Archives for category: Education Reform
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »

New Jersey Court Throws Out Effort to Kill Tenure

By dianeravitch
December 12, 2018 //
17

Campbell Brown’s war on teacher tenure lost another battle in court. Her group, the Partnership for Educational Justice, lost the Vergara case in California; its case in Minnesota was thrown out. Now New Jersey.

From the Education Law Center:

December 12, 2018

• CHALLENGE TO TEACHER TENURE IN NEW JERSEY FAILS AGAIN

NEW JERSEY SUPREME COURT ENDS CHALLENGE TO TENURE LAWS

The New Jersey Supreme Court has declined to review an appeals court ruling dismissing a lawsuit seeking invalidation of tenure and due process rules for the state’s teachers.

The plaintiffs in the case, H.G. v. Harrington, are several Newark Public Schools (NPS) students and parents. The plaintiffs were supported by the Partnership for Educational Justice, a group formed by former television news anchor Campbell Brown, who is behind similar lawsuits about teacher tenure laws in Minnesota and New York.

The plaintiffs challenged the statutory rule mandating that “reduction in force” (RIF) decisions be based exclusively on seniority, claiming that the rule deprives students of a “thorough and efficient” education by reducing teacher quality. The plaintiffs filed the case despite admitting there was no evidence that the seniority rule actually resulted in the retention of ineffective tenured teachers at the expense of losing effective tenured teachers.

Because plaintiffs presented no evidence of any actual impact of the seniority rule on the teaching force in Newark, a trial court dismissed the case in May 2017, holding that the case was not ripe for review. The appellate court affirmed that decision in June 2018. The appellate court noted that not only did the plaintiffs concede there was no evidence of any negative impact of the seniority rule, they also admitted NPS had significantly reduced the number of tenured teachers rated ineffective or partially effective.

Despite these decisive rulings, the plaintiffs sought certification to appeal to the New Jersey Supreme Court. On December 3, the Supreme Court denied the request and ruled that the plaintiffs must pay for the cost of filing the appeal request.

This decision is another court defeat for so called “education reform” groups seeking to attack due process for teachers. Courts in California and Minnesota also rejected legal attacks on teacher tenure in those states.

Education Law Center Press Contact:
Sharon Krengel
Policy and Outreach Director
skrengel@edlawcenter.org
973-624-1815, x 24
http://www.edlawcenter.org

Categories Education Reform, New Jersey, Teacher Tenure

Higher Education: Teach the Students We Have, Not the Ones We Wish We Had

By dianeravitch
December 12, 2018 //
32

Sara Goldrick-Rab and Jesse Stommel challenge the recent spate of books and articles complaining about college students.

They write:

For broader participation to lead to positive outcomes — for example, the completion of degrees without huge debt burdens — students must have good experiences in the classroom. This is especially important yet incredibly difficult as the new economics of college are compromising the time, energy, and money that students and many of their professors have to spend on quality learning.

These are the core challenges of college today — and yet they are too often ignored. Instead, symptoms of those problems dominate air time, as the stereotype persists of “academically adrift” “snowflakes” “coddled” by their universities. Consider the recent essay by Nancy Bunge, “Students Evaluating Teachers Doesn’t Just Hurt Teachers. It Hurts Students,” which takes on student evaluations. Bunge contends the “unearned arrogance encouraged by the heavy reliance on student evaluations helps produce passive, even contemptuous students who undermine the spirit of the class and lower its quality for everyone.”

Her enemy appears to be sites like the often-lamented Rate My Professors, but her piece also attacks the students themselves, and reinforces a set of assertions largely drawn from one influential yet extremely narrow study, Academically Adrift, by Richard Arum and Jospia Roksa. The limited learning lamented by the authors is said to be linked to insufficiently challenging instructors, and according to Bunge those instructors are not demanding more of their students because they want to get good grades. She cites a Chronicle survey in which faculty members claim that students are “harder to teach” these days. The overall narrative suggests we should feel sorry for the faculty. If only they could have more-engaged students to teach.

There is an alternative explanation. Today’s college students are the most overburdened and undersupported in American history. More than one in four have a child, almost three in four are employed, and more than half receive Pell Grants but are left far short of the funds required to pay for college. Rather than receiving help from their parents to pay for college, even the youngest college students often have to use their loans to pay their parents’ bills.

