
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
New Schools has a new series of videos about education entrepreneurs:
and…

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
New Schools has a new series of videos about education entrepreneurs:
and…

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
C-SPAN brought in Diane Ravitch to interview/debate Steven Brill. Check it out.
Too much Ravitch nonsense to refute, but her talking points about the PISA tests are just too simple-minded for words. So if you look at only the very wealthiest schools in America, they outscore the national average in Finland and South Korea.
Riiiiiiiiiiiiight
No mention of how the very wealthiest schools in America compare to the very wealthiest schools in Finland and South Korea, or that our African-American kids score closer to the average score in Mexico than that in Finland.
Ravitch goes into her absurd poverty litany as if they don’t have poverty in other countries. Mexico will be delighted to learn that their poverty problem has disappeared! I wonder how much we spend per pupil here in America compared to other countries. Oh wait, they keep track of that sort of thing.
Brill says Ravitch’s attempts at spin remind him of Thank You for Smoking. That’s not fair. Nick Taylor was at least good for a laugh.


(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Matt Ridley’s The Rational Optimist powerfully makes the case that market exchange is the driving force of human progress. Starting his argument in the far gone reaches of prehistory, Ridley builds a persuasive case that so long as people are out there developing new products and services, grinding on problems, that the human condition continues to improve. Government can certainly do things to speed things along (by perserving property rights) or slow things down in a variety of idiotic ways, but progress has proven to be robust in liberal market based societies. For instance, despite the collapse of a market bubble, horrible policy decisions by the Federal Reserve, Hoover starting a global trade war, too many policy mistakes by the Roosevelt administration to count and the onset of a World War, the average American was still better off in material terms in 1939 than they had been in 1929.
The reason why was simple- through all of the turmoil, there were still people out to make a buck grinding on problems. Technology continued to evolve and improve despite bipartisan political blunders of truly epic scale. Along the way, Ridley helpfully demolishes the conservative meta-narrative of decline from an imagined lost golden age. We live in an age of wonders compared to that of our ancestors. The problems we face are largely either overblown (global warming) or else getting substantially better at an unprecedented pace (global poverty).
Ridley’s journey through history and prehistory imparts a perspective on our struggles over education reform. Progress occurs in unpredictable ways and at its own pace. The key in the long run is to have a large group of people grinding away on a problem. Along the way, there are innumerable failures and false starts, but as long as people are out there trying to build a better product, sooner or later, they succeed and establish the next baseline for the next innovation.
In a primordial JPGB post in 2008, I wrote:
Our students need a market for K-12 schools. The market mechanism rewards success and either improves or eliminates failure. This has been sorely lacking in the past, and will be increasingly beneficial in the future. The biggest winners will be those suffering most under the status-quo.
New technologies and practices, self-paced instruction and data-based merit pay for instructors, may hold enormous promise. Before the current era of choice based reforms, they didn’t fit the 19th Century/unionized model of schooling, so they weren’t seriously attempted. Bypassing bureaucracy, a new generation has begun to offer their innovative schools directly to parents. Some have already succeeded brilliantly. Some states have been much keener than others to allow this process. Expect the laggards to fall in line eventually. We can hardly continue to cower in fear that someone somewhere might open a bad school when, in reality, we are surrounded by them now.
A market system will embrace and replicate reforms which work, and discard those that fail to produce. A top-down political system has failed to perform this task. Where bureaucrats and politicians have failed miserably, however, a market of parents pursuing the interests of their children will succeed in driving progress.
This process is underway but it is proceeding at a maddeningly gradual pace, from the perspective of an individual lifetime. Some problems take more than a lifetime to solve. Consider the struggle to end slavery and provide equal rights for African Americans. Lyndon Johnson’s signature on the Civil Rights Act came at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives sacrificed over a period of centuries.
Milton Friedman, the originator of harnessing the power of markets to improve education, lived to see only the faint outline of his vision come into practice. Incremental victories such as lifting charter school caps and creating new voucher and tax credit programs are hard fought and to be celebrated, but in the long run the important thing is that we now have people working on new school models and the delivery mechanisms to allow educators to build them and parents to choose them for their children.
It took the charter school movement 20 years to come up with the idea of hybrid education. It’s no accident that it happened out among the charters. Both districts and pre-existing private schools suffer from far too much “that’s not how we do things around here” inertia. Jay covered this quite well-philanthropists should build new, don’t reform old.Hybrid learning may prove to be the next big thing, or something else might. As long as people are trying to build a better mousetrap and have the means to get it into the market, our future will be brighter than our present.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
The plot thickens in the Pacific Northwest with this very interesting story from the Portland Oregonian about Governor John Kitzhaber’s K-12 reform plans. It turns out that Governor Kitzhaber fought a major education reform push back in the 1990s that was swallowed by systemic inertia. The plan now:
Kitzhaber envisions the board using financial incentives to shift the focus of public education from what he calls “seat time” to learning. The board might, for example, financially reward districts for each student, whether 15 or 18, who meets high school exit standards…A more individualized approach to education would be more efficient by allowing some students to advance faster while reducing needs for remediation, said Duncan Wyse, president of the Oregon Business Council who is helping Kitzhaber design a budget based on outcomes. It also fits the growing diversity of Oregon’s school population and suits learning for the 21st Century better than the current system rooted in the 19th Century, he said.
Kitzhaber’s plan is still taking shape, could still be crushed by the blob, and is a good ways off from Indiana’s reform touchdown. Nevertheless, there is more than one path to the top of the mountain, and Governor Kitzhaber has obviously recognized the urgent need to improve the achievement of Oregon public school students.
Read the Oregonian story, and keep an eye on Kitzhaber.

