Charter Schools, Surprise!

In Spending Blind: The Failure of Policy Planning in California Charter School Funding, Gordon Lafer -- a University of Oregon prof who also works for Oakland's The Public Interest -- finds "hundreds of millions of dollars ... spent each year without any meaningful strategy... on schools built in neighborhoods that have no need for additional classroom space, and which offer no improvement over the quality of education already available in nearby public schools. In the worst cases, public facilities funding has gone to schools that were found to have discriminatory enrollment policies and others that have engaged in unethical or corrupt practices."

A Strike Against Charter Schools

This argument is one that I've made several times and I'm glad that it's resonating in some places, though I certainly couldn't claim any credit.

"The Washington State Supreme Court has ruled that charter schools are unconstitutional, reported the Seattle Times. Conservatives push charter schools as part of their mission to dismantle public education.

It's not just conservatives, but it does seem to be dominated by that point of view.More specifically, it seems to be dominated by a desire to filter out "the bad students", a desire that at first seems like it might be reasonable but that falls apart when examined logically.  It also, strangely, seems to come flavored with class and socio-economic discrimination.

Late on Friday, the state Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that charter schools are unconstitutional because they aren’t “common schools” in that their boards are appointed, rather than elected, said Washington Chief Justice Barbara Madsen. Charter schools are publicly-funded but privately-owned.

This fact is key, in my mind ... how can it be justifiable to allow a private school to be paid out of public funds when the public is paying for a local school already? 

The ruling stems from a 2013 lawsuit in which a pro-public education coalition claimed that charter schools “improperly divert public school funds to private organizations that are not subject to local voter control.” Kim Mead of the Washington Education Association praised the court’s ruling. “The Supreme Court has affirmed what we’ve said all along — charter schools steal money from our existing classrooms, and voters have no say in how these charter schools spend taxpayer money,” said Mead.

Right. I can run for the local school board (and have served on it), I can ask to see their budgets and accounts (and have), I can know about and criticize their hiring practices and salaries and policies. I can't do any of that for the local Catholic school, or any of the local private schools. If taxpayer money is being REQUIRED of me for tuition payment, then I have the right to have a say in how it's spent. Charter schools do not have to tell me any of that.

The ruling is a great victory in the fight against conservative privatization and the attack against public education. Private companies should not be allowed to use taxpayer money to run private, issued based, schools in a pursuit of profit.

The only thing a charter school can offer that public schools don't is the removal of all weak students from nearby classrooms.

source.

The only voucher system I have ever supported is one in which students are allowed to choose a different PUBLIC SCHOOL than the one in their neighborhood. Public money should stay in the public schools.

Just as important, charter schools don't actually offer anything that the local public school doesn't.  The pro-charter reformers always tout low test scores as a reason to allow the best students to go somewhere else, but that's a straw-man argument.

Those top students aren't being forced to take remedial classes, or being ignored and forced into doing poorly because other kids in that same school are doing poorly. Those top kids are taking challenging classes in the public school. They're taking AP courses, college level courses (and receiving college credits from the University of Vermont system), and online courses through UVM and VHS. They're doing well on the SAT, ACT, and others. They're going to Dartmouth and the Ivies, state colleges and Universities. They're not being held back by their peers.

The only thing a charter school can offer that we can't is the removal of all weak students from other classrooms. That's not appropriate for a public school system.

• Charters don't offer anything better than we do. 
• Charters don't improve students; they improve averages. 
• Charters don't improve school offerings; they remove the very students that allow us to offer AP calculus.
• Charters don't help students; they offer the exact same courses to the same kids that I would.
• Charters don't have better teachers, either. They have younger teachers, or those who weren't good enough to get a job in the public school, or those who weren't certified to teach in public school (and that's a pretty low hurdle), or those who want to work many more hours for less pay.

AP Scores

It's a charter school with an "open enrollment". Color me suspicious, but I don't see how you get these kinds of results from a random sampling of American students.  There has to be some selection bias here, don't you think?

Charter Schools aren't necessary

Wait, I know this.
We'll make another charter school!

From NYC Educator: Charter School closes and leaves parents and students in a pinch.

On the second to last day of school, the principal at my school got a phone call from a parent. His daughter's charter school was being closed, and he'd received a letter in the mail saying that my school was to be his daughter's new school. Could he, the father asked, come by to see the school and meet the principal?

And there you have it.  The primary difference between a public school and a charter school. When the charter school doesn't make enough money to satisfy its backers or simply becomes less exciting to run than its founders thought it would be back in the halcyon days of three years ago, it quits and closes up shop. That's how you tell the difference between involved and committed, between "nice to have if everything is perfect" and "necessary to the community".

