journalism 101.
LikeLike
cx: teaches
LikeLike
I’m a longtime mainstream newsroom journalist. I’ve seen many colleagues unknowingly fall for advocacy organizations that posture as impartial. Of course they should check, but there are so so many, and journalists are always looking for expert sources. One co-worker innocently quoted an anti-immigrant operation with an innocuous-sounding name as an impartial resource in a story — when I told her the operation is listed as a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center she was aghast.
LikeLike
Well observed, Ms. Grannan, and thanks. However, checking the credibility of sources is, I’m sure you would agree, kinda intro to journalism stuff. I, too, know the pressure of deadlines, but this is REALLY basic.
LikeLike
It’s particularly bad in education. The extremist ed reform money people–Gates, the Waltons, Bloomberg, Hastings, Arnold, and so on–start or fund organizations with nicey nice-sounding names like Students First and The Council of Great City Schools, and these promote extremist views, and almost no working journalists bother to look behind the curtain. Case in point: we are now over two decades into standards-and-multiple-choice-high-stakes-test-based “education reform,” and many, many thousands of articles have been written by journalists, breathlessly reporting declines on tests, and not one, NOT ONE, has ever bothered to ask himself or herself whether the federally mandated state tests actually validly measure what they purport to measure.
They don’t.
LikeLike
Another example: recently, we’ve seen a rash of news stories across the country about the horrific pandemic-related decline in NAEP scores. But there’s a problem. There was no such major decline. And if journalists had done even a tiny bit of homework, they could have figured that out
Let’s assume just for giggles that these tests actually measure what they purport to measure—reading and math ability.
Possible scores on a NAEP test range from 0 to 500. These are 500-point tests. Average NAEP scores for Grade 9 students in 2022 declined 5 points in reading and 7 points in mathematics compared to 2020. So, we’re talking declines of 1 percent and 1.4 percent.
1 to 1.4 percent. Barely a tick on the dial. A TINY blip. I mean, these are declines SO SMALL that they might be well within the margin of error of the testing.
MUCH ADO ABOUT ALMOST NOTHING.
To put this into perspective, suppose that you had a grading scale like this for a classroom test:
A+ (97–100), A (93–96), A- (90–92), B+ (87–89), B (83–86), B- (80–82), C+ (77–79), C (73–76), C- (70–72), D+ (67–69), D (65–66), D- (below 65)
A decline of 1 percent would not even, typically, move you down a portion of a letter grade. Oh, gosh, I dropped from a 99 to a 98 (from an A+ to a slightly lower A+), from an 88 to an 87 (from a B+ to a slightly lower B+). Or, worst case, from an 87 to an 86 (from a B+ to a B).
Oh, the horror!!! Where are the smelling salts? The sky is falling! This is the end!!!! Quick, call Bill Gates! He has the solution to every problem, even ones this dire!!! Maybe ChatGPT can solve this biggie? Or Clippy the Paperclip! It’s surely going to take a long time to recover! The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Aie yie yie. Ridiculous.
Yet journalists and pundits keep on talking about this as though this “decline” (oh, the horror!) were significant.
It’s not.
LikeLike
1 to 1.4 percent. Barely a tick on the dial. A TINY blip. I mean, these are declines SO SMALL that they might be well within the margin of error of the testing.“
Yes, if anything, the real story is that scores did not go down a lot more than they did. which really makes you wonder whether the tests are actually gauging what is claimed ( something which one might legitimately expect to have been impacted by a major school disruption like the pandemic) or whether the scores are instead simply a proxy for something like family income.
Not incidentally, the latter might also explain why virtually none of the major school “reforms” of the last two decades had any real impact on scores.
Of course, the NAEPsters would never seriously consider the suggestion that their test is not a “measure” of what they claim.
There is clearly something worth investigating here but it’s not what most people focus on. It’s the validity of the test itself.
LikeLiked by 1 person
By the way, why does the government need a proxy for family income when it has the actual incomes of families?
Wouldn’t it s easier just to use actual family income to determine how students’ parents are performing?
LikeLiked by 1 person
SDP wrote:
“There is clearly something worth investigating here but it’s not what most people focus on. It’s the validity of the test itself.”
