Archives for category: District of Columbia

John Merrow has been digging deep into the facts about the D.C schools, working with a veteran D.C. researcher and civil rights attorney, Mary Levy. Their article will appear in the next issue of The Washington Monthly. They decided to do the research and publish the results after reading Tom Toch’s paean to Michelle Rhee’s “reforms.”

Merrow jumped the gun when he read what purported to be new research about Rhee’s IMPACT teacher evaluation program, claiming that this test-based evaluation had been a great success. That did it for Merrow.

We have heard that D.C. is the fastest improving urban district in the nation. But, says Merrow, this claim must be qualified:

“Despite small overall increases, minority and low-income scores lag far behind the NAEP’s big-city average, and the already huge achievement gaps have actually widened. From 2007 to 2015, the NAEP reading scores of low-income eighth graders increased just 1 point, from 232 to 233, while scores of non-low-income students (called “others” in NAEP-speak) climbed 31 points, from 250 to 281. Over that same time period, the percentage of low-income students scoring at the “proficient” level remained at an embarrassingly low 8 percent, while proficiency among “others” climbed from 22 percent to 53 percent. An analysis of the data by race between 2007 and 2015 is also discouraging: black proficiency increased 3 points, from 8 percent to 11 percent, while Hispanic proficiency actually declined, from 18 percent to 17 percent. In 2007 the white student population was not large enough to be reported, but in 2015 white proficiency was at 75 percent.”

But hasn’t IMPACT been a huge success? No, says Merrow:

“Under Rhee and Henderson, spending on non-teaching personnel has swollen dramatically. According to the latest statistics from Census Bureau fiscal reports, DCPS central office spending in 2015 was 9.5 percent of total current expenditures, compared to 1 percent 4 or less in surrounding districts. Today DCPS central offices have one employee for every sixty-four students, a striking change over the pre-Rhee/Henderson era ratio of one to 113 students. Those central office dollars could have been used to provide wraparound social services for children, services that would have allowed teachers to be more effective.

“Many of these highly paid non-teachers spend their days watching over teachers in scheduled and unscheduled classroom observations, generally lasting about thirty minutes—not even an entire class meeting. Why so many of these teacher watchers? Because those who subscribe to top-down management do not trust teachers.”

Why are so many so eager to protect the reputation of Rhee’s reforms?

He writes:

“It’s all part of a fairly well-designed campaign to convince the world that the top-down, test-and-punish approach to fixing schools is just what the doctor ordered. It’s the reform that Democrats for Education Reform and most Republicans favor, despite strong evidence that it does not work.”

Merrow says this tale is like the blind men and the elephant. Each person picks a different part of the elephant and describes it differently.

I would say a better metaphor might be the Emperor Who Had No Clothes, or the futility of putting lipstick on a pig.

In his retirement, John Merrow has turned into a tiger, pulling apart the frauds that are regularly reported by the mainstream media.

In this marvelous post, he punctures the great hot air balloon of “reform” in the District of Columbia under Michelle Rhee and Kaya Henderson.

It begins like this:

The current issue of The Washington Monthly contains an article by former journalist Thomas Toch, “Hot for Teachers,” the latest in continuing string of pieces designed to prove the “truth” of the school reform movement’s four Commandments: top-down management, high stakes testing, more money for teachers and principals whose students do well, and dismissal for those whose students do not.

Just as a hot air balloon needs regular burst of hot air to remain afloat, the DCPS ‘success story’ needs constant celebrations of its alleged success. Sadly, it has had no trouble finding agents willing to praise Michelle Rhee, Kaya Henderson, and their work. Absent good data, Toch, former Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, philanthropist Catherine Bradley, Mike Petrilli of Fordham, Rick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute, and writers Richard Whitmire and Amanda Ripley have lavished praise upon DCPS, often twisting or distorting data and omitting damaging information in order to make their case.

In his article, Toch distorts or omits at least eight issues. The distinguished education analyst Mary Levy and I have written a rebuttal, which is scheduled to appear in the next issue of The Washington Monthly. In this blog post, I want to consider in detail just one of Toch’s distortions: widespread cheating by adults: He glibly dismisses DC’s cheating scandals in just two sentences: In March 2011, USA Today ran a front-page story headlined “When Standardized Test Scores Soared in D.C., Were the Gains Real?,” an examination of suspected Rhee-era cheating. The problem turned out to be concentrated in a few schools, and investigations found no evidence of widespread cheating.