• Can't make those vaunted teachers work harder for less?
• Can't keep pretending that your off-the-cuff charter was off-the-charts good?
• Your students didn't buy into your KIPP-like gulag?
• Are your test scores comparisons leaving you lacking?
• Your admissions filtering system didn't work well enough?
• The principal and the principal owners aren't each making $200K per year?

That's okay. You can quit and someone else will pick up the pieces. No skin off your back.

It wasn't about the students after all, was it?

If this is Singapore Math, I want nothing to do with it.

There is a teacher in trouble for assigning violent math problems.

A Washington, D.C., charter school teacher has been fired after it was discovered the teacher had assigned third-grade students a number of math problems framed around violent and illegal scenarios.

Hummm. Not a peep from the evil teachers' union. Maybe you can fire bad teachers after all. Maybe, just maybe, you need a reason to fire bad teachers ... and given a good reason, the NEA will stay out of it. Oh, my bad, this is a charter school. The union and all those pesky certification requirements are not welcome.

At first, the unnamed teacher at the Trinidad Center City School claimed he had been ordered to assign the problems, but it was quickly discovered that the teacher had actually downloaded them from a free homeschooling website called "HomeschoolingParadise.com."

Ordered to use those problems ... doubtful. I've copied a few below. I'm not sure I'd give them to a third grader.  They are stupid and unrealistic while pretending to be "engaging". The violence is somewhat of a problem but then I grew up with Tom and Jerry and Wile E. Coyote so cartoon violence doesn't bother me, but I can see how today's admin, parents and students might be uncomfortable. Are they Racist? Absolutely.

Even more baffling, other parents at the school say the teacher in question is a minister.

I'd be curious if the "minister" was a real one or just someone who bought a one-week course and a semi-fake diploma. I think this is a red herring. Being a minister doesn't immunize you from stupidity or racist assholishness but it isn't pertinent to this discussion.

Anyway, I'm interested in the questions. I followed the link to Homeschooling Paradise and then chose a set of free printable math worksheets for 3rd grade. At random, I chose this one.

Math Problem 9
A swarm of bloodsucking flies descended upon Egypt. King Tut and King Rehotep leapt onto their chariots and began to catch the flies with their long sticky tongues. By the time they were finished, King Tut had swallowed 7 times as many flies as King Rehotep. If King Rehotep caught 251 flies, how many delicious flies did King Tut swallow?

Really? King Rehotep? Catching flies with their "long, sticky tongues"? I'll bet this question satisfies the Science and History requirements, too ... you little &^%(. 

And this teacher went and downloaded this because ... why?  Was this material superior to what he already had? Wait ... this is a Washington DC Charter School teacher? 

Math Problem 16
My sister greedily lapped up 483 liters of maggot juice from a saucer. I slurped up 5 times as much creamy maggot juice as she. How much delightfully delicious maggot juice did we drink altogether?

Sure, that's a RealWorld problem. My mass is 100kg. So this "sister" lapped up nearly five times my weight in liquid and "I" lapped up five times as much, from a saucer remember; that's equal to the weight of my Ford Ranger pickup truck.

I'm done with that idiot teacher. Send him on his way - he definitely used some really bad materials and he has the intelligence and judgement of a rotten tomato. I will try to ignore the whole "Charter Schools are automatically better than public schools thing" - that's another piece.

But homeschooling parents don't deserve this trash either and this website must be serving someone. It's no wonder that so many homeschoolers take math classes at the high school if this is the kind of educational material they and their parents get to choose from.

Pretty amazing stuff. I tried out the mass, volume and time.

Question 1
Last night, a 2950 g beaver entered Bob's house and put its wet paw into a hole in a wall socket. The poor beaver died of electrocution. Bob was delighted. He cut out 850 g of the dead beaver and made beaver pies with it. He divided the remaining dead body into 3 equal pieces and gave them to Alan, Charles and Mei Ling. What was the mass of the portion Charles received?

That seems a bit much. Let's try some intended for the second grader in your homeschool paradise.

Free Elementary Math Worksheets: Homeschool Math Practice Question 19
Sadistic Serial Killer Suppiah crept into a hospital brandishing a machete. He went on a killing spree and murdered 634 doctors, nurses and patients. He slashed 457 doctors to death. If he butchered 151 more nurses than doctors, how many poor nurses did he kill?

Well, that's a relief; I thought they'd have something unpleasant.  I'm more offended that this problem is unsolvable as written. The answer is supposed to be 164, you see.

