Archives for category: Research

I am reposting this because the original omitted the link to the article. I went to the car repair shop and the computer repair shop today, and wrote this post while paising in a coffee shop between repairs. Carol Burris’s article links to the original study, which has the ironic title “In Pursuit of the Common Good: The Spillover Effects of Charter Schools on Public School Studenys of New York City.” Ironic, since charter schools have nothing to do with the common good.

Recently, a study was released that made the absurd claim that public schools make academic gains when a charter opens close to them or is co-located in their building. To those of us who have seen co-located charters take away rooms previously used for the arts, dance, science, or resource rooms for students with disabilities, the finding seemed bizarre, as did the contention that draining away the best students from neighborhood public schools was a good thing for the losing school.

The rightwing DeVos-funded media eagerly reported this “finding,” without digging deeper. Why should they? It propagated a myth they wanted to believe.

The author of this highly politicized study is Sarah Cordes of Temple University.

Carol Burris, executive director of the Network for Public Education and a former principal, is a highly skilled researcher. She reviewed Cordes’ findings and determined they were vastly overstated. Her review of Cordes’ study was peer-reviewed by some of the nation’s most distinguished researchers.

Burris writes:

“Cordes attempted to measure the effects of competition from a charter school on the achievement, attendance and grade retention of students in nearby New York City public schools. In addition, she sought to identify the cause of any effects she might find.”

She did not take into account the high levels of mobility among New York City public school students, especially the most disadvantaged.

But worse, her findings are statistically small as compared to other interventions:

“Upon completing her analysis, Cordes concludes that “the introduction of charter schools within one mile of a TPS increases the performance of TPS students on the order of 0.02 standard deviations (sds) in both math and English Language Arts (ELA).”

“To put that effect size in perspective, if you lower class size, you find the effect on achievement to be ten times greater (.20) than being enrolled in a school within one mile of charter school. Reading programs that focus on processing strategies have an effect size of nearly .60. And direct math instruction (effect size .61) with strong teacher feedback (effect size .75) has strong benefits for math achievement[2]. With a .02 effect size, the effect of being enrolled in a school located near a charter school is akin to increasing your height by standing on a few sheets of paper.”

Burris noted that what really mattered was money:

“Although it appears that Cordes found very small achievement gains in a public school if a charter is located within a half mile, that correlation does not tell us why those gains occurred. To answer that question, Cordes looked at an array of factors — demographics, school spending, and parent and teacher survey data about school culture and climate.

There was only ONE standout out factor that rose to the commonly accepted level of statistical significance — money.”

Burris concludes that journalists need to check other sources before believing “studies” and “reports” that make counter-intuitive claims:

“The bottom line is that Sarah Cordes found what every researcher before her found — “competition” from charters has little to no effect on student achievement in traditional public schools. It also found that when it comes to learning, money matters as evidenced by increased spending, especially in co-located schools.

“Most reporters generally lack advanced skills in research methods and statistics. They depend on abstracts and press releases, not having the expertise to look with a critical eye themselves. But it does not take a lot of expertise to see the problems with this particular study.”

Sarah Cordes’ “study” will serve the purposes of Trump and DeVos and others who are trying to destroy the common good. Surely, that was not her intention. Perhaps her dissertation advisors st New York University could have helped her develop a sounder statistical analysis. It seems obvious that the public schools that have been closed to make way for charters received no benefit at all–and they are not included in the study.

Steven Singer wrote a great post about a study by corporate reformers proving that they are wrong. Will they care that one of their favorite tactics is a failure? Of course not.

https://gadflyonthewallblog.wordpress.com/2017/08/26/study-closing-schools-doesnt-increase-test-scores/

Open the link to read it all and to see the links he cites.

He writes:

“You might be tempted to file this under ‘No Shit, Sherlock.’

“But a new study found that closing schools where students achieve low test scores doesn’t end up helping them learn. Moreover, such closures disproportionately affect students of color.

“What’s surprising, however, is who conducted the study – corporate education reform cheerleaders, the Center for Research on EDucation Outcomes (CREDO).

“Like their 2013 study that found little evidence charter schools outperform traditional public schools, this year’s research found little evidence for another key plank in the school privatization platform.