Whereas previous generations could turn to food stamps for help, today’s students have to first work long hours to qualify for the USDA’s Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program. Similarly, students years ago could quickly talk to an adviser for help, but now they may be sharing that adviser with more than 500 other students. “Kids these days” aren’t kids at all. But this fact is neglected by many researchers and by too many faculty members who think of their own experiences in college rather than their students’ when crafting teaching plans…

In other words, the work of higher education — as with all of education — has to begin with a deep respect for students. They are not mere data points, not just rows in an online grade book. Students are human first. And so are their teachers. The exploitation of adjuncts, erosions to tenure, and the overall dismal working conditions throughout much of higher education contributes to faculty frustration and anger — which is now spilling over to affect students.

College has become the place America loves to hate, and college professors and students are the unwitting victims. It doesn’t require much cynicism to recognize this as part of a political plan to destabilize or even reverse the democratization of higher education.

But we can do better. As educators, we need to lead the way and design our pedagogical approaches for the students we have, not the students we wish we had. This requires approaches that are responsive, inclusive, adaptive, challenging, and compassionate. And it requires that institutions find more creative ways to support teachers and prepare them for the work of teaching. This is not a theoretical exercise — it is a practical one.

Categories Accountability, Education Reform, Higher Education, Student Financial Aid and Student Debt, Students, Teachers

Editorial: R.I.P., Public Education in Florida

By dianeravitch
December 11, 2018 //
7

The St.Augustine Record knows that the choice of privatizer Richard Corcoran as Commissioner of Education is disastrous for public schools.

He is totally unqualified and he hates public schools.

To be blunt, as the editorial is, he is a hack.

Let’s not beat around the political bush: Putting former House Speaker Richard Corcoran in charge of Florida education is like hiring Genghis Kahn to head the state Department of Corrections.

The charter school fox is heading for the Department of Education hen house and, for public schooling, that’s finger-lickin’ bad.

Corcoran is a coercer, a brawler and politician who rewards fealty while marking opponents for payback. Those who know him would say he’d be flattered by the description.

He came into politics through the back door. He ran for the House in 1998 in a district outside his own. He was dubbed a “carpetbagger” by the hometown newspaper. He lost.

But he became a rising star in the party machinery, and eventually became what many describe as a political “hitman” for Marco Rubio’s bid to gain House leadership in 2006. He was rewarded by being hired as Rubio’s chief of staff at $175,000 yearly salary — considerably more than his boss, who made $29,697 a year. The governor that year was paid around $130,000.

If this gives you pause in terms of state political priorities, go to the head of the class.

In 2007, Corcoran again ran for special election, this time in the Senate. He was again portrayed as a carpetbagger — and lost.

The third time was a charm, when Corcoran won a House seat in 2010.

Governor-elect Ron DeSantis has made his pick known. But, on paper, the decision is up to the board of education — all GOP appointees, who probably like their current status.

DeSantis has made no bones about wanting to see public education dismantled, though you heard little of that during the governor campaign.

For his part, Corcoran spearheaded the state’s ongoing effort at funding charter schools with taxpayer money. And, where that was not possible, bankrolling public schools with various funding schemes, including paying for any child who deems himself “bullied” in public school to attend a private school tuition-free — and where, we must assume, bullies do not exist.

Corcoran was also the weight behind efforts this year to dismantle elected school boards and put the oversight of schools under direct legislative control.

In a twist of irony, Corcoran included this line is his speech after being named Speaker: “The enemy is us. … Left to our own devices, all too often, we’ll choose self-interest.”

His wife ran a charter school at the time and has since sought to expand to other areas. But his dark political history aside, might we not expect to have a person with some history in education — whether public or charter school — to lead an agency tasked with educating 3 million kids?

DeSantis has given Education Commissioner Pam Stewart her walking papers, though she has a year left on her contract. She takes with her 40-plus years of experience in education, including guidance counselor, teacher and principal at both elementary and high school levels. She was Deputy Chancellor for Educator Quality at the Department of Education and Deputy Superintendent for Academic Services here in St. Johns County, just prior to taking over as Education Commissioner — following a series of embarrassments by political appointees to that post.

She has been controversial. But juggling the hot potato tossed to her called Common Core was an unenviable trick to pull off.

Now a hack takes her place. And with one swift move, the Legislature accomplishes Job No. 1. That’s putting Florida’s $20.4 billion education budget out to bid in the private sector. That’s a frightening amount of political capital to be spread around to those who decide who gets charter school contracts and where those schools will be.