There are two factual errors in his second sentence. Cheating–erasing wrong answers and replacing them with correct ones–occurred in more than half of DCPS schools, and every ‘investigation’ was either controlled by Rhee and later Henderson or conducted by inept investigators–and sometimes both. All five investigations were whitewashes, because no one in power wanted to unmask the wrongdoing that had produced the remarkable test score gains.

Four essential background points: The rookie Chancellor met one-on-one with all her principals and, in those meetings, made them guarantee test score increases. We filmed a number of these sessions, and saw firsthand how Rhee relentlessly negotiated the numbers up, while also making it clear that failing to ‘make the numbers’ would have consequences.

Point number two: The test in question, the DC-CAS, had no consequences for students, none whatsoever. Therefore, many kids were inclined to blow it off, which in turn forced teachers and principals to go to weird extremes to try to get students to take the test seriously. One principal told his students that he would get a tattoo of their choice if they did well on the DC-CAS (They could choose the design; he would choose the location!).

Point number three: For reasons of bureaucratic efficiency, the DC-CAS exams were delivered to schools at least a week before the exam date and put in the hands of the principals whose jobs depended on raising scores on a test the kids didn’t care about. This was a temptation that some school leaders and some teachers found irresistible. Test books were opened, sample questions were distributed, and, after the exams, answers were changed. Some schools had ‘erasure parties,’ we were reliably told.

Point number four: Predictably, test scores went up, and the victory parties began.

Contrary to Toch’s assertions, the ‘wrong-to-right’ erasures in half of DCPS schools were never thoroughly investigated beyond the initial analysis done by the agency that corrected the exams in the first place, CTB/McGraw-Hill. Deep erasure analysis would have revealed any patterns of erasures, but it was never ordered by Chancellor Rhee, Deputy Chancellor Henderson, or the Mayor, presuming he was aware of the issue.

Merrow followed Rhee closely for years. No journalist knows her methods better than he. It took a long time for him to figure out that the balloon was full of hot air, but figure it out he did.

NPR reported that 100% of the graduates of a struggling high school are going to college.

Usually, we hear this about charter schools, but they usually forget to tell you how many students dropped out before reaching 12th grade or graduation. Nor do they refer to test scores. Urban Academy in Chicago, for example, is celebrated in the media for getting 100% of its graduates into college but the stories never mention the attrition rates or the fact that the charter school scores’ are lower than those of the average Chicago public high school.

Ballou High School in D.C. is in the midst of one of The city’s poorest neighborhoods.

“Last school year, the graduation rate was just 57 percent. And, when it came to meeting citywide standards in English, only 3 percent of students passed. No one passed the math.

“While every one of the 190 seniors was accepted to college, that doesn’t include the students who have dropped out in the four years along the way.”

This is what they never tell you about charters.

“So how did this dream become a reality? It started with a pledge from the class of 2017 when they were just juniors looking ahead to their final year of high school.

“But it was a strong support system within D.C. Public Schools that made it a reality. For months and months, staff tracked students’ success, often working side-by-side with them in the school library on college applications, often encouraging them to apply to schools where data show D.C. students perform well.

“And then there was money. Grants, donations and district funds took students on college tours around the country. The school kept spirits and motivation up with pep rallies, T-shirts and free food. When college acceptance letters started rolling in, Trayvon says it was a wake-up call for a lot of his friends.

“But it wasn’t a year without struggle. More than a quarter of the teaching staff quit before the end of the school year — that’s not usually a good sign. And out of the nearly 200 graduates, 26, are still working toward their high school graduation — hoping to earn their diploma in August.”

Not easy. Not simple. Lots of struggles. Extra money. Setbacks. Mission accomplished. Until someone decides to take over the school and hand it off to a corporate chain of charters.

Thanks to G.F. Brandenburg for pointing me to this important post about teacher attrition rates in D.C. by Valerie Jablow.

D.C., lest we forget, is one of the epicenters of corporate reform. In 2007, D.C. established mayoral control of the schools. Mayor Adrian Fenty hired Michelle Rhee and gave her full authority to remake the schools. Rhee stayed until Fenty was defeated at the next election in 2011 (largely because of Rhee), and Rhee’s deputy Kaya Henderson was put in charge. Henderson stepped down and was replaced by another reform cadre, Antwan Wilson. So, D.C. has been in the hands of the privatizers for a full decade.