Already has been done. Noel Wilson showed us the many invalidities involved in the standards and testing malpractice regime in 1997. . . before NCLB. Did anyone pay attention? Yes, a few of us. For a short take on the invalidities please read his “A Little Less than Valid: An Essay Review found at
http://edrev.asu.edu/index.php/ER/article/view/1372/43
LikeLike
Aie yie yie
LikeLike
Case in point: we are now over two decades into standards-and-multiple-choice-high-stakes-test-based “education reform,” and many, many thousands of articles have been written by journalists, breathlessly reporting declines on tests, and not one, NOT ONE, has ever bothered to ask himself or herself whether the federally mandated state tests actually validly measure what they purport to measure.
LikeLike
forgot the quotation marks
LikeLike
Thanks, Greg. Yes, if ever square quotes were needed, they are needed there.
“Ed Reform” = Deformation of Education
LikeLike
Ed Deform
LikeLike
cx: scare quotes
LikeLike
Hoover and anyone connected to it is bad for the United States of America.
LikeLike
From the CREDO website:
“CREDO’s 2015 study in coordination with Mathematica Policy Research and the Center on Reinventing Public Education revealed that students of online charter schools had significantly weaker academic performance in math and reading, compared with their counterparts in conventional schools. Subsequently, many states took a hard look at their online charter operators.”
Please describe the 2 organizations “Mathematica…” and “Center on Reinventing….”
Also, what became of CREDO’s finding that online charter students had “significantly weaker academic performance” than “counterparts in conventional schools”? Did CREDO do anything of substance with that finding?
Lastly, what exactly were the results of that “hard look at their online charter school operators” that “many states” took?
LikeLike
Mathematica is the company founded and run by Stephen Wolfram that publishes the symbolic problem-solving program Mathematica. The Center on Reinventing Public Education is the Ed Reformy organization at Arizona State funded by the Walton family Gates, Chan/Zuckerberg, and other edumeddlers.
LikeLike
Thanks Bob. I taught in AZ for 12 years and never heard of this Center at ASU. Do they limit their reform attempts to Phoenix area schools? Or maybe they don’t find much demand in AZ, because the state already has so many charters.
LikeLike
ASU, alas, is a viper’s nest of these people. But there are also brilliant, compassionate people there like Gene Glass and David Berliner.
LikeLike
Bob,
I think that a university having both faculty that you agree with and faculty that you don’t agree with is ideal.
LikeLike
Spot on, TE
LikeLike
I think the Center for Reinventing Public Education was at the University of Washington and moved to Arizona State. I’m sure there’s a story there but who knows what it is.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Ms. Grannan. Did you see my notes above about
a) invalidity in the standardized testing?
b) the inconsequential drop in NAEP scores?
Wanted to make sure that you did not miss this:
That the federally mandated state tests in English Language Arts are invalid, that they do not measure what they purport to measure, that they are, in fact, a scam is one of the biggest untold stories of our time.
Journalists do not take the time to dig below the surface on this. They simply naively assume that the tests measure what they say they measure.
They don’t.
LikeLike
“In its report, CREDO uses cherry-picked charter management chains and flawed methodology that … discredits public schools and “mom and pop” charter schools.”
Interesting that they made a different category for “mom & pop” charter schools. Why?
Please explain what CREDO found to “discredit “mom & pop” charter schools.” Are those charters the same as online home schools, or did they specifically go after real brick and mortar charters that are locally run and not part of a for-profit chain?
LikeLike
The amount of cheating and in-house scoring for Charter is enough fraud as Success Academy. Nice when you can kick a student out who does not follow your strict rules. Public schools are too hard for the charter teachers to control in a classroom.
LikeLike
Nice when you can kick a student out who does not follow your strict rules.
Exactly, Josh. The voucher schools and many of the charter schools can cherry pick their students. Actual public schools cannot.
LikeLike
“CREDO began as a project of the University of Rochester in 1998, funded by two anonymous grants totaling $1.25 million. Founded by Eric Hanushek, then University of Rochester Professor of Economics and Political Science, and his wife Margaret “Macke” Raymond, then president of the consulting firm Raymond Associates, CREDO moved to the Hoover Institution at Stanford in 2000. Raymond, who has a doctoral degree in political science, is the Director of CREDO and co -author of its reports. She is a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.”
I don’t understand the original relationship between Raymond and Hanushek. Raymond spent some 15 years as a grad student at University of Rochester in the 1980s, getting 3 different masters degrees (!) and eventually a PhD in political science in 1985.
Then from 1985 – 2000 she ran her own consulting firm that seemed to do a lot of Telecommunications consulting. But according to the bio on the CREDO website, while she still had her consulting firm, “Before joining Stanford in 2000, she held faculty positions in the political science and economics departments at the University of Rochester.”