"If your child got all correct, she must be a math whiz. If she didn't, all she needs is a bit more math practice. That's what we are here for! Please bookmark our Home Page and come back for more Singapore Math Worksheets."

Um, No.

Lots of Money != Knowledge of Education

Your savior is a high-school dropout
funded by a bunch of companies
wanting to make a buck or billion.
Makes you feel good, doesn't it?.

Rick Hess:

Andre Agassi, the former tennis champ and high school dropout, and Canyon Capital Realty Advisors, recently announced the creation of a real estate fund that will spend $500 million to capitalize on and promote the movement for U.S. charter schools. The Canyon-Agassi Charter School Facilities Fund plans to develop more than 75 urban campuses with space for about 40,000 students over three to four years, according to a statement from Canyon Capital and Agassi Ventures LLC. The partners already have drawn investments from Citigroup, Intel, and the Ewing Marion Kauffman Foundation.

So we have Agassi's money being dumped into charters. Impressive on first glance, but you have to wonder at the motives. Real estate companies don't usually give away things for free. Read a little closer and you find that the beneficiaries begin with KIPP, showing once again that KIPP can't operate like any public or private school in that it needs to have "a state‐of‐the‐art facility at an affordable lease rate." So he'll get his money back and he'll be happy to "help charter school operators obtain permanent financing to purchase their properties using New Market Tax Credits, tax‐exempt bond offerings or funding from the U.S. Treasury’s Community Development Financial Institutions Fund." Gotta love the sanctimonious charters playing high and holy, "We don't siphon off the public like those evil public schools do."

So Agassi's in it for the money, not altruism. Fair enough. KIPP gets cheap, brand-new buildings. Okay. At least they're not parasites on the public school system, taking half a current school building for nothing.

But then I laughed.

I had the opportunity to meet Agassi a few months back in Vegas and was terrifically impressed. I found him smart, thoughtful, humble, and interested in listening; in truth, I found him a whole lot more impressive than any number of education officials, experts, consultants, and professors that I've encountered. Having a smart, wildly successful, internationally regarded tennis champ pouring his passion into launching great schools would seem a terrific thing--and a uniquely American way to tap our strengths and resources.

Impressive is good.  Andre is a great player, married to a great player. Has he ever taught anyone other than his own kid?  Most experts have never been in a classroom.  That's why they have the time to talk to Rick.

Anyway, Let's play Mad Libs ... "Having a smart, wildly successful, internationally regarded ___________ pouring his passion into launching great schools ...."

• would "real estate agent" fit? 
• "high school dropout" ?
• "carpet-bagger" ?
• "profiteer" ?
• "porno actor" (pouring his passion into education ... Sorry, couldn't help it.)  
•  I know! I know! I've got it ... "internationally regarded software company founder" !

Here we go again, me repeating myself. Just because you made a lot of money doesn't mean you know what's good for education. Especially if, like Agassi and Gates, you never completed your own.

Just sayin'.

Licensing and Voucher Schools

These two sentences jumped out at me.

The violations, which mostly involved instructors teaching the wrong subject or grade level, touched as many as 57,000 students in some 300 public school districts and charter schools across Minnesota, records show. Some years, records show, more than half the classes at some charter schools were taught by unlicensed or improperly licensed teachers.

Those who can, cheat.

Thanks for the Help

Gee, thanks Bill.

Joanne Barkan, writing in Dissent, argues that three big nonprofit foundations (the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, the Eli and Edythe Broad Foundation, and the Walton Family Foundation), working together, exert a “decisive influence” on public-school education. ”Whatever nuances differentiate the motivations of the Big Three, their market-based goals for overhauling public education coincide: choice, competition, deregulation, accountability, and data-based decision-making,” she writes.(h/t to the Freakonomics blog, Dubner and Leavitt.)

Unfortunately, this is not just about Bill, Eli and Sam wasting their own money.  It's about three foundations that are pushing an anti-public school agenda that aims to destroy the teachers' union and reduce the educational possibilities for the public. It's about the capitalization of an "industry" at all costs, using tactics that sound good on the face, but are mainly aimed at money.

But, Barkan warns, these market-based reforms are hardly a panacea: “[E]vidence is mounting that the reforms are not working. Stanford University’s 2009 study of charter schools—the most comprehensive ever done—concluded that 83 percent of them perform either worse or no better than traditional public schools; a 2010 Vanderbilt University study showed definitively that merit pay for teachers does not produce higher test scores for students; a National Research Council report confirmed multiple studies that show standardized test scores do not measure student learning adequately. Gates and Broad helped to shape and fund two of the nation’s most extensive and aggressive school reform programs—in Chicago and New York City—but neither has produced credible improvement in student performance after years of experimentation.”