There ought to be a law…

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Common Core, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Florida, For-Profit, Fraud, Privatization, School Choice, Vouchers

California: Gavin Newsom’s Three Challenges

By dianeravitch
December 11, 2018 //
18

In education, Governor-Elect Gavin Newsom has three major challenges.

The incoming administration of Governor-elect Gavin Newsom will not be cleaning up a mess. Governor Jerry Brown has been a good steward of the state during his time in office.

But Newsom faces three distinct challenges in the field of education. Although Governor Brown significantly increased spending for education, California has large unmet needs and much catching-up to do to maintain its edge as an incubator of talent and innovation, and of equal opportunity for all.

First, to fund K-12 education.

Second, to restore California’s historic tradition of tuition-free higher education.

Third, to pass legislation to assure charter school accountability and transparency and to hold charters to the same ethical standards as public schools.

Categories Accountability, California, Charter Schools, Education Industry, Education Reform, Funding, Higher Education, Privatization

Bill Phillis: What Do Privatizers Do When They Fail?

By dianeravitch
December 11, 2018 //
20

That’s a trick question. Privatizers fail again and again, and when they fail, they double down on their failure.

After they takeover public schools, their replacement fails (unless it kicks out the students it doesn’t want and keeps only the ones that get high test scores).

After the charter school fails, it either remains open or is replaced by another charter school.

Charter lobbyists fight accountability in the state legislature. Accountability applies only to public schools.

When a charter fails and closes, it is never restored to the public, which paid for the school.

Bill Phillis of Ohio writes:

The anti-public common school horde is conjuring up more tricks to undermine the public common school system

The school privatization movement is being driven by a gaggle of somewhat diverse troops but all, intentionally or unintentionally, are working for the demise of traditional public education. Billions and billions from philanthropic organizations, foundations, corporations and wealthy individuals are being invested in the advancement of privately-operated alternatives to the public common school.

Strategies and motivations of privatizers differ but the goal is to transfer the governance of public schools from school communities to private groups and individuals.

The original charter concept of a teacher/parent schooling collaborative, in a contract with the board of education of a school district, has evolved into an out-of-control lucrative business enterprise.

After a couple decades of chartering, it is clear this industry does not and cannot outperform the public common school. Public support for chartering is waning. But charter industry leaders are ramping up efforts to take over entire districts for the purpose of advancing chartering. They campaign for charter-promoter board members, often with dark outside money. The district board of education, when dominated by charter advocates, then turns the district over to private-interests.

Another strategy is the establishment of the portfolio model within a school district. In this case, the control of the district is transferred to local units (charters and district schools) that are essentially controlled by private interests.

HB 70 (state takeover bill of the 131st General Assembly) has features of the portfolio model. HB 70 transfers powers of the board of education to a CEO. If school improvement does not happen under the CEO (which it won’t) the district can become a bevy of privately-operated charters.

Ohioans need to wake up to the portfolio movement of privatization, as well as other such schemes.

William L. Phillis | Ohio Coalition for Equity & Adequacy of School Funding | 614.228.6540 | ohioeanda@sbcglobal.net| http://www.ohiocoalition.org

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Closing schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Failure, Fraud, Privatization

Houston: How a 27-Year-Old Immigrant from Colombia Won One of the Biggest Elections in Texas

By dianeravitch
December 11, 2018 //
6

Lina Hidalgo, a 27-year-old immigrant from Colombia, shocked veteran politicians in Texas by winning one of the biggest jobs in Houston, ousting a Republican incumbent. She will manage a $4 billion budget.

Her victory was a tribute to her organizational skill and strategy.

It was also a tribute to her public school education.

Her teachers encouraged her to prepare for college and to believe in herself.

“Hidalgo believes that it was her initial exposure to the American public education system that eventually led her to pursue a career in public service. Hidalgo had spent the majority of her childhood in Latin American countries, like Colombia, Peru, and Mexico, where it was understood that the only way to receive a decent education was through private schooling. Hidalgo marveled at how the public education system created a relatively equal playing field for kids from all backgrounds to learn in.

“When Hidalgo started high school, a guidance counselor noticed that she had good grades from her school in Mexico and advised Hidalgo to take Pre-AP classes as opposed to regular courses. This small nudge allowed Hidalgo to display her academic potential, which led to her being accepted into Stanford University’s undergraduate program years later. After graduating from Stanford, she decided to pursue a joint degree in law and public policy at NYU and Harvard, but put her degree on hold to run for County Judge.”

