Bustin’ Makes Butcher Feel Good

August 24, 2014

ghostbusters butcher

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

So if the above picture looks like a sloppy attempt at photo editing by someone goofing around with a program for the first time, it is only because it is in fact just such an attempt.

So Arizona voters passed an initiative long ago that provided for inflation adjustments to K-12 spending. During the bubble years spending went up faster than inflation, but during the catastrophic collapse of the economy it went down less. The AZ school district non-profit industrial complex eventually sued to get the funding restored, and they recently won, sticking lawmakers with a $317,000,000 bill. Arizona is broke and unlikely to find that sort of change in the sofa, and requires a 2/3 vote of each chamber to raise taxes. So, what happens next?

The Goldwater Institute’s Jonathan Butcher went to the pages of the Arizona Republic to suggest a couple of ways to recoup the money. First- stop funding ghost students. Districts get paid on last year’s student count, charter schools on this year’s count. Ergo every time a child transfers from a district to a charter school the state pays for them twice for a year. This is a pure waste of money that will continue to grow with Arizona’s charter school sector. Butcher estimates this could gain the state $125m of the needed $317m. If I were Arizona’s higher education community I would jump on the Ghostbuster bandwagon because otherwise that $125m is likely to come out of higher education spending sooner rather than later.

Second Butcher proposes that some of the base funding for schools be conditioned on kids actually learning something. With half the high-schools in the state having 5% or less of the graduating Class of 2006 finish a Bachelor’s degree in six years, this sounds like a promising if tricky idea.  The taxpayers ought to be getting an ROI from Arizona public school spending dominated by student learning, not by mere babysitting.


Open Letter to David Plouffe: When Fighting an Entrenched Status-Quo, Don’t Stop at Transportation

August 20, 2014

(Guest Post by A.D. Motzen)

Dear Mr. Plouffe,

Congratulations on your new position as senior vice president of policy and strategy at one of my favorite companies, Uber.  Ever since I spent 35 minutes waiting for a cab outside of LaGuardia airport, I’ve become a dedicated Uber customer.

Before you get too settled in at your new office, however, I would like to offer you a position at my new start-up. I call it UberEd.

You were recently quoted as saying that you would work “to ensure drivers and riders are not denied their opportunity for choice in transportation.”

Presumably you were hinting at the challenge you will face from an entrenched monopoly which doesn’t like competition. Rather than improve their product and meet the needs of their customers and employees, your adversaries will spend millions of dollars on political donations and lobbyists to ensure that laws and regulations will be written to keep out the competition.

But you and Uber CEO, Travis Kalanick, apparently believe in transportation choice. While perhaps not a Constitutional right (yet), transportation is one of the most basic needs of every American citizen, especially for those who live or work in urban areas. By providing choices and flexibility you will be able to offer a better product that meets the needs of individual customers at a lower cost. Why, even the employees will be happier! Most importantly, even the competition – those dreaded yellow taxi unions – will ultimately be forced to compete and either lower their prices or improve their service.

My start-up is based on those same principles, so it should be a good fit with your philosophy. Rather than working “to ensure drivers and riders are not denied their opportunity for choice in transportation,” my idea would ensure that parents and children are not denied their opportunity for choice in education. My motto would be “everyone’s private or public school.”

It’s a simple concept that was already Beta tested in more than a dozen states using “experiments” such as charters, vouchers, scholarship tax credits, and now education savings accounts. In all of those vehicles, parents have a choice on how to get their child from point A to point B – traditional public, charter, or private school.

Using UberEd, a parent can check which schooling options are available for their child simply by pressing a button on a smartphone. The name of the closest schools (or alternative program) come up on the screen and by clicking on the school icons, the parent can find out information about each option. Parents don’t have to worry about tuition bills as the app is set up so that the state funding allocated to that specific child would be credited to their spending account. Just tap the payment button and the school will get the money through a third-party without having any access to your personal bank account. If a parent wants a more expensive school they can always  choose UberEd Xtra and supplement the state-allocated funds with their own personal resources. Schools could be rated by a parent based on any number of criteria so that other UberEd users would know what to expect.

I could go on, but I don’t want to give up too much information just in case someone actually goes out and files a patent (I haven’t) and raises some venture capital before I do.

Uber was recently valued at $18 billion because it will completely redefine and improve transportation as we know it. UberEd (a.k.a. school choice) is radically changing education as we know it. Education is the uber-vehicle to a brighter future for our children. Isn’t that priceless?

But as you probably figured out by now, I can’t offer you a job just yet. Parents first need more states to actually allow school funding to follow the child. Maybe I’ll give you a call at that point and you and Mr. Kalanick can help me build that app.

In the meantime, I wish you all the luck in the world.

Together with millions of parents across the country, I am hoping that your arguments of opportunity and choice will prevail against the status quo. We are hoping that your former boss, President Obama, and elected officials across the country will take heed and be forced to choose a side.

Entrenched status quo or innovation, opportunity, and choice?

Choose one. Then tap on the UberEd app.

A. D.


Arizona charter schools and the new report card rankings

August 6, 2014

(Guest Post by Jonathan Butcher)

The new A-F report card rankings are up for Arizona public schools, and the news is good—if you’re sending your child to a charter school. Last year, 40 percent of Arizona charter schools earned an A, compared to 28 percent of traditional schools.

Now that Arizona has four years’ worth of A-F rankings, a year-to-year comparison of charter and traditional schools reveals that charter schools’ success over time is what we hope would have happened to all public schools: more charters are earning A’s and fewer are earning D’s as the years go by (note: Arizona managed to make it so hard to earn an F that few schools have done so).