My new minibook on school choice is now available for purchase on Amazon. It will be in stores next week.
Also check out this great review by Andrew Coulson of Cato, this interview by David Kinkade of The Arkansas Project, and this audio podcast on School Reform News.
UPDATE: You can find the e-book version for IPad on the Encounter Books web site. That version is very handy because it has hyperlinks to all of the sources. Encounter also has a great price of $4.19
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Longtime readers of the Jayblog may recall that I have, from time to time, asked exactly what is going on in K-12 in Oregon, which is very Anglo, relatively wealthy and sports bad NAEP scores.
When the Urban District NAEP came out, I noticed that several big city districts beat the statewide average in Oregon as well.
Oregon had an interesting election in 2010, splitting control of the House evenly between Democrats and Republicans. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to testify before the House Education committee on the Florida reforms, which was an interesting experience as the committee had co-chairs.
Once I was finished, the lobbyist from the Oregon Education Association testified that she had done some “homework” over the weekend, and had calculated A-F grades for Oregon schools. She claimed that (gasp) many Oregon charter schools would get a grade of F.
I found this very interesting, as she had no access to student learning gain data for any of these schools, and learning gains make up half of a school’s grade under the Florida formula. Oh well, why let your credibility get in the way of a good story?
Representative Matt Wingard, the Republican co-chair of the House Education committee, is a dogged supporter of education reform. Rep. Wingard discussed the Florida reforms on this newscast:
Rep. Wingard introduced the Florida reforms, and encountered the predictable wave of opposition. Rep. Wingard’s efforts were rewarded this session, however, as Oregon passed an open enrollment law, an improvement to their charter authorization process, and an improvement in their online learning laws.
While these gains are incremental rather than revolutionary, trust me when I tell you that they were not easily achieved. Many people take open enrollment laws for granted or think of them as weak tea while failing to appreciate the huge impact they have had in shrinking dysfunctional districts such as Detroit and Tucson.
Congratulations to Rep. Wingard for getting the reform ball rolling in Oregon.
(Guest Post by Brian Kisida)
It’s truly a sad situation when once respectable organizations become so intertwined with the corrupting influence of party politics and the ulterior motives of other interest groups that they abandon their core principles. Last week Matt referenced the newly invigorated war against charter schools in New York undertaken by the NAACP. Also last week in Milwaukee the ACLU filed yet another lawsuit against a school choice program.
On the surface, the NAACP’s ongoing opposition to school choice just seems bizarre. The overwhelming majority of school choice programs in the U.S., whether it be in the form of urban charter schools or means-tested voucher programs like those found in Milwaukee and D.C., serve distinctly minority and disadvantaged populations by design. If there’s a rational argument out there that can explain why the NAACP, according to its own principles, should stand in opposition to school choice, I haven’t heard it. And I’ve done plenty of searching.
But the NAACP supported rally that was held down in Harlem last week does provide the necessary connect-able dots to at least consider their motives. Who was there? Well, New York City Council member Robert Jackson spoke out against charter schools, and he invoked the long hard plight of the NAACP’s battle against discrimination in the process:
“NAACP has stood for over 100 years to fight discrimination. And we stand united, right here on 125th Street and Lenox Avenue and Malcolm X Boulevard to say we will fight all people, all people, that want to discriminate against us or our children.”
Of course, he failed to mention that before he became a council member in 2001, he was a Director of Field Services for the New York State Public Employees Federation. And, while it may be unfair for me to insinuate that his close ties to public employee unions motivate his opposition to school choice, it isn’t unfair to say that his claims are fundamentally false. Charter schools are open to all students, regardless of residential location. By definition, freely chosen charter schools are less discriminatory than residentially-assigned schools. Unless, somehow, you think a randomly chosen lottery ball is capable of discriminating.
Also in attendance was United Federation of Teachers President Michael Mulgrew. He also played the equity card:
“The children from the charter school will get the science labs, and not the children from the public school…the children from the charter school will get the playground, and not the children from the public school.”
Of course, charter schools are public schools, and they are open to all students who apply. Moreover, if Mulgrew really thinks that charter schools are so