“These are the same folks who have suggested for at least a decade that THE solution to low test scores was to simply close struggling public schools, replace them with charter schools and voilà.

“But now their own research says “no voilà.” Not to the charter part. Not to the school closing part. Not to any single part of their own backward agenda.

“Stanford-based CREDO is funded by the Hoover Institution, the Walton Foundation and testing giant Pearson, among others. They have close ties to the KIPP charter school network and privatization propaganda organizations like the Center for Education Reform.

“If THEY can’t find evidence to support these policies, no one can!

“After funding one of the largest studies of school closures ever conducted, looking at data from 26 states from 2003 to 2013, they could find zero support that closing struggling schools increases student test scores.

“The best they could do was find no evidence that it hurt.

“But this is because they defined student achievement solely by raw standardized scores. No other measure – not student grades, not graduation rates, attendance, support networks, community involvement, not even improvement on those same assessments – nothing else was even considered.

“Perhaps this is due to the plethora of studies showing that school closures negatively impact students in these ways. Closing schools crushes the entire community economically and socially. It affects students well beyond academic achievement.”

Mark Weber, aka the blogger Jersey Jazzman, is getting his doctorate in research and statistics while teaching in a public school in New Jersey. He is a sharp critic of shoddy research, especially when it comes to the fantastical claims made on behalf of charter schools.

In his latest post, he asks why CREDO, the charter-evaluating institute at Stanford University run by Macke Raymond, continues to use a metric that has never been validated.

Journalists who have little expertise in evaluating research claims eagerly take up the claim that School X produces an additional “number of days of learning.”

It happened most recently in Texas, where charter schools finally managed to match the test scores of public schools (you know, those “failing schools” for which charter schools are supposed to be the rescuers.)

He shows how the Texas study refers to “days of learning” and this is translated to infer “substantial” improvement. But, as JJ shows, the gains are actually very small, and might more accurately be described as “tiny.”

He writes:

Stanley Pogrow published a paper earlier this year that didn’t get much attention, and that’s too bad. Because he quite rightly points out that it’s much more credible to describe results like the ones reported here as “small” than as substantial. 0.03 standard deviations is tiny: plug it in here and you’ll see it translates into moving from the 50th to the 51st percentile (the most generous possible interpretation when converting to percentiles).

I have been working on something more formal than a blog post to delve into this issue. I’ve decided to publish an excerpt now because, frankly, I am tired of seeing “days of learning” conversions reported in the press and in research — both peer-reviewed and not — as if there was no debate about their validity.

The fact is that many people who know what they are talking about have a problem with how CREDO and others use “days of learning,” and it’s well past time that the researchers who make this conversion justify it.

Jersey Jazzman calls on Macke Raymond and the staff at CREDO to justify their use of this measurement. The “days of learning” inflates the actual changes, he says.

The concept of days of learning, he says, is based on the work of economist Erik Hanushek of the Hoover Institution (Stanford). It may be coincidental that he is Macke Raymond’s husband. They are both very smart people. I hope they respond to Mark Weber’s challenge.

We have had an interesting conversation on the blog about the value of AP courses. It was tied to Jay Mathews’ use of AP courses to rank the quality of high schools: the more AP courses, the better the high school.

I have made clear two points: One, when I was in high school in the 1950s, there were no AP courses, so I have had no experience with them; and my children graduated high school without ever taking an AP course. This, I have no personal experience with AP. Two, I strongly object to the College Board marketing AP courses on the spurious grounds that they promote equity and civil rights. The College Board is making millions by doing so. It should be as honest as those selling cars, beer, and cigarettes.

Our friend and reader “Democracy” posted this comment:

“It sure is interesting that the pro-AP commenters on this thread do not – and cannot – cite any solid evidence that Advanced Placement is any more than hype. To be sure – there are good AP teachers. Also to be sure – as a program – AP just is NOT what the proponents claim. Far from it.

Much of the AP hype that exist in the U.S. can be traced to Jay Mathews, who slobbers unabashedly over the “merits” of AP. Mathews not only misrepresents the research on AP but also publishes the yearly Challenge Index, which purportedly lists the “best” high schools in America based solely on how many AP tests they give.