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/samuelgarcia/2018/12/06/27-year-old-immigrant-lina-hidalgos-election-marks-a-change-in-texas-politics/amp/

The miracle of public schools.

Categories Education Reform

Washington Post Invents a New Rating for Trump’s Repeated Lies: “The Bottomless Pinocchio”

By dianeravitch
December 10, 2018 //
38

The Washington Post has an official fact-checker, Glenn Kessler, who rates the veracity of politicians’ statement. The worst possible lie gets a “four Pinocchios.” The fact-checker has counted more than 6,000 lies by Trump during his brief time in office.

But there was a problem. What about the lies that he tells repeatedly, even after he has been corrected?

So the fact-checker invented a new category: The Bottomless Pinocchio.

Glenn Kessler writes:

It was President Trump’s signature campaign promise: He would build a wall along the nation’s southern border, and Mexico would pay for it.

Shortly after becoming president, Trump dropped the Mexico part, turning to Congress for the funds instead. When that, too, failed — Congress earlier this year appropriated money for border security that could not be spent on an actual wall — Trump nevertheless declared victory: “We’ve started building our wall,” he said in a speech on March 29. “I’m so proud of it.”

Despite the facts, which have been cited numerous times by fact-checkers, Trump repeated his false assertion on an imaginary wall 86 times in the seven months before the midterm elections, according to a database of false and misleading claims maintained by The Post.

Trump’s willingness to constantly repeat false claims has posed a unique challenge to fact-checkers. Most politicians quickly drop a Four-Pinocchio claim, either out of a duty to be accurate or concern that spreading false information could be politically damaging.

Not Trump. The president keeps going long after the facts are clear, in what appears to be a deliberate effort to replace the truth with his own, far more favorable, version of it. He is not merely making gaffes or misstating things, he is purposely injecting false information into the national conversation.

To accurately reflect this phenomenon, The Washington Post Fact Checker is introducing a new category — the Bottomless Pinocchio. That dubious distinction will be awarded to politicians who repeat a false claim so many times that they are, in effect, engaging in campaigns of disinformation.

The bar for the Bottomless Pinocchio is high: The claims must have received three or four Pinocchios from The Fact Checker, and they must have been repeated at least 20 times. Twenty is a sufficiently robust number that there can be no question the politician is aware that his or her facts are wrong. The list of Bottomless Pinocchios will be maintained on its own landing page.

The Fact Checker has not identified statements from any other current elected official who meets the standard other than Trump. In fact, 14 statements made by the president immediately qualify for the list.

The president’s most-repeated falsehoods fall into a handful of broad categories — claiming credit for promises he has not fulfilled; false assertions that provide a rationale for his agenda; and political weaponry against perceived enemies such as Democrats or special counsel Robert S. Mueller III.

Some of Trump’s regular deceptions date from the start of his administration, such as his claim that the United States has spent $7 trillion in the Middle East (36 times) or that the United States pays for most of the cost of NATO (87 times). These were both statements that he made repeatedly when he campaigned for president and continues to make, despite having access to official budget data.

Another campaign claim that has carried into his presidency is the assertion that Democrats colluded with Russia during the election (48 times). This is obviously false, as the Democrats were the target of hacking by Russian entities, according to U.S. intelligence agencies. (The assertion, also spread widely by Trump allies in the conservative media, largely rests on the fact that the firm hired by Democrats to examine Trump’s Russia ties was also working to defend a Russian company in U.S. court.)

On 30 separate occasions, Trump has also falsely accused special counsel Mueller of having conflicts of interest and the staff led by the longtime Republican of being “angry Democrats.”

A good example of how objective reality does not appear to matter to the president is how he has framed his tax cut. When the administration’s tax plan was still in the planning stages, Trump spoke to the Independent Community Bankers Association on May 1, 2017, and made this claim, to applause: “We’re proposing one of the largest tax cuts in history, even larger than that of President Ronald Reagan. Our tax cut is bigger.”

He reinforced that statement later that day, with similar wording, in an interview with Bloomberg News.

From the start, it was a falsehood, as Reagan’s 1981 tax cut amounted to 2.9 percent of the overall U.S. economy — and nothing under consideration by Trump came close to that level. Trump’s tax cut was eventually crafted to be just under 1 percent of the economy, making it the eighth-largest tax cut in the past century.