Misguided reform coupled with tragically misguided legislation has left us with the same problems we had before coupled with many new ones.

• We have public schools in which the teachers at the top of their payscale (e.g., here in Vermont) with all the bells and whistles, degrees and seniority, still are earning less than the state median wage. 
• You have charter schools opening up on the cheap, closing down significant public options, simply so that Green Dot and other groups can make a profit. The principal of such can look super while pulling in $200k to $500k but apparently a teacher making more than $30k is the AntiChrist.
• You have organizations like Teach for America, set up solely to destroy teachers who want to make a career of teaching. How? By making it harder for serious candidates to get into places to establish themselves.  Why would a school want a career teacher when it can hire a fancy thoroughbred that will seem flashy and pretty and fast, but ultimately flame out in two years? Instant gratification writ cynical.
• You have reforms that are directly counter-productive, that "everyone knew were going to revolutionize education" but that really wound up wasting a significant portion of that budget that the pro-voucher, pro-private school advocates were pointing to as a problem in the public schools.
• Think: Small Schools Initiative. (Break big schools into smaller ones and then bitch that the smaller ones don't have economy of scale.)
• Think: Technology Uber Alles. Microsoft is the Education King! Every kid should have a laptop! Every kid should have a smartphone! iPod! iPad! Netbook!
• Think: Parochial, Private, Charter, KIPP! Profit is better.
• Think: Merit Pay!
• Testing, testing, testing. Test them in October, release the scores in May. And I'm supposed to do what in the last six weeks of school to change my curriculum to help this kid?

Like I said, Thanks. Now would you all please go somewhere and stop helping?

One-percent of a Standard Deviation

... is quite a bit smaller than a one-percent increase. In fact, 1% of a standard deviation is pretty damned small. It seems somebody needs a Statistics course:

Public schools located near private schools increased reading and math scores more than public schools that had little competition.

Huge, I tells ya.

For every 1.1 miles closer to the nearest private school, public school math and reading performance increases by 1.5 percent of a standard deviation in the first year following the announcement of the scholarship program. Likewise, having 12 additional private schools nearby boosts public school test scores by almost 3 percent of a standard deviation. The presence of two additional types of private schools nearby raises test scores by about 2 percent of a standard deviation. Finally, an increase of one standard deviation in the concentration of private schools nearby is associated with an increase of about 1 percent of a standard deviation in test scores.

Test scores rose more for elementary and middle schools than for high schools, perhaps because the scholarship made K-8 private schools affordable but didn’t cover as much of the tuition at private high schools.

Hummmm ...

Did the scores of the private schools drop at the same time as the public school rose?  If the public school scores rose, was it because the parents of weaker kids took the money and ran? Was it because Florida is investing heavily in on-line learning and told certain kids that their behavior was unacceptable IN school so they had to switch to the private school or take courses online? We'll never know but this is an equally valid interpretation of the facts as presented.

I find the "1.5 percent of SD per mile" statistic interesting but pretty meaningless. That's not a standard deviation, it's one-one hundredth of a standard deviation. That's the equivalent of SAT scores rising 1 point. Read the collegeboard's take on significance.

Just because you can see something in your educational microscope doesn't mean there's anything worth looking at.
The quote also says that this happens only in the first year following the announcement. So the average SAT scores went up about 1 pt.
Once.

Here are Florida's average SAT scores for the last couple years. Notice the yearly fluctuations larger than that touted by the article. Note, the standard deviation for SAT scores is typically 100 - 110 points. So 1.5% of a standard deviation would be 1.5 points.

The timeline is also interesting. The idea that the mere announcement of a private school makes a difference in the first year (but only in the first year) indicates that it's got nothing to do with the education provided since it takes some time for a kid to get an education. Statistically insignificant.

I'd be looking for information on who paid for this study and who has the most to gain by falsely trumpeting miniscule gains and falsely attributing them to the glorious private schools.

Vouchers again

Voucher results mixed
Overall, public-school students did better on state tests
By Jennifer Smith Richards / Columbus (OH) Dispatch

On the whole, Ohio students who used tax-funded vouchers to attend private schools last school year did no better on state tests than public-school students.

One commenter wrote:
"That's not the issue, is it? What we want to know is whether private school students did better than they would have in a public school. That's the issue. The only way you can come close to answering that question is with random samples and control groups--neither of which were used here."

Very true. In fact, random samples and control groups would tend to eliminate the selection bias inherent in the voucher system and make the comparisons even worse for the voucher schools. Add to that a size bias - the small voucher school that randomly does well is used as a club over the heads of the public school.  At the same time, the small voucher school that randomly does poorly is ignored .... until next year's random increase means that you can trumpet "Its huge improvement is the result of vouchers."