Jay Mathews writes that one of the reasons his high school ““rankings have drawn such attention is that “only half of students who go to college get to take college-level courses in high school.” What he does NOT say is that another main reason his rankings draw scrutiny is that they are phony; they are without merit. Sadly, far too many parents, educators and School Board members have bought into the “challenge” index that Mathews sells.

The Challenge Index is – and always has been – a phony list that doesn’t do much except to laud AP courses and tests. The Index is based on Jay Mathews’ equally dubious assumption that AP is inherently “better” than other high school classes in which students are encouraged and taught to think critically.

As more students take AP –– many more are doing so…they’ve been told that it is “rigor” and it’s college-level –– more are failing the tests. In 2010, for example, 43 percent of AP test scores were a 1 or 2. The Kool-Aid drinkers argue that “even students who score poorly in A.P. were better off.” Mathews says this too. But it’s flat-out wrong.

The basis for their claim is a College Board-funded study in Texas. But a more robust study (Dougherty & Mellor, 2010) of AP course and test-takers found that “students – particularly low-income students and students of color – who failed an AP exam were no more likely to graduate from college than were students who did not take an AP exam.” Other studies that have tried to tease out the effects of AP while controlling for demographic variables find that “the impact of the AP program on various measures of college success was found to be negligible.”

More colleges and universities are either refusing to accept AP test scores for credit, or they are limiting credit awarded only for a score of 5 on an AP test. The reason is that they find most students awarded credit for AP courses are just generally not well-prepared.

Former Stanford School of Education Dean Deborah Stipek wrote in 2002 that AP courses were nothing more than “test preparation courses,” and they too often “contradict everything we know about engaging instruction.” The National Research Council, in a study of math and science AP courses and tests agreed, writing that “existing programs for advanced study [AP] are frequently inconsistent with the results of the research on cognition and learning.” And a four-year study at the University of California found that while AP is increasingly an “admissions criterion,” there is no evidence that the number of AP courses taken in high school has any relationship to performance in college.

In The ToolBox Revisited (2006) Clifford Adelman scolded those who had misrepresented his original ToolBox research by citing the importance of AP “in explaining bachelor’s degree completion. Adelman said, “To put it gently, this is a misreading.” Moreover, in statistically analyzing the factors contributing to the earning of a bachelor’s degree, Adelman found that Advanced Placement did not reach the “threshold level of significance.”

College Board executives often say that if high schools implement AP courses and encourage more students to take them, then (1) more students will be motivated to go to college and (2) high school graduation rates will increase. Researchers Kristin Klopfenstein and Kathleen Thomas “conclude that there is no evidence to back up these claims.”

In fact, the unintended consequences of pushing more AP may lead to just the reverse. As 2010 book on AP points out “research…suggests that many of the efforts to push the program into more schools — a push that has been financed with many millions in state and federal funds — may be paying for poorly-prepared students to fail courses they shouldn’t be taking in the first place…not only is money being misspent, but the push may be skewing the decisions of low-income high schools that make adjustments to bring the program in — while being unable to afford improvements in other programs.”

Do some students “benefit” from taking AP courses and tests? Sure. But, students who benefit the most are “students who are well-prepared to do college work and come from the socioeconomic groups that do the best in college are going to do well in college.”

So, why do students take AP? Because they’ve been told to. Because they’re “trying to look good” to colleges in the “increasingly high-stakes college admission process,” and because, increasingly, “high schools give extra weight to AP courses when calculating grade-point averages, so it can boost a student’s class rank.” It’s become a rather depraved stupid circle.

One student who got caught up in the AP hype cycle –– taking 3 AP courses as a junior and 5 as a senior –– and only got credit for one AP course in college, reflected on his AP experience. He said nothing about “rigor” or “trying to be educated” or the quality of instruction, but remarked “if i didn’t take AP classes, it’s likely I wouldn’t have gotten accepted into the college I’m attending next year…If your high school offers them, you pretty much need to take them if you want to get into a competitive school. Or else, the admissions board will be concerned that you didn’t take on a “rigorous course load.” AP is a scam to get money, but there’s no way around it. In my opinion, high schools should get rid of them…”

Jay Mathews calls AP tests “incorruptible.” But what do students actually learn from taking these “rigorous” AP tests?