I looked for Raymond’s full cv to see how long she “held faculty positions” at U. of Rochester but couldn’t find one.
Eric Hanushek was married with two grown children (his daughter was a star soccer player who, with her brother, also named Eric Hanushek, ran a soccer store in upstate NY that eventually closed in 2021). His entire first marriage and divorce seems to be scrubbed from the internet. But presumably Eric Hanushek did not already have a personal relationship with Raymond in June, 1999, when this press release from the U. of Rochester came out:
“June 8, 1999
Center Aims to Evaluate Whether Education Reforms Deliver on Promises to Improve America’s Schools
A new research center has been established at the University of Rochester’s W. Allen Wallis Institute of Political Economy to build a body of evidence that can guide educational improvements at elementary and secondary schools.
With $1.25 million in foundation grants, the Center for Research in Education Outcomes will support and advance the role of evaluation in educational programs. With access to such analysis, policymakers can develop sound decisions about the education of children.
Eric A. Hanushek, professor of economics, political science and public policy at the University, and director of its Wallis Institute, will be the center’s principal investigator. He is known nationally as a staunch advocate of grounding policy decisions in empirical analysis……
…Two foundations, the Packard Humanities Institute and the Smith Richardson Foundation, have committed funds for a 3½-year initiative to address the current shortage of evaluation research in education policy. Margaret E. Raymond, senior scientist and associate professor of political science and public policy at the University of Rochester, is the director of the center.” (the media contact for that press release is Margaret Raymond, so presumably this is how she described herself)
In 2000, a year later, they moved CREDO to Stanford. They got married in October, 2003 according to one source I read.
CREDO’s website bio says that Raymond “was president of Raymond Associates, a private consulting company specializing in public policy research projects and telecommunications policy formulation, from 1985 to 2000.” So it seems like she closed her private consulting firm when she moved to Stanford. Was it common for U. of Rochester professors to run their own private consulting firms? Was Raymond just an adjunct professor at Rochester when she become the Director of CREO, the first incarnation of CREDO? Because apparently she also ran her own private consulting firm at the same time. Maybe that’s common.
LikeLike
A lot of faculty who are suspect don’t post cv’s or they omit grants and income they receive from outside. It damages the reputation of the institution and it shows the professor’s lack of integrity.
LikeLike
To ascertain whether or not differences in the range of 0.11 to 0.028 SDs are “remarkable,” I quote CREDO itself as it described its comparative findings between charter and public school students in 2009 on page 22 of the report. Note that the relative differences were similar, although reversed.
“In reading, charter students, on average, realize a growth in learning that
is .01 standard deviations less than their TPS counterparts. This small
difference — less than 1 percent of a standard deviation — is significant
statistically but is meaningless from a practical standpoint. Differences of
the magnitude described here could arise simply from the measurement
error in the state achievement tests that make up the growth score, so
considerable caution is needed in the use of these results.
In math, the analysis shows that students in charter schools gain signifi-
cantly less than their virtual twin. Charter students on average have learn-
ing gains that are .03 standard deviations smaller than their TPS peers.
Unlike reading, the observed difference in average math gains is both
significant and large enough to be meaningful. In both cases, however,
the absolute size of the effect is small.”
That really nails the complete hypocrisy of CREDO, which has shown itself to have no integrity.
CREDO is not interested in finding out what really works in charters (which is why they don’t care about attrition because like most implicitly racist folks, they believe that economically disadvantaged African American parents often pull their children from the top performing charter schools that they jumped through hoops to have their children attend, having decided that they wanted their kids to be abject failures instead of high performing scholars.)
CREDO is interested in cherry picking whatever data they can use to promote the superiority of charters. Their funders want charters, and they expect the research to justify charters.
So that means that if public schools come out on top, the differences are insignificant, but if charter schools do, the differences are huge.
LikeLike
^^^This entire comment is a quote from the excellent NPE report. Not my own words. The part in quotations is when the NPE report uses an excerpt from a CREDO 2009 report to show the outrageous double standard. When public schools came out better, CREDO found the difference to be INsignificant, but when charters did better by the same tiny amount, suddenly CREDO found the charter superiority to be so huge as to be newsworthy.
LikeLike
The same difference went from “insignificant” to “remarkable.”