The Gates Foundation, the Broad Foundation, the Walton Foundation all invested millions in Rhee.

Wendy Kopp, in her last ghostwritten book, pointed to D.C., New York City, and New Orleans as examples of TFA success. D.C. today is the shining star of the reformers.

But teachers don’t last long. They sign up and they leave in startling numbers. Why don’t they stay if the system has had the benefit of reform for ten years?

Read Jablow’s post here.

She writes about D.C.’S dirty little secret. It turns out that reformers don’t know how to create good schools, whether public or charter:

“Quick: Did you hear about the DC public school that lost more than half its teachers after the start of school year 2015-16?

“No, I am not talking about DCPS’s Ballou high school–which, as the Post recently reported, lost 28% of its teachers this just-completed school year.

“Rather, I am talking about a whole host of DC charter schools with high teacher attrition rates in the previous school year, like Achievement Preparatory Academy (57.8% teacher attrition rate) and Friendship’s Tech Prep (Tech Prep Middle, 63%; Tech Prep HS, 52%) and KIPP’s AIM (63%), Lead (58%), and WILL schools (62%)–not to mention Perry Street Prep (62.5%), SEED (52.6%), and Washington Global (60%). Then there are a few charter schools whose reported attrition rates I find difficult to believe and that I hope were mis-reported teacher retention rates: Inspired (70.3%) and Richard Wright (87%). The annual reports indicated that the teacher attrition was determined after the start of the school year.

“Hmm: Didn’t hear about those?”

Mike Klonsky finds it ironic that a charter school would be named for Cesar Chavez, who devoted his life to organizing farm workers in California into a union so they could bargain for higher wages and better working conditions.

As Mike knows, the Walton Family Foundation is currently spending $200 million a year to open new charters, and the Waltons oppose unions. The WFF claims credit for opening one of every four charters in the nation. There are presently more than 6,000 charters, more than 90% non-union.

But the Cesar Chavez Charter School in D.C. will not be one of them.

Mike writes:

“A SmallTalk Salute goes out to the teachers and staff at Cesar Chavez Public Charter School at Chavez Prep Middle School in D.C. who voted 31-2 Thursday to unionize, the first time a charter in the District has taken such a step. The educators organized through the District of Columbia Alliance of Charter Teachers and Staff, which is affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers.

“Staff at the school say they want to unionize to give teachers a voice in decision-making. Jenny Tomlinson, the school librarian, told WAMU in May that staff hoped unionizing would reduce teacher turnover, increase teacher input in the curriculum and attract more experienced teachers.

“If you were listening to Hitting Left on Friday, you heard news of this victory from ChiACTS Pres. Chris Baehrend who was our in-studio guest along with CTU’s Political and Legislative Dir. Stacy Davis Gates. If you missed it, you can still listen to the podcast where our guests discuss the planned merger of ChiACTS and the CTU Local #1. The Chicago Tribune recently referred to Chicago as the “epicenter” of charter school unionization.

“When you think about it, it’s kind of amazing that for all these years, there’s been schools named after the renowned union leader, Cesar Chavez, that resisted unionization and collective bargaining rights for teachers. Detroit’s Cesar Chavez Charter School was unionized back in 2013.

“I’m remembering back 10 years ago, debating with anti-union charter school backers and “choice” advocates. I pointed out back then, the hypocrisy of naming a charter school after a great union organizer like Chavez, where teachers were working without a contract, without a real voice in educational decisions, or without union representation.”

There are now 234 charter schools in the AFT.

This is a case of cognitive dissonance. Or, when presented with two sharply contrasting narratives, whom do you believe?

Tom Toch started a think tank in D.C., FutureEd, which is funded by foundations such as Walton, Bezos, and Raikes (Jeff Raikes previously led the Gates Foundation).

In its latest bulletin, the lead article by Tom Toch says that the policies put in place by Michelle Rhee and her successor Kaya Henderson are “revolutionizing teaching” and are “a model for the nation.”

But at the same, an article in the Washington Post says that certain D.C. schools are experiencing a spike in teacher resignations in mid-year.