For many, not much. One student remarked, after taking the World History AP test, “dear jesus… I had hoped to never see “DBQ” ever again, after AP world history… so much hate… so much hate.” And another added, “I was pretty fond of the DBQ’s, actually, because you didn’t really have to know anything about the subject, you could just make it all up after reading the documents.” Another AP student related how the “high achievers” in his school approached AP tests:

“The majority of high-achieving kids in my buddies’ and my AP classes couldn’t have given less of a crap. They showed up for most of the classes, sure, and they did their best to keep up with the grades because they didn’t want their GPAs to drop, but when it came time to take the tests, they drew pictures on the AP Calc, answered just ‘C’ on the AP World History, and would finish sections of the AP Chem in, like, 5 minutes. I had one buddy who took an hour-and-a-half bathroom break during World History. The cops were almost called. They thought he was missing.”

An AP reader (grader), one of those “experts” cited by Mathews notes this: “I read AP exams in the past. Most memorable was an exam book with $5 taped to the page inside and the essay just said ‘please, have mercy.’ But I also got an angry breakup letter, a drawing of some astronauts, all kinds of random stuff. I can’t really remember it all… I read so many essays in such compressed time periods that it all blurs together when I try to remember.”

Dartmouth no longer gives credit for AP test scores. It found that 90 percent of those who scored a 5 on the AP psychology test failed a Dartmouth Intro to Psych exam. A 2006 MIT faculty report noted “there is ‘a growing body of research’ that students who earn top AP scores and place out of institute introductory courses end up having ‘difficulty’ when taking the next course.” Mathews called this an isolated study. But two years prior, Harvard “conducted a study that found students who are allowed to skip introductory courses because they have passed a supposedly equivalent AP course do worse in subsequent courses than students who took the introductory courses at Harvard” (Seebach, 2004).

When Dartmouth announced its new AP policy, Mathews ranted and whined that “The Dartmouth College faculty, without considering any research, has voted to deny college credit for AP.” Yet it is Jay who continually ignores and diminishes research that shows that Advanced Placement is not what it is hyped up to be.

In his rant, Mathews again linked to a 2009 column of his extolling the virtues of the book “Do What Works” by Tom Luce and Lee Thompson. In “Do What Works,” Luce and Thompson accepted at face value the inaccuracies spewed in “A Nation At Risk” (the Sandia Report undermined virtually everything in it). They wrote that “accountability” systems should be based on rewards and punishments, and that such systems provide a “promising framework, and federal legislation [NCLB] promotes this approach.” Luce and Thompson called NCLB’s 100 percent proficiency requirement “bold and valuable” and “laudable” and “significant” and “clearly in sight.” Most knowledgeable people called it stupid and impossible.

Luce and Thompson wrote that “data clearly points to an effective means” to increase AP participation: “provide monetary rewards for students, teachers, and principals.”
This flies in the face of almost all contemporary research on motivation and learning.

As I’ve noted before, College Board funded research is more than simply suspect . The College Board continues to perpetrate the fraud that the SAT actually measures something important other than family income. It doesn’t. Shoe size would work just as well.

[For an enlightening read on the SAT, see: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2005/11/the-best-class-money-can-buy/4307/%5D

The College Board produced a “study” purporting to show that PSAT score predicted AP test scores. A seemingly innocuous statement, however, undermined its validity. The authors noted that “the students included in this study are of somewhat higher ability than…test-takers” in the population to which they generalized. That “somewhat higher ability” actually meant students in the sample were a full standard deviation above those 9th and 10th graders who took the PSAT. Even then, the basic conclusion of the “study” was that students who scored well on the PSAT had about a 50-50 chance of getting a “3”, the equivalent of a C- , on an AP test.

A new (2013) study from Stanford notes that “increasingly, universities seem
to be moving away from awarding credit for AP courses.” The study pointed out that “the impact of the AP program on various measures of college success was found to be negligible.” And it adds this: “definitive claims about the AP program and its impact on students and schools are difficult to substantiate.” But you wouldn’t know that by reading Jay Mathews or listening to the College Board, which derives more than half of its income from AP.