When the one with all the advantages doesn't win,
there is usually a reason.

Fundamentally, public schools should be the recipients of public school money. They are run by the town for the benefit of its citizens, are controlled by a School Board elected by the citizens, use a budget that is voted on by its citizens, and by and large are staffed by its citizens. Accountability is to the town.  At least in Vermont.

Private schools are not accountable to the town, do not have to make their finances public, do not have to answer to the taxpayers, and are run for the benefit of the school. Private and charter schools do not have to follow federal mandates for the education of all students, can dismiss or expel students for disciplinary or educational reasons without refunding the town, and can send kids back to the public school if their academic performance isn't up to par. Private schools can skim the best students off the top, "recruit" from other districts, include I20 students rather than IEPs or 504s, offer "scholarships," and do many other things to "win."

What's the real issue? If the charter and private schools cannot out-do the public schools despite their very real head start, we shouldn't be blaming the public schools.

Speaking of New Orleans and the Miracle Hurricane

Surrounded by gutted homes in the Lower 9th Ward, Sen. John McCain promised that the federal government won't be so slow after the next big storm. The presumptive Republican presidential nominee toured a residential street with Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, before addressing about 50 activists, journalists and Hurricane Katrina survivors in front of a church. Ironic, huh?(from 2008.)

To hear the charteristas tell it, Hurricane Katrina was the best thing that ever happened to New Orleans schoolkids.  Now they've got charter schools and all that creamy goodness. If one were waxing cynical, one might rename Katrina as "The Divine Wind", the kamikaze that overwhelmed the school system down there.

But then, if you actually go there and look around, the picture is not so rosy. Consider this on Women's eNews (8/29/10) by Kimberly Seals Allers,

When a few of the local community leaders came to address us, what they had to say about the Lower Ninth Ward was appalling but not surprising. They said that of the $90 million that the Federal Emergency Management Agency allocated to rebuilding the city, the Lower Ninth Ward has not received any money. Nobody has been told a definitive answer as to why.

They said the Lower Ninth Ward only has one working school for kindergarten through 12th grade. The school has 750 students and a 450-student-long waiting list. There are no hospitals in the area and God help you if you need emergency care and have to travel across the bridge and across town to get it. Many displaced residents, they added, would love to return to the area, but they can't because there are no schools and no real health care options for the elderly. The local community leaders expressed their outrage that tour companies bring busloads of people through the Lower Ninth Ward everyday to gawk at their despair, yet never share any of their profits or stop to support local businesses.

Kinda pisses you off, don't it? Tourists? Sure! Come and gawk at the poor people! One school that can't fit all the students? Who cares? 450 are on a waitlist. That's nearly 40% of the kids wanting an education from that school who are left out in the cold. Exactly what are they doing in the meantime? Charter Schools are the answer to all your education woes unless you're inconvenient, I guess.

LA should have rebuilt the public schools. They won't turn kids away.

Charter Bashing ... by mentioning the truth?

hmmmm.

The whole idea of a charter school is that you take off the blinders and the restrictions and let them thrive.  Giving them freedom from "Big Government" and all those repressive regulations, as the thinking goes, means that they can succeed in educating all students much better than the public schools.  The proof usually includes whichever KIPP school is doing well that year (ignoring those that are embroiled in a lawsuit, not making sufficient progress, etc.) and, of course, New Orleans which was liberated by Katrina. (or something like that.)

Then you read:

One of the most exhaustive studies of charter performance, from Stanford University’s Center for Research on Education Outcomes, found 37 percent of charter schools “deliver learning results that are significantly worse than their students would have realized had they remained in traditional public schools.” About half produced similar outcomes to public schools, with just 17 percent outperforming public schools (Extra!, 8/09).

If all charter schools have the advantage of running free, why aren't all of them out-performing public schools? If they can choose their students, skim off and keep the best performers and eliminate the troublemakers, teach in any way they choose, shouldn't the standard be "If a charter school doesn't beat the public school, it will be immediately closed?" 

RTTT contenders hoist with their own petard

In his article, Why I'm Feeling Sorry for Sec. Duncan, Rick Hess laid out a few of the problems with the process.

I'm going to snip some.

program design was not equal to the weight it was being asked to bear (what with its murky criteria for judge selection, ambiguous scoring system, focus on promises and grant-writing rather than accomplishment, and the remarkable emphasis that Secretary Duncan placed on union "buy-in" in round one).