Ballou High School has lost 28% of its teachers since the school year began.

“In most DCPS schools, the faculty is stable. Of 115 schools in the system, 59 had two or fewer resignations after teachers reported to work, the data showed.

“But a handful were hit hard.

“Raymond Education Campus in Northwest lost 13 teachers, which accounts for a quarter of its faculty. Columbia Heights Education Campus in Northwest lost 11 teachers, or 10 percent. H.D. Woodson High in Northeast lost 10 of its 50 teachers, or 20 percent.

“No school has suffered more turnover than Ballou High. It lost 21 teachers from August through February — 28 percent of its faculty. Many of the resignations occurred in the math department, current and former teachers say.

“Several former Ballou teachers told The Post they did not want to leave mid-year and felt bad about the consequences for students. But they said a number of problems drove them to leave, from student behavior and attendance issues to their own perception of a lack of support from the administration. They also raised questions about evaluations. Some veterans said that in previous years they had received high marks from administrators, but this year they were given what they believe are arbitrarily low evaluation scores…

“Ballou has about 930 students, and all qualify for free or reduced-price lunch because they live in poverty. Many come from homes where their parents didn’t go to college. The school ranks among the city’s lowest-performing high schools on core measures. Its graduation rate in the last school year, 57 percent, was second-lowest among regular high schools in the DCPS system.

“In 2016, 3 percent of Ballou students tested met reading standards on citywide exams. Almost none met math standards.

“The school was reconstituted in the 2015-2016 school year, its second shakeup in five years. Reconstitution means the teachers and staff all had to reapply for their jobs…

“Monica Brokenborough, a music teacher and the school’s union representative, sent a letter this month to the D.C. Council, Mayor Muriel E. Bowser (D) and DCPS Chancellor Antwan Wilson raising concerns about the staff vacancies.

“Students simply roam the halls because they know that there is no one present in their assigned classroom to provide them with an education,” Brokenborough said. “Many of them have simply lost hope…

“In her message to city officials, Brokenborough included handwritten letters from students who described feeling unprepared for their Advanced Placement exams and fearful that their prospects for college will be hampered by not having a teacher in key classes.

“Iyonna Jones, an 18-year-old senior, said in one of the letters that security guards tell the students lingering in hallways to go to class, but she has a substitute teacher in her math class and doesn’t feel she is getting the instruction she needs.

“We should just stay home, because what is the point of coming to school if we are not learning and have no teachers,” she wrote.”

A national model? Not yet.

Mile Klonsky reviews Tom Toch’s paean to the “Revolutionary changes” launched by Michelle Rhee.

He is impressed by Toch’s data.

But….

“Okay, now that I’m done FBing about #convfefe, I can get down to more serious business — revolution. It seems a revolution has taken place in D.C. and I somehow missed it.

“But Tom Toch didn’t. Toch, a leading pro-reform, education policy expert and a highly regarded education writer, has published his study of the progress of school reform in the district, titled, “How D.C. Schools Are Revolutionizing Teaching.”

“I’d say, it’s about time somebody did it. But who?

“Toch says, it all began with former D.C. schools chief Michelle Rhee, who, despite her various “mistakes,” cheating scandals and unfortunate picture on the cover of Time Magazine, got the ball rolling. But Toch’s study concludes that it was her successor chancellors who carried the rev forward, bringing radical changes to the teaching profession and miraculous gains in student achievement. DCPS has not merely revolutionized teaching, says Toch; it has created a “reform blueprint” for the rest of us to follow.

No credit given to teachers, of course. In fact, Toch clearly sees bad teachers and their over-protective unions as the problem, and different performance-based evaluations with high stakes attached as the r-r-r-revolutionary solution.

According to Toch:

“Building on Rhee’s early work, and learning from her mistakes, her successors have effectively transformed it into a performance-based profession that provides recognition, responsibility, collegiality, support, and significant compensation—features that policy experts, including many of Rhee’s harshest critics, have long sought but never fully achieved.

“Ironically, Rhee’s successors at DCPS have redesigned teaching through some of the very policies that teachers’ unions and other Rhee adversaries opposed most strongly: comprehensive teacher evaluations, the abandonment of seniority-based staffing, and performance-based promotions and compensation. They combined these with other changes, like more collaboration among teachers, that these same critics had backed. Just as notably, the transformation is taking place not at charters but in the traditional public school system, an institution that many reformers have written off as too hidebound to innovate.