What the College Board doesn’t like to admit is that it sells “hundreds of thousands of student profiles to schools; they also offer software and consulting services that can be used to set crude wealth and test-score cutoffs, to target or eliminate students before they apply…That students are rejected on the basis of income is one of the most closely held secrets in admissions.” Clearly, College Board-produced AP courses and tests are not an “incorruptible standard.” Far from it.

The College Board routinely coughs up “research studies” to show that their test products are valid and reliable. The problem is that independent, peer-reviewed research doesn’t back them up. The SAT and PSAT are shams. Colleges often use PSAT scores as a basis for sending solicitation letters to prospective students. However, as a former admissions officer noted, “The overwhelming majority of students receiving these mailings will not be admitted in the end.” But the College Board rakes in cash from the tests, and colleges keep all that application money.

Some say – and sure does look that way – that the College Board, in essence, has turned the admissions process “into a profit-making opportunity.”

Mathews complains about colleges who no longer award AP credit. He says (wink) “Why drop credit for all AP subjects without any research?” Yet again and again he discounts all the research.

Let’s do a quick research review.

A 2002 National Research Council study of AP courses and tests was an intense two-year, 563-page detailed content analysis. The main study committee was comprised of 20 members who are not only experts in their fields but also top-notch researchers. Most also write on effective teaching and learning. Even more experts were involved on content panels for each discipline (biology, chemistry, physics, math), plus NRC staff. Mathews didn’t like the fact that the researchers concluded that AP courses and tests were a “mile wide and an inch deep” and they did not comport with well-established, research-based principles of learning. He dismissed that study as the cranky “opinion of a few college professors.”

The main finding of a 2004 Geiser and Santelices study was that “the best predictor of both first- and second-year college grades” is unweighted high school grade point average, and a high school grade point average “weighted with a full bonus point for AP…is invariably the worst predictor of college performance.” And yet – as commenters noted here – high schools add on the bonus. The state of Virginia requires it.

Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005) found that AP students “…generally no more likely than non-AP students to return to school for a second year or to have higher first semester grades.” Moreover, they write that “close inspection of the [College Board] studies cited reveals that the existing evidence regarding the benefits of AP experience is questionable,” and “AP courses are not a necessary component of a rigorous curriculum.”
In other words, there’s no need for the AP imprimatur to have thoughtful, inquiry-oriented learning.

Phillip Sadler said in 2009 that his research found “students who took and passed an A.P. science exam did about one-third of a letter grade better than their classmates with similar backgrounds who did not take an A.P. course.” Sadler also wrote in the 2010 book “AP: A Critical Examination” that “Students see AP courses on their transcripts as the ticket ensuring entry into the college of their choice,” yet, “there is a shortage of evidence about the efficacy, cost, and value of these programs.” Sadly, AP was written into No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top and it is very much a mainstay of corporate-style education “reform,” touted by the likes of ExxonMobil and the US Chamber of Commerce.

For years, Mathews misrepresented Clifford Adelman’s 1999 ToolBox. As Klopfenstein and Thomas wrote in 2005, “it is inappropriate to extrapolate about he effectiveness of the AP Program based on Adelman’s work alone.” In the 2006 ToolBox Revisited Adelman issued his own rebuke:

“With the exception of Klopfenstein and Thomas (2005), a spate of recent reports and commentaries on the Advanced Placement program claim that the original ToolBox demonstrated the unique power of AP course work in explaining bachelor’s degree completion. To put it gently, this is a misreading.”

The book, ‘AP A Critical Examination’ (2010) lays out the research that makes clear AP has become “the juggernaut of American high school education,” but “ the research evidence on its value is minimal.” It is the academic equivalent of DARE (Drug Abuse Resistance Education). DARE cranks out “research” that shows its “effectiveness,” yet those studies fail to withstand independent scrutiny. DARE operates in more than 80 percent of U.S. school districts, and it has received hundreds of millions of dollars in subsidies. However, the General Accounting Office found in 2003 that “the six long-term evaluations of the DARE elementary school curriculum that we reviewed found no significant differences in illicit drug use between students who received DARE in the fifth or sixth grade (the intervention group) and students who did not (the control group).”