LikeLike
In CREDO Bull
CREDO are in CREDO bull
Deep in bull manure
They are just incredible
Statstitutes, for sure
LikeLike
I just saw Jon Aubrey’s post above.
Ha ha ha
LikeLike
Awbrey is one of the smartest people I’ve encountered. A breathtakingly sharp fellow. Check out his website, SDP. I think you would find much of interest there.
https://inquiryintoinquiry.com/
LikeLike
I’ve visited hi as site before.
Unfortunately I cant honestly claim that I understand any of it.
Any more than I can claim as much about the work of Roger Penrose on black holes (or anything else)
Bug I’ll take your word for it.
LikeLike
Oh, yeah, there are vast regions of Jon’s sites and work that are as alien as DMT landscapes to me, but
a) He is a great champion of the work of Charles Sanders Peirce, whom I venerate, and
b) When I do run across something by Jon that I can follow, it blows me away.
LikeLike
Credo and its so-called research should be mistrusted for numerous reasons, but any research that is funded by those that have something to gain should be suspect. Shame on the media for failing to do its homework. Credo isn’t interested in facts. It wants publicity that will repeat the results of their flawed, biased study. This is not independent research. It is advertising for charter schools.
LikeLike
Sinclair Broadcasting is using Credo’s bogus results to spread anti-public education propaganda. They claim charter schools are superior to public schools, and most parents support school choice. More parents are rejecting public schools because of school closures during Covid according to the Sinclair National Desk. (propaganda machine)
LikeLike
Can’t believe CREDO is using its same old long-debunked “number of days’ learning [lost or gained]” and “virtual twin” charter vs public school students. Good lord.
LikeLike
The President of Stanford has announced his resignation (Guardian). Reportedly, five of his research projects will need correction.
I’m surprised. ..it is Stanford we’re talking about.
LikeLike
And here I thought that boat sailed several years ago.
But apparently Stanford has a whole fleet.
LikeLike
“Will need
correctionretractionFixed.
Falsification of data renders a scientific paper totally unbelievable.
But of course, Stanford’s president claims that as principal investigator he was unaware of the falsification of data.
Of course.
LikeLike
Even though she dropped out, Stanford should give former Theranos CEO Elizabeth Holmes a degree.
She certainly fulfilled the requirements.
LikeLike
Haaaa! An honorary degree at least,
“In the spirit of Stanford Scholarship and Research [TM], . . .”
LikeLike
And Elon Musk is certainly worthy of a Stanford degree as well
https://dawnproject.com/critical-safety-issues-revealed-by-the-dawn-projects-testing-of-tesla-full-self-driving/
LikeLike
LikeLike
Could be a journalists’ Pulitzer- systemic research problems at Stanford.
LikeLike
Linda,
The CREDO authors are at Hoover. Hoover is on the Stanford campus but it is not the same as Stanford.
LikeLike
Stanford can’t get off the hook that easily. Stanford is ultimately responsible for an institution that nestles within its bosom.
And the former Stanford President’s “problems” indicate that lack of credibility is not limited to those at Hoover.
And we won’t even mention the Stanford prof who is currently making the rounds of all the podcasts claiming that space aliens are here among us without presenting a single shred of hard evidence .
And no, claiming anonymous top level government sources have described to you top secret evidence that they can not reveal does not count.
Maybe the space aliens are among us, but I want to see some decent (nonblurry) photographs.
LikeLike
And of course, there was the sailing coach, who was selling access.
Sailing and “saling”.
LikeLike
Stan(ds)ford
Sailing
And saling
Stanford
And stands for
LikeLike
Diane,
The website address for Credo is Credo.Stanford.edu.
Theo Baker at the Stanford Daily can decide if the NPE assessment about Credo’s various papers merits reporting?
LikeLike
Hoover is all about sales…
Of vacuums.
LikeLike
A friend who’s a Stanford grad and a former Stanford instructor, husband a Stanford medical school instructor, tells me that Hoover has an agreement with Stanford that Hoover “research” (aka propaganda) can now be described as “Stanford research.” I believe that’s somewhat new and probably since your time, Diane. That jibes with what I’ve seen in Hoover’s press outreach and news reports on Hoover material.
LikeLike
Hoover Salesman
Salesman of vac
Fellow at Hoover
“Eminent” hack
DCandor removerLikeLike
Hoover “research” (aka propaganda) can now be described as “Stanford research.”
Nothing really new there.
That has always been implicit in the relationship.