“At last, a reformer who offers the possibility hope and transformation within the public schools themselves. A ray of sunshine in a very gloomy period.

“Toch reports that as a direct result of performance-based teacher evals, daily attendance in D.C. has reached 90%, up from 85% in 2010–11. Chronic truancy is down by nearly 40% over the past four years and graduation rates (however they’re defined) have climbed to 69%, the highest in the city’s history.

“And student achievement has begun a long climb toward respectability. While Washington’s test scores have traditionally been among the lowest in the nation, the percentage of fourth graders achieving math proficiency has more than doubled on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) over the past decade, as have the percentages of eighth graders proficient in math and fourth graders proficient in reading. Scores have risen even after accounting for an influx of wealthier students. And DCPS has caught up to the middle of the pack of other urban school districts at the fourth-grade level on the national exams.

“In addition, the school system’s strongest teachers are no longer leaving in droves for charter schools. In many cases, the flow has been reversed, leaving even Washington’s most prominent charters struggling to compete for talent.

“Now, don’t mistake my cynicism about the “revolution” for the joy I feel over any reports of progress in urban school districts, especially when that progress is reported in neighborhood schools competing for resources, students and teachers with privately-operated charters and private-school voucher programs like the ones started by Rhee in D.C. and now championed by Ed Secretary Betsy DeVos. Yes, I’m glad D.C. 4th-graders are scoring higher on the NAEP and that the district has finally made it to the middle of the urban school district pack score-wise.

“If that is really happening, and I have no reason to doubt Toch’s numbers, credit should mostly go those hard-working and dedicated teachers, not just to the string of top-level administrators like Rhee and her mentee and former D.C. Teach For America Director Kaya Henderson, and the others who followed in Rhee’s wake, usually lasting about 2 years each before they are run out or quit.

But as Toch himself points out:

“Achievement levels among Hispanic and black students, who make up 82 percent of enrollment, lag badly behind their white peers. Only 15 percent of black students scored “proficient” in reading last year on Washington’s new, more demanding, Common Core–aligned exams, compared to 74 percent of white students.

“If that’s his idea of a “revolution,” leave me out.

“But it’s mostly Toch’s line about how his study “takes into account the influx of [white] wealthier students” that gets me twitching. It’s such an easy way of dismissing the effects of concentrated poverty on measurable learning outcomes, and of the most dramatic democratic changes in D.C., Chicago, Philly and dozens of other large urban school districts. It’s what I and others have referred to as the whitenizing of the cities.

“In Chicago, for example, where a quarter of a million African-Americans have been pushed out of the city over the past three decades, by gentrification, de-industrialization and job loss, lack of social services, closing of neighborhood schools, gun violence, etc… Mayor Emanuel and his appointed school district leaders are also now reporting corresponding “miraculous” gains in reading scores and graduation rates.

“In 2008, DCPS was reportedly 84.4% black, 9.4% Latino, and 4.6% white.The racial breakdown of students enrolled in 2014 was 67% black, 17% Latino, 12% white, and 4% of “other races.”

Rob Barnett teaches mathematics in a D.C. public high school.

He is faced every year with a dilemma. Does he pass or fail the student who is not ready, who has not mastered the course?

He notes that D.C.’s graduation rate has soared, yet its NAEP scores are virtually unchanged since 2005. Its PARCC scores are even worse.

NCLB and Race to the Top pressured teachers like him to get the graduation rate, at any cost. If you can’t succeed, give the appearance of success.

He has an idea for a very different way to design schooling: Mastery learning.

Why should a student have to retake and pass an entire year when there are parts of the course he understood and parts he did not?

What do you think?

Trump recently told a group of students attending voucher schools in D.C. that they were very lucky because the graduation rate of the voucher program was 98%. That was far more than the evaluation of the program, which claimed a rate of 82%. But when I re-read the final evaluation report on the program, I couldn’t understand how the evaluators arrived at 82%. Newspaper accounts regularly say that the D.C. voucher program had no effect on test scores but a higher graduation rate. But was it true? What was the attrition rate? How did the evaluators arrive at 82%?