AP may work well for some students, especially those who are already “college-bound to begin with” (Klopfenstein and Thomas, 2010). As Geiser (2007) notes, “systematic differences in student motivation, academic preparation, family background and high-school quality account for much of the observed difference in college outcomes between AP and non-AP students.” College Board-funded studies do not control well for these student characteristics (even the College Board concedes that “interest and motivation” are keys to “success in any course”). Klopfenstein and Thomas (2010) find that when these demographic characteristics are controlled for, the claims made for AP disappear.

I’m left wondering about this wonder school where “several hundred freshmen” take “both AP World and AP Psychology” and where by graduation, students routinely “knock out the first 30 ore more college credits.”

Where is this school, and what is its name? Jay Mathews will surely be interested.”

Voucher advocates have protected D.C.’s voucher program, known as “Opportunity Scholarships,” since it was created in 2004 despite lack of strong evidence for its benefits. Evaluations have found little or no improvement in test scores. This new evaluation shows negative effects on test scores in the elementary grades for those who enrolled in voucher schools. This echoes studies in Louisiana, Indiana, and Ohio, where voucher students lost ground as compared to their peers who were offered vouchers but stayed in public schools. In the past, the D.C. evaluation team was led by Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas, the high temple of school choice. The evaluation team for this new study was led by Mark Dynarski of Pemberton Research and a group of Westat researchers. Dynarski, you may recall, wrote a paper for the Brookings Institution calling attention to the negative impact of vouchers in Louisiana and Indiana. Previous evaluations showed higher graduation rates in voucher schools, but also–as is now customary in voucher schools–high rates of attrition. Of those who don’t drop out and return to public schools, the graduation rate is higher.

The Washington Post reports:

 

Students in the nation’s only federally funded school voucher initiative performed worse on standardized tests within a year after entering D.C. private schools than peers who did not participate, according to a new federal analysis that comes as President Trump is seeking to pour billions of dollars into expanding the private school scholarships nationwide.

The study, released Thursday by the Education Department’s research division, follows several other recent studies of state-funded vouchers in Louisiana, Indiana and Ohio that suggested negative effects on student achievement. Critics are seizing on this data as they try to counter Trump’s push to direct public dollars to private schools.

Vouchers, deeply controversial among supporters of public education, are direct government subsidies parents can use as scholarships for private schools. These payments can cover all or part of the annual tuition bills, depending on the school.

Education Secretary Betsy DeVos has long argued that vouchers help poor children escape from failing public schools. But Sen. Patty Murray (Wash.), the top Democrat on the Senate Education Committee, said that DeVos should heed the department’s Institute of Education Sciences. Given the new findings, Murray said, “it’s time for her to finally abandon her reckless plans to privatize public schools across the country.”

DeVos defended the D.C. program, saying it is part of an expansive school-choice market in the nation’s capital that includes a robust public charter school sector.

 

“When school choice policies are fully implemented, there should not be differences in achievement among the various types of schools,” she said in a statement. She added that the study found that parents “overwhelmingly support” the voucher program “and that, at the same time, these schools need to improve upon how they serve some of D.C.’s most vulnerable students.”

DeVos’ statement suggests that neither vouchers nor charters will ever outperform public schools. The goal of choice is choice, not better academic achievement or better education, not to “save poor kids from failing schools,” but to provide choice.

 

 

 

 

We can always count on researchers at the National Education Policy Center to review reports issued by think tanks and advocacy groups, some of which are the same.

This review analyzes claims about Milwaukee’s voucher schools. It is funny to describe them as successful, since Milwaukee is really the poster city for the failure of school choice. It has had vouchers and charters since 1990 and is near the very bottom of the NAEP tests for urban districts, barely ahead of sad Detroit, another city afflicted by charters. Both cities demonstrate that school choice does not fix the problems of urban education or urban students and families.