2010-11 Arizona A-F Letter Grades, Charter v. Traditional

 Butcher 1

2011-12 Arizona A-F Letter Grades, Charter v. Traditional

Butcher 2

 

2012-13 Arizona A-F Letter Grades, Charter v. Traditional

Butcher 3

2013-14 Arizona A-F Letter Grades, Charter v. Traditional

Butcher 4

Between the 2010-11 school year and 2012-13 school year, charter schools occupied the two ends of the A-F distribution, with higher percentages of schools earning A’s and D’s than traditional schools.

This year, however, charter schools own the “A” category, while the percent of charters earning D’s has been cut in half—and, for the first time, is lower than the percent of traditional schools earning D’s. True, the percent of traditional schools earning A’s crept up each year, but not as quickly as charter schools. And the percent of traditional schools earning D’s was relatively consistent.

Nothing is held constant here, so I’ll be the first to admit the limits to these charts. Plus, data from the Arizona Board of Regents (ABOR) reports that Arizona high schools are not preparing students for college, so the achievement reflected in these report cards is decidedly less impressive than it should be.

But to the extent that these school grades reflect student success (see here for how the report cards are calculated), charter schools are leading the way—and at a per student cost of $1,500 less than traditional schools. And there’s something to be said for charter schools’ unique designs, whether it’s hybrid classrooms, college prep, or career and technology centers for at-risk students aged 14-21.

Clearly there’s a reason why charters are the fastest-growing sector of the public school system.


The Atlantic Article that Should Have Been Called “Why Poor Students Should Not Have to Attend Dysfunctional School Districts”

July 16, 2014

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

A fascinating article in the Atlantic about the lack of textbooks in Philadelphia district schools would have been even more illuminating if the author had discovered that the district spends $20k per student per year.

The blindingly obvious conclusion to draw from this article is that plenty of money exists to get these students all the textbooks they need, but that the district simply has other priorities.  The district spends the money, they just spend it on something or someone else, and mysteriously classroom learning never makes to the top of a priority list.  These are not “poor schools” but rather wealthy schools that are poorly run and victimizing poor students in the process.


Bedrick: Get Your Charter Law Off Me You Dirty Ape!

July 15, 2014

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Okay so the title is a bit of an exaggeration but what the heck, there is a new Planet of the Apes movie out and we believe in giving our audience what they pay for around here at the Jayblog. What’s that you say? You guys read this blog for free? Oh yeah, that’s right. We write it just to entertain ourselves, I forgot.

Anyhoo, Cato’s Jason Bedrick raises questions worth debating about the new Friedman Foundation study by Andy Smarick over at Education Next.


Burke: 44% of DC Students attend charter schools, DC officals are knocking on doors

July 14, 2014

8028f-faye_morningafter

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Lindsey Burke on the lay of the land in the District of Columbia Public Schools, which inches ever closer to having a majority of charter school students and which is leading the nation by a wide margin in academic gains, led by charter schools. Oh and where district school principals have taken to the streets to sell their schools to parents in search of students.

What do you make of all of this Chewie?

 

Yeah, me too.

 

 


SBoE Response to Dallas Crisis? Drop the Bucket and Grab a Shot Glass Partner!

July 3, 2014

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Texas Education Commissioner Michael Williams decided to override the State Board of Education to allow Great Hearts to open a school in Dallas, bringing to mind an old Arizona cowboy story. In 1911, the rough and tumble miner/cowboy frontier town of Prescott suffered a terrible fire.  Patrons of the Palace, a favorite watering hole on Prescott’s Whiskey Row to this day, took note of the burning buildings outside and decided to take collective action.  They gathered round the bar you see above, picked it up and moved it across the street to the grounds of what had been the territorial capitol (now the county courthouse).  Having saved the bar and its contents, they sat at the relocated bar and drank their whiskey, watching Prescott burn to the ground.  You can see what remained of the Palace in the below photograph taken after the fire.

This story came to mind when I read this story about the Texas State Board of Education’s attempts to protect the children of Dallas from the option of attending a Great Hearts charter school.  Really it is not fair for me to think this though, because at least Prescott’s cowboys tried to do something in response to their emergency, and they didn’t spend their time trying to thwart the fire fighters.

The 2013 Trial District Urban Assessment revealed that 51% of Dallas Independent School District students scored “Below Basic” in Reading, while only 16% scored Proficient or better.  Dallas parents need as many alternatives as they can get.  The idea of the SBOE wringing its hands about the fact that charter schools in Arizona (or elsewhere) don’t provide transportation, charge fees for certain activities (district and charter schools both do this as permitted by state statute) and solicit donations from parents (district schools get more taxpayer money and still solicit from parents btw) staggers the imagination.

Whoa there fellas- all that noise is making it hard for me to drink…

“I have no confidence, really, in the Great Hearts organization,” board member Mavis Knight said during the SBOE’s debate over initially denying the Dallas charter.  Fair enough- a classics approach is not everyone’s cup of tea.  I hope Ms. Knight will exercise her freedom of association rights guaranteed by the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and not send her children to the Dallas Great Hearts school if that is her preference. It won’t shock me however when hundreds of families decide that the school is a good fit for the needs of their child, and if the Arizona experience is any guide many hundreds more will sit unhappily on the wait list.

A great many Dallas parents have no confidence in DISD (Exhibit A: endless North Dallas suburbia). Those trying to make a go of it in the city deserve options and the right to make their own decision free of Ms. Knight’s guidance.

 

 


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,564 other followers