So I asked William Mathis of the National Education Policy Center to explain what was behind the numbers. He very kindly untangled the data for me and wrote the following:


Donald Trump’s Phantom 98% Voucher Graduation Rate

William J. Mathis

​Education secretary Betsy DeVos joined Donald Trump at the White House to pitch school vouchers touting the “98% graduation rate” from the District of Columbia program. Now, a 98% graduation rate would be a superlative figure for any school but coming out of urban Washington, this would be nothing short of phenomenal. Some might claim divine intervention would be required.​​

Here’s why: For the baseline year of 2010, the federal government’s official, national, on-time graduation rate reached an “all-time high” of 80%. When the District of Columbia’s 2010 graduation rate was compared to the 50 states, it came in dead-last with 59%. It maintains the dubious last-place ranking. Thus, to reach 98%, the DC voucher program would have to leap over all 50 states including top-scoring Iowa (88%). Such a miraculous ascent rightly raises a skeptical eye.

To sort this out, inquiring minds would first go to the source of the numbers. The president’s remarks were based on a 2010 University of Arkansas study of Washington DC which estimated the actual graduation rate of 70% for traditional public schools and 82% for voucher schools. This would be pretty good given DC’s official rate of 59% for that year. But this is a long way from Trump’s imaginative 98%.

​So what’s the difference between the researchers’ rate and the real rate? The University of Arkansas’ numbers were based on a telephone survey of parents which had a response rate of only 63% despite some aggressive follow-up. For students who had not yet graduated, they asked the parents to forecast whether their student would, in fact, graduate. Since the control group had a response rate similar to the voucher students, the researchers concluded they could compare the groups. But this quickly runs into problems. The first of which is the low response rate to the telephone survey. It is reasonable to infer that respondents would differ from non-respondents. The second problem is relying on the parents’ forecast that their child would graduate rather than using the actual school district count of drop-outs and non-graduates. These errors would result in inflated numbers.​

​The third problem is selection effects. That is, the parents who elected to participate in the voucher program are parents who are more likely to be involved and motivated to advance their children’s education. As is clearly known, parental involvement is a key to educational success. Parents must register for the program and the on-line application program requires the parent to establish an account with email address and password. Then, social security numbers, date of birth, proof of income, proof of DC residence and tax ID numbers are required. This suggests a multitude of selection problems including non-computer literate parents, computer availability, privacy protection and any number of other reasons that people may not want to be in a government data base.

​Mystifying to the reader, only 351 out of 1293 students used their voucher for all years (27%). The remaining 73% dropped out of the program but whether they graduated is unclear. We just don’t know what happened to these students.
Trump and DeVos failed to mention that this same study showed test scores for the voucher students remained flat. They also overlooked a newer DC study with even less positive findings. In this federally sponsored 2017 study, test scores dropped for both experimental and control groups. But voucher program students dropped more than the traditional students in both reading and mathematics. Further, 82% of the voucher group changed schools after the first year. All in all, there are no transcendent intercessions here. It’s just a weak design garnished with exaggeration.

While Trump argues for billions in new tax breaks for voucher schemes, there is no evidence that they are an effective reform strategy. To the contrary, the segregative effects could be quite harmful. Large-scale voucher studies in Louisiana, Indiana and Ohio also show negative numbers. So in light of these facts, what did the federal government do? They prohibited further studies of the program and called for greater federal support of voucher programs.

Edwin Rios of Mother Jones writes here about the dreadful evaluations on Betsy DeVos’ favorite form of school choice: Vouchers.

Researchers used to find that students who received vouchers saw little or no difference in their test scores.

Now a new body of research is reporting that students (who enter the program with low scores) actually lose ground when they transfer to a voucher school.

We had seen these discouraging reports before about Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio.

Now the latest study from D.C. reaches the same conclusion. Students are negatively affected by switching from a public school to a voucher school.

The logic seems clear. The public school has experienced and credentialed teachers. Many voucher schools do not.

School choice advocates (aka reformers) used to claim that they were “saving poor kids from failing schools.”

DeVos, however, told the Washington Post that when the choice movement is fully implemented, all three sectors (public, charter, and voucher) will have the same results. “When school choice policies are fully implemented,” she said, “there should be no differences in achievement among the various types of schools.”

In other words, the children who are now low-performing will continue to be low-performing, and all three sectors will have the same outcomes they have now.

Remind me of the reason for school choice?