Find Documents:

Press Release: http://nepc.info/node/8612
NEPC Review: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-milwaukee-vouchers
Report Reviewed: http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/apples.pdf

Contact:
William J. Mathis: (802) 383-0058, wmathis@sover.net
Benjamin Shear: (303) 492-8583, benjamin.shear@colorado.edu

Learn More:

NEPC Resources on Accountability and Testing
NEPC Resources on Charter Schools
NEPC Resources on School Choice
NEPC Resources on Vouchers

BOULDER, CO (April 25, 2017) – A recent report from the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty attempts to compare student test score performance for the 2015-16 school year across Wisconsin’s public schools, charter schools, and private schools participating in one of the state’s voucher programs. Though it highlights important patterns in student test score performance, the report’s limited analyses fail to provide answers as to the relative effectiveness of school choice policies.

Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin was reviewed by Benjamin Shear of the University of Colorado Boulder.

Comparing a single year’s test scores across school sectors that serve different student populations is inherently problematic. One fundamental problem of isolating variations in scores that might be attributed to school differences is that the analyses must adequately control for dissimilar student characteristics among those enrolled in the different schools. The report uses linear regression models that use school-level characteristics to attempt to adjust for these differences and make what the authors claim are “apples to apples” comparisons. Based on these analyses, the report concludes that choice and charter schools in Wisconsin are more effective than traditional public schools.

Unfortunately, the limited nature of available data undermines any such causal conclusions. The inadequate and small number of school-level variables included in the regression models are not able to control for important confounding variables, most notably prior student achievement. Further, the use of aggregate percent-proficient metrics masks variation in performance across grade levels and makes the results sensitive to the (arbitrary) location of the proficiency cut scores. The report’s description of methods and results also includes some troubling inconsistencies. For example the report attempts to use a methodology known as “fixed effects” to analyze test score data in districts outside Milwaukee, but such a methodology is not possible with the data described in the report.

Thus, concludes Professor Shear, while the report does present important descriptive statistics about test score performance in Wisconsin, it wrongly claims to provide answers for those interested in determining which schools or school choice policies in Wisconsin are most effective.

Find the review by Benjamin Shear at:

http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-milwaukee-vouchers

Find Apples to Apples: The Definitive Look at School Test Scores in Milwaukee and Wisconsin, by Will Flanders, published by the Wisconsin Institute for Law and Liberty, at:

http://www.will-law.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/apples.pdf

One of the most reliable sources for analysis of education research is the National Education Policy Center.

The American Educational Research Association has just honored the NEPC director Kevin Welner for his role in leading the organization and the fine work that it does. If you recall, in addition to its regular reports on research and its reviews of think tank products, NEPC produces an annual Bunkum Award to the worst education research of the year.

BOULDER, CO (April 24, 2017) – NEPC Director Kevin Welner has been awarded the 2017 American Educational Research Association’s Outstanding Public Communication of Education Research Award. The award honors scholars exemplary in their capacity to communicate important education research to the public, including education communities. It recognizes a scholar who has demonstrated the capacity to deepen the public’s understanding and appreciation of the value of education research in civic decision-making.

Welner is a well-known interpreter of education research for general audiences. He appears regularly in the media, presents at public forums, and has authored numerous op-ed essays on education policy topics. His work has been showcased in the Washington Post “Answer Sheet” blog as well as on NPR’s “Here and Now.” In addition he was a keynote speaker at the White House Reach Higher conference “Beating the Odds: Successful Strategies from Schools & Youth Agencies that Build Ladders of Opportunity.”

After learning of his award, Welner commented, “The accomplishments this award recognizes rest on a foundation laid over the past two decades by many others. Alex Molnar’s work at the Center for Education Research Analysis and Innovation (University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee) and the Education Policy Studies Laboratory (Arizona State University); Jeanne Oakes’s work at the Institute for Democracy, Education, and Access (UCLA); and Ken Howe’s work at the Education and Public Interest Center (CU Boulder) have all helped make what I’m doing possible.” Welner went on to note that he works with talented colleagues on the NEPC staff and across the country. “The NEPC staff and NEPC’s 125 fellows make enormous contributions to our collective effort. Providing high-quality research and analysis in support of democratic deliberation about ​education policy is the mission of NEPC. This award tells me that we are on course.”

NEPC co-founder and Publications Director, Alex Molnar, praised Welner, commenting, “I can think of no one more deserving of this award. It is an honor to work with such a talented and ethical scholar whose enduring commitment to equity, social justice, and democratic decision-making enriches our scholarship, improves education practice, and strengthens our civic life.”

I am happy to add Kevin Welner to the honor roll of this blog, an award that is harder to achieve than the Academy Award or an Emmy.

Happily, the New York Times published an article saying that children need to move more. There is actual scientific research proving that immobility is not healthy. It is not healthy for adults but especially not for children, whose bodies are growing.

Some nations, like Finland, realized this a long time ago, so students have recess and outdoor play after every class. Recess! Time to go outside and run and play! The authorities think this is good for the children.

Back in the olden times, most American schools had recess a few times a day, at least once or twice, anyway.

But over the past two decades, the need to raise standardized test scores has dwarfed the importance of movement and play. Test scores are the purpose of schooling, right?

The article includes several references to Apps and videos so that teachers will know how children should move. That’s in case you don’t know or forgot children move.

The Finns have another approach. No videos. No Apps. They open the school doors and let the children go outside, where there is playground equipment. Without any direction, children move all by themselves.

The first Earth Day occurred in 1970, and it raised awareness of the importance of protecting the environment.

Now, more than ever, we must all stand together to support the environment, to defend science, to denounce fake theories, and to protect the earth.

The Trump administration thinks that climate change is a hoax. Trump’s budget makes deep cuts in the budget of the Environmental Protection Agency, which has enjoyed bipartisan support for almost 50 years.

Earth Day is April 22.

Join your friends and neighbors to speak up for clean air and clean water. Join with them to protest the budget cuts to scientific research in many other agencies.

Plan now for April 22.

Every year the National Education Policy Center announces the winner of its not-at-all coveted Bunkum Award for the shoddiest think tank report of the previous year.

This year’s winner is the Center for American Progress, for its report purporting to show that the Common Core standards raise the achievement of poor students.


Winner of NEPC’s 2016 Bunkum Award\

BOULDER, CO (PRWEB) FEBRUARY 23, 2017

The 89th Academy Awards will be celebrated this weekend, which means it’s also time to announce the winner of the 2016 National Education Policy Center Bunkum Award. We invite you to enjoy our 11th annual tongue-in-cheek “salute” to the shoddiest think tank report reviewed in 2016.

This year’s Bunkum winner is the Center for American Progress (CAP), for its report, Lessons From State Performance on NAEP: Why Some High-Poverty Students Score Better Than Others.

To learn who our editors judged to be Bunkum Award-worthy, be sure to watch the 2016 Bunkum Award video presentation, read the Bunkum-worthy report and the review, and learn about past Bunkum winners and the National Education Policy Center’s Think Twice Think Tank Review project:

http://nepc.colorado.edu/think-tank/bunkum-awards/2016

About the Think Twice Think Tank Review Project:

Many organizations publish reports they call research – but are they? These reports often are published without having first been reviewed by independent experts – the “peer review” process commonly used for academic research.

Even worse, many think tank reports subordinate research to the goal of making arguments for policies that reflect the ideology of the sponsoring organization.

Yet, while they may provide little or no value as research, advocacy reports can be very effective for a different purpose: they can influence policy because they are often aggressively promoted to the media and policymakers.

To help the public determine which elements of think tank reports are based on sound social science, NEPC’s “Think Twice” Think Tank Review Project has, every year since 2006, asked independent experts to assess strengths and weaknesses of reports published by think tanks.

Few of the think tank reports have been found by experts to be sound and useful; most, however, are found to have little, if any, scientific merit. At the end of each year NEPC editors sift through the reviewed reports to identify the worst offender. We then award the organization publishing that report NEPC’s Bunkum Award for shoddy research.

Find Documents:

Press Release: http://nepc.info/node/8504

NEPC Review: http://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/review-CAP-standards

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC) Think Twice Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org) provides the public, policymakers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected publications. The project is made possible in part by support provided by the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice: http://www.greatlakescenter.org

The National Education Policy Center (NEPC), housed at the University of Colorado Boulder School of Education, produces and disseminates high-quality, peer-reviewed research to inform education policy discussions. Visit us at: http://nepc.colorado.edu