This led to "bizarre round two RTT results" and Duncan could "take the scores at face value or he could override them." There were conflicting results when it came to ranking state data systems, clarity and strength of charter laws, teacher furlough policy, with the RTTT "winners" running close to last nationally.

Then there's New Jersey. They "finished out of the money by three points due to [paperwork mistake] and [being] savaged by a reviewer who repeatedly fixated on NJEA opposition." That's funny. Hidebound bureaucratic nit-picking. Who'd a thunk it?

Gov. Christie's take? "The first part of it is the mistake of putting the wrong piece of paper in," he said. "But the second part is, does anybody in Washington, D.C. have a lick of common sense? Pick up the phone and ask us for the number."  Oh, Governor.  I feel your pain. Do you feel mine?

"Louisiana and Colorado had set the standard when it came to walking the walk on teacher quality: 'Unlike top contenders Colorado and Louisiana, California did not pass statewide legislation that would mandate a complete redesign of teacher evaluation systems.'" The judges' verdict? Two reviewers trashed Colorado on teacher quality. Whoops. And less than a month ago, Duncan described Louisiana as "leading the way" with data systems that monitor teacher preparation programs and student performance. Double whoops.

Other words and phrases: "furious" "they've been steamrolled" "winners made empty promises" "played fast-and-loose with the facts." "can't fathom how the judges made their determinations."

"Duncan strategically skipped over Hawaii's current lack of a permanent state chief, a reliable statewide data system, or any substantial record of accomplishment on teacher quality--and the fact that a new governor will take office in January."

Isn't that ironic? There seems to be a problem with evaluations of states and their worthiness for federal money.

States that overhauled their systems (for the good? No one knows.) lost out to other states that didn't. In the graphic at right, you can see a few of these reforms. Were any of them successful? We don't really know. In education, success is measured in longer terms than one or two years. There isn't a good way to know jack diddly squat about a reform until the dust has had time to settle. Merit pay, charter schools, new standards like Common Core (which some are already decrying before they've even been implemented) - will they work?

"Who knows? Who cares? They're not OUR kids. Our kids go to private school."

One of the big criticisms is that the states haven't developed an evaluation system for teachers and that teachers should be happy to accept merit pay and bet as much as $10,000 on the results of state tests that kids don't really care about. How's the state evaluation system working?

The same people are now complaining that the "program design was not equal to the task", "murky criteria", "ambiguous scoring system," "focus on promises and grant-writing rather than accomplishment." Sounds familiar, doesn't it?

It's similar to the way a lot of administrators reach conclusions about the worthiness of faculty. Ambiguous, murky criteria. Skip over important details. Fixate on unimportant ones. Lacking common sense. Poor evaluation design. But I'm supposed to wager my paycheck on that?

States are complaining that judges make mistakes, unfairly fixate on meaningless stats, slam imperfect paperwork, ignore their own metrics, and give money to the wrong people by any measurement. Duncan could "take the results at face value or override them?" Based on what -- his vast experience as a teacher? Minutes or hours?

There's so much irony here, I could just ... , well ... , hoist.

Changing the Subject. Charter Schools

To qualify for federal school improvement funds, a high-poverty Vermont school had to replace its hard-working principal, reports Michael Winerip in the New York Times. The story blames African refugee students who speak little English for the school’s low scores. Winerip writes that 37 of 39 fifth graders are refugees or disabled, although only 22 percent of students are black.

Let me mention a few facts about Vermont. First, the stress that "only 22 percent of students are black" is blatantly weird here. Realize that this is probably the whitest state in the nation ... less than 2% of the population of Vermont is minority of ANY type, including the adopted kids. Second, when you have 37 of 39 students as refugees or disabled, then you have a school that looks nothing like the surroundings. Firing the principal is stupid because you have no basis for saying she is doing a poor job. NECAP testing compares this year's cohort against last year's cohort with the expectation that both are groups who have gone through your system. The students didn't go to school here until the beginning of this year, who are refugees from another country -- well, you figure it out.

The district’s turnaround plan was to convert the school to an arts magnet, thereby attracting more middle-income students, reports the Burlington Free Press. Changing the demographics may raise overall test scores, Klein writes, but it does nothing to improve the reading, writing and math abilities of the school’s low-income students.

So here's the real whopper. They are changing to a charter/magnet school so they can attract different kids, presumably smarter and higher-scoring. Just like KIPP. Just like every charter operation in the country. Changing the subject, changing the students, changing the scores.

You don't improve the teaching, you "improve the student body" by adding more students who raise the scores and remove those students who would lower the average -- like immigrants who want to learn English, not Arts.

That's how you "improve" a school.
That's why this whole voucher / charter / choice thing "works."
And that's why it sucks.