Yet Trump has been undeterred by pesky fact checks showing he is wrong. He kept making the claim — 123 times before the midterm elections — and still says it. “We got the biggest tax cuts in history,” he told Chris Wallace of Fox News in his Nov. 18 interview.

Categories Education Reform

Beware! Privatization Vandals Target 7 Cities for Destruction and Takeover

By dianeravitch
December 10, 2018 //
23

The privatization movement used to operate in stealth. It used to pretend to have grassroots support. Those days are over. As the public catches on to the empty promises of the charter industry and its intention to undermine democratic institutions, the charter funders have created a SWAT team to infiltrate targeted cities across the nation, promote charter schools, and buy their school boards.

These guys are not the Red Cross or the Salvation Army. They are paid vandals, on a mission to destroy public schools. They are out to destroy not just public schools, but local democracy. They should be ashamed. Usually, it is illegal to buy elections. This so-called City Fund brashly announces that it has raised nearly $200 million—with more on the way—to disrupt public schools and buy elections. How is this legal?

Chalkbeat’s Matt Barnum reports that vandals from the billionaire-funded “City Fund” have targeted seven cities, where they will use their millions to try to destroy public schools and to finance a takeover of the local school board.

“The City Fund has already given grants to organizations and schools in Atlanta, Indianapolis, Newark, Denver, San Antonio, St. Louis, and Nashville, according to one of the group’s founders, Neerav Kingsland. Those grants amount to $15 million of the $189 million the group has raised, he told Chalkbeat.

“City Fund staffers have also founded a 501(c)(4) organization called Public School Allies, according to an email obtained by Chalkbeat, which Kingsland confirmed. That setup will allow the group’s members to have more involvement in politics and lobbying, activities limited for traditional nonprofits…

“In their ideal scenario, parents would be able to choose among schools that have autonomy to operate as they see fit, including charter schools. In turn, schools are judged by outcomes (which usually means test scores). The ones deemed successful are allowed to grow, and the less-successful ones are closed or dramatically restructured.”

This is known as the “portfolio model,” which encourages the local board to close low-scoring public schools with charter schools. When the charter schools fail, they are replaced by other charter schools.

“A version of that strategy is already in place in Denver and Indianapolis. Those cities have large charter sectors and enrollment systems that include both district and charter schools In others, like San Antonio, Atlanta, and Camden, struggling district schools have been turned over to charter operators.

“The City Fund’s Newark grant is more of a surprise. Although the district has implemented many aspects of the portfolio model, and seen charter schools rapidly grow since a $100 million donation from Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg, Newark hasn’t been a magnet of national philanthropy recently. That may be because the changes there sparked vehement community protest, and the district recently switched to an elected school board.

“Charter advocates in Nashville, meanwhile, have faced setbacks in recent years, losing several bitter school board races a few years ago. A pro-charter group appears to have folded there.

“Kingsland said The City Fund has given to The Mind Trust in Indianapolis; RootED in Denver; City Education Partners in San Antonio; the Newark Charter School Fund and the New Jersey Children’s Foundation; The Opportunity Trust in St. Louis; and RedefinED Atlanta. In Nashville, The City Fund gave directly to certain charter schools.

“The seven cities The City Fund has given to are unlikely to represent the full scope of the organization’s initial targets. Oakland, for instance, is not included, but The City Fund has received a $10 million grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation for work there. The presentation The City Fund made for potential funders earlier this year says the organization expects to reach 30 to 40 cities in a decade or less.

“We will make additional grants,” Kingsland said in an email. “But we don’t expect to make grants in that many more cities. Right now we are focused on supporting a smaller group of local leaders to see if we can learn more about what works and what doesn’t at the city level.”

“Chalkbeat previously reported that the Hastings Fund, Laura and John Arnold Foundation, the Dell Foundation, and the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation were funding the effort. The Walton Family Foundation and the Ballmer Group are also funders, Kingsland said. (The Gates Foundation and Walton Family Foundation are also funders of Chalkbeat.)…

“It’s gained particular traction in a number of cities, like Newark, Camden, and New Orleans, while they were under state control. In Denver and Indianapolis, cities where the approach has maintained support with elected school boards, supporters faced setbacks in recent elections. Public School Allies may work to address and avoid such political hurdles.”