Simply providing a home for Hoover on the Stanford campus says it as much.
LikeLike
Hoover Vacuum
Hoover is vacuous
Empty as space
Not an innocuous
Kind of a place
LikeLike
Greg,
How about you pay for a full-page ad in the Washington Post?
Or at least start a GoFundMe campaign.
It’s easy to sit back and be a naysayer, as you are.
Your only suggestion seems to be that we buy a full-page ad in the Post.
And yes, we are having a lobby day in DC on the Monday after the conference.
Everyone who registers is urged to participate.
I’m trying to imagine you as coach of a football team. Would you tell your players that they are lost before they step on the field?
Or would you tell them that at half-time?
“Go home, guys. You are all losers.”
Thanks, but no thanks.
LikeLike
Full-page ad in The Wasington Post, weekday papers, if you buy 12 of them: $78,498.
x 12: $941,976
LikeLike
Greg B.,
I guess the press release sent you over the edge. I’m sorry to see you leave. I enjoyed reading your posts. I’m sorry you believe I have wasted my time for the past 13 years. I don’t have patience with your pessimism. I attended a birthday party a few weeks ago and reflected briefly on how precarious our democracy is. But then I contrasted it with the state of the world when I was born in 1938. War was on the horizon, Fascism was on the rise. Democracy was fading. And yet we prevailed. No thanks to the “woe is me” crowd. Farewell. Don’t turn out the lights. We will continue to push back without you.
Diane
LikeLike
Farewell. Sorry to disappoint you.
LikeLike
Greg
Don’t leave the blog. You don’t know who you are having an impact on. You have spurred me in my efforts and I am sure that others are active because of you. Those who don’t comment still read what you write. They gain knowledge and it has a ripple effect when they share it.
IMO, your comments are the most valuable ones posted. If Diane wanted a guest host, there’s no one I would prefer to read a post from, than you.
LikeLike
The minimum buy for the 1-p ad is $78,498 x 12 days: $941,976. Very close to a million dollars.
Any other ideas?
LikeLike
Thanks, Carol, for another truly outstanding report. And thanks to the hardworking volunteers at NPE who make all that this small but mighty organization does possible.
Having reality on your side helps. It will out in the end.
And now for something completely different. I feel that we could use a change of subject on this page:
From classical times until the late 1700s, adults in the West typically slept for two periods. They would go to sleep sometime after sunset, sleep until about midnight, wake for an hour or two, and then sleep again until dawn. The first period was called, in English, the “first sleep,” and the second, the “second sleep.” In French, they were “le premier sommeil,” and “le deuxième sommeil.” The intervening period of semi-somnolent wakefulness, an altered state of consciousness, was called “the watch” or, in French, “Le dorveille.” Children typically slept longer and through the night.
LikeLike
“The Watch” was a time when people had sex, said the prayers known as “Matins” (sorry about the redundancy there), committed crimes, and, for the few who could do so, read.
LikeLike
This happens to me anytime I try to go to bed early.
LikeLike
From my review of Diane Ravitch’s book Slaying Goliath:
Ravitch tells a lot of cheering stories of students, teachers, and parents in the streets and in the statehouse, using nonviolent civil disobedience and other means to combat the attempted privatization for profit and centralization for control of our preK-12 educational system. These stories are inspiring and informative, and so, like the great muckraking books of the past—like Uncle Tom’s Cabin or Silent Spring—Slaying Goliath is the kind of book that makes things happen. It is recent history. It is muckraking. But IT IS ALSO A MANUAL FOR RESISTANCE against the emergence of a New Feudal Order of oligarchical command, coercion, centralization, and control, showing how ordinary people can and have worked together to preserve democratic institutions like our public schools—a fight begun but not yet won.
Other democratic institutions are under siege as well, of course, unions, Congressional oversight, family farming, small business, and every federal department and agency in the Trump misadministration formerly devoted to the public good, for example, so this book is an important guide for those who wish to preserve them. Like many of those other great muckrakers whose august company Ravitch so clearly joins, she presents, at the end of her book a vision of a better world in which the evils she has detailed are gone and argues that Disruption carries within it the seeds of its own failure because it is not a true grassroots movement and because it is an affront to human nature, human beings being driven in cognitive tasks not by extrinsic rewards like test scores but by intrinsic ones like learning something worth the effort.
LikeLike
Here is the entire review.
LikeLike
Good to see some of the nastiest comments were taken down.
LikeLike