Joanne Jacobs asks, but can they read? The answer is "yes," but "they" have changed.

There won't BE many low-scoring, low-income students. Low-income parents want their kids in an academic program, not an Arts magnet. Same for refugee parents. and remember we are talking about a class of 39 fifth graders here. 37 of those were refugee or SpecEd. The whole group will transfer out, with a possible exception of a SpecEd kid who is big into Arts.

In fact, you will automatically have an increase next year because you will be testing a NEW group of kids - all from the area and totally different from this year's kids who didn't even speak English.

More Charter School Goodness

again, via Joanne: What Parents want
quoting the Ph. Daily News:

Parents like charter schools. They really like them. A whopping 90 percent of parents who had chosen charter schools for their children – and an even higher 92 percent of Catholic school parents – approve of the choices they made.

This is perhaps the silliest thing I've read in a while. This surprises anyone? Charter schools and Catholic schools are not the default. You have to go out of your way to get your kid into them. You have to pay for Catholic schools. A parent of a charter school kid is automatically in favor of what they're doing - otherwise he wouldn't BE a charter parent, would he? And yet, only 90% of them are happy with what they've gone to great lengths to get?

Think about that for a minute.

Far more enlightening would have been the percentage of ALL parents who liked charter schools ... but that wouldn't distort the data enough, would it? Selection bias, anyone?

Parents don’t like district public schools. They really don’t like them. In the Pew poll, 58 percent of parents with kids in district schools said the overall job they were doing was “only fair” or poor. Nearly two-thirds of district school parents – 63 percent – said they had considered leaving the district for charter or parochial schools.

Nearly 95% had dreams of being a fireman, too. Anyway. So ... 63% considered leaving and decided not to. They were satisfied with what they got. The other 37% of the parents didn't even consider it an option. Therefore 100% of the parents of public school kids were satisfied with their choice. See what happens when you play with statistics?

Parents want safety and discipline in school. They really want it. Parents in focus groups rarely mentioned academics unless they were prompted to do so. Their positive evaluations of charter and Catholic schools – and their highly negative assessment of district schools – were based mostly on the perceived availability of safety, discipline and a caring environment.

Show me a parent who doesn't want safety and discipline. Go ahead, I'll wait.

This is an interesting thing. The only thing that anyone could point to in favor of the charter schools was "a PERCEIVED availability of safety, discipline and a caring environment." Tell me why charters are better at education, again?

Parents want choices. They really want them. Most parents ( 72 percent) said they don’t have enough choices in schools, and increasing parental choice is the best way to improve education.

Another ridiculous question, bent and distorted in the retelling. "Do you want a choice of schools?" What person says, "No"? Someone supremely satiastfied with what the schools are doing or one who is decidedly against vouchers - 28% of the folks. The 72% want choices - not necessarily Catholic schools, or vouchers, or charter schools. Lots of people want to go to a different public school. They're tired of the city shifting districts around or sending kids further afield than the local school. They want to go to a certain public school.

"and increasing parental choice is the best way to improve education." That's just the Daily News slant on things. They had to throw that in there to make themselves feel good.

UPDATE: Just skimmed the Pew study, executive summary..

"Seventy-two percent of those polled say that parents in the city do not have enough good choices when it comes to picking a school." That includes those precious charter schools and Catholic schools.

and remember that damning "58% of parents with kids in district schools said the overall job they were doing was “only fair” or poor."?

What the Pew study actually said was:
"While only 40 percent of parents with children in district-run schools think the public school system as a whole is doing a good or excellent job, 71 percent judge their own children’s schools to be good or excellent."

Funny how the Daily News cherry-picked that one out, huh?

Charter Schools - a random thought.

According to Reason TV,

Hurricane Katrina destroyed one of the worst public school systems in the U.S., says Reason TV. New Orleans started fresh with a system based on choice. Now, “60% of New Orleans students currently attend charter schools, test scores are up, and talented and passionate educators from around the country are flocking to New Orleans to be a part of the education revolution.”

Here's my random thought of the day.

What if we take the premise as true for a moment, that the hurricane destroyed one of the worst public school systems in the U.S., and posit a different step two. What if New Orleans had started fresh ... with a new public school system?

The scores would be even better and lots of talented professionals would be flocking to New Orleans to be a part of the education revolution.

The Charter Pendulum does a double-take.