Note that the Vandals’ model of “success” is New Orleans, where the schools are almost completely privatized and highly stratified. Forty percent of the charter schools in New Orleans are “failing schools,” by the state’s rating system, and almost all their students are black. Louisiana is at the very bottom of NAEP, ranked above only Mississippi and the District of Columbia (another portfolio failure), and the charter school district of New Orleans is significantly lower-performing on state tests than the state as a whole.

This is not success. There is no model of privatization success. This is vandalism.

Categories Accountability, Billionaires, Charter Schools, Corporate Reformers, Education Industry, Education Reform, Fraud, Privatization

What Harvard Offered the New Members of Congress and Why Progressives Didn’t Like It

By dianeravitch
December 10, 2018 //
14

The Harvard Institute of Politics provided an orientation conference for new members of Congress, most of whom were Democrats, and the progressive freshmen were outraged.

Slate has the story here, as well as the agenda.

The meeting was co-hosted by the free-market, conservative American Enterprise Institute (one of its funders is Betsy DeVos).

Believe it or not, the only “expert” to speak about education was Raj Chetty, Mr. Fire-Teachers-Sooner-Rather-Than-Later. Why no one from the Economic Policy Institute? Or the Network for Public Education? Or Harvard’s Daniel Koretz on the failure of NCLB and Race to the Top and their cousin the “Every Student Succeeds Act”? Or anyone who knows that federal education policy has been a disaster for almost 20 years?

Slate wrote:

“Before the beginning of each new Congress since 1972, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Institute of Politics has hosted the Bipartisan Program for Newly Elected Members of Congress, which bills itself as “the preeminent educational and preparatory program for newly elected Republican and Democratic Members of the House of Representatives.” The institute held its program—co-sponsored by the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, as well as the Center for Strategic and International Studies and the Congressional Institute—for the large incoming class of recently-elected members of Congress this week, and the schedule was designed to foster policy discussions and offer tips for stepping into the new job.

“But there was drama.

“Some of the most progressive members of the class, including Reps.-elect Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Rashida Tlaib, tweeted their displeasure with the program. Ocasio-Cortez criticized the event’s corporate tilt, while Tlaib paraphrased her version of an exchange she had with former Trump economic advisor (and former Goldman Sachs president) Gary Cohn.”

Ocasio-Cortez-Cortez tweeted:

Our “bipartisan” Congressional orientation is cohosted by a corporate lobbyist group. Other members have quietly expressed to me their concern that this wasn’t told to us in advance.

Lobbyists are here. Goldman Sachs is here. Where‘s labor? Activists?Frontline community leaders?

Why did the Harvard Institute of Politics subject savvy progressive members of Congress to same-old, same-old from corporate leaders?

Open the article ad see the agenda and judge for yourself.

Categories Education Reform

Gary Rubinstein: How Can a School with a 100% College Acceptance Rate Be a Failing School?

By dianeravitch
December 10, 2018 //
19

Gary Rubinstein began his career in Teach for America but became a career math teacher in New York City. He also writes a blog, where he has achieved fame and notoriety as the nation’s ultimate fact-checker of “miracle schools” whose claims are too good to be true.

As he explains in this post, he first entered the arena of miracle-School mythbusting when he heard Arne Duncan boast about a charter school in Chicago that had once been a low performing public school. That charter, Urban Prep, Duncan said, now had a 100% graduation rate and a 100% college acceptance rate. Rubinstein checked the data and found that the school had high attrition and low pass rates on state tests, lower than Chicago public schools.

“Urban Prep Charter School in Chicago is the original ‘miracle school.’ Seven years ago at the Teach For America 20th anniversary alumni summit, I heard Arne Duncan talk about how they had 100% of their senior class graduate and how 100% of them went on to college after they shut down the public school in that building and replaced it with a charter school.”

He was roundly criticized by charter trolls on Twitter but he was unfazed.

Now he finds this charter, with its miraculous outcomes, has expanded to a chain of three, all boasting the same 100% college acceptance rates. But the city may close one of them for low performance.

Rubinstein checked the data. See what he found.

It is astonishing. All three campuses perform worse than the Chicago public schools. The real miracle is that they still have a 100% college acceptance rate.

Where is the New York Times?

Categories Accountability, Charter Schools, Chicago, Education Industry, Education Reform, Lies, Privatization, Testing
« Older Entries
Newer Entries »