One way from Pittsburgh, via Schools Matter:

Among charter school students, about 20 percent didn't meet basic academic standards in reading and math, compared with about 12 percent of district students, according to 2009 Pennsylvania System of Student Assessment test results ....
About 75 percent of Pennsylvania public school students scored advanced or proficient in reading and math, compared with about 59 percent of charter school students ...

and then back the other way from Reason TV, via Joanne Jacobs, :

Hurricane Katrina destroyed one of the worst public school systems in the U.S., says Reason TV. New Orleans started fresh with a system based on choice. Now, “60% of New Orleans students currently attend charter schools, test scores are up, and talented and passionate educators from around the country are flocking to New Orleans to be a part of the education revolution.”

all in the same day.

Makes you wonder how long it will take for them to notice that the gains by KIPP and other charters have more to do with selected students than with superior funding methods? That charter schools don't have the same SpecEd requirements? That charter and private schools are relieved of many regulations and have the flexibility of getting rid of problem students? (defined as students who cause trouble, or in the case of KIPP, don't want to work too hard or for 60 hours a week.)

And yes, it is still despicable to say that Katrina had a silver lining in that it "improved the public school system." Even if that caveat were true, and it's not, the statement assumes that death and massive destruction has a good side.

Tough Times for Unemployed Teachers - or not.

According to the NYTimes: Teachers Facing Weakest Market in Years, it's tough to get a job because of all the other teachers out looking. Of course, this IS Westchester County, Long Island so it's not surprising that there are 3000 applicants for 8 jobs.

With all these teachers available, I wonder about the other complaint floating around the blogosphere: that of unavailable people to fit into charter school jobs. Charter schools were complaining to the Wall Street Journal about the oh-so-onerous restrictions on hiring non-teachers that I wrote about the other day. Either they can't find SchoolSpring.com or are simply offering too little money for too much work. Gotta keep up the salaries of the administration - inexperienced teaching at any cost.

Read More:

Letters to the Editor, vol1 i2: Certification and the Alternate Track

A Letter to WSJ complained about charter schools not being allowed to hire non-teachers to teach. He felt that people switching over from pretty much any career would be acceptable as teachers - retirees, engineers, scientists, artists.

I doubt that a long career designing automobile engine parts for Ford, for example, would be good training for an algebra teacher. Oh, that person would have lots of "real-world" knowledge but absolutely no idea of how to deal with a classroom full of teenagers. There has to be some training, some mentoring. There also has to be a vetting process, some way to determine whether the prospect is actually knowledgeable about the subject and able to teach it to kids and I'm not talking about a 30 minute interview with my principal.

If some wunderkind exists, he can get into teaching pretty easily. How? Every state has some form of "peer review" process in which a differently trained person with the desire to become a teacher can submit a portfolio demonstrating knowledge and ability in the various aspects of being a teacher. I did it this way - 100ish pages of descriptions, letters, transcripts, explanations and other evidence. Presto! Four weeks later, I had a license.

Some states are more difficult about it. Teach for America is much easier about it. Results vary, but there has to be some sort of hurdle, else you wind up with too many dilettante teachers who crap out in the first month and leave the students hanging. I've seen this kind of thing happen all too often in private schools (because they don't have to hire credentialed teachers) - incoming genius ready to save the world and show his incredible talents to the poor downtrodden students who had been, until his arrival, horribly confused and mistreated by the "lifers." The office pool was always won by Halloween.

Why do we allow liberals to waste such valuable talent? Because, by and large, it doesn't exist. There just aren't thousands of people willing and able to become teachers -- who haven't got the smarts to do "peer review." Skill in the computer design center working with adults all day and lots of autonomy (that word again!) doesn't carry over to solving the real problems handling a room full of teenagers who couldn't give less of a damn about fractions.

Bottom line: It's pretty damn easy to get a license -- if you've got the potential to be a good teacher. If you don't, then the hoops are useful in weeding you out.

As for the editorial - come on, people. Blaming the failures of charter schools on a perceived lack of autonomy in hiring teachers is pretty lame. Just because most charter schools can't do better than the public schools they steal from despite the selection and rejection of pupils ...


click the header to view the letter and the editorial, below the jump.

Supreme Court and First Amendment

from NYTimes:

"The Supreme Court on Friday agreed to decide whether the First Amendment requires that the names of people who sign ballot-initiative petitions be kept secret." and "The Ninth Circuit panel said it was unclear whether petition signatures were speech protected by the First Amendment. In any event, it said, the signatures were gathered in public with no promise of confidentiality and collected on sheets with space for 20 signatures each."
James Bopp Jr., a lawyer for Protect Marriage Washington, said in a statement that the Ninth Circuit’s decision infringed “the rights of citizens who support a traditional definition of marriage to speak freely and without fear.”

Wow.

If I sign a petition with 20 spaces on it, I can read who those people are and they can see mine. It’s public.

Read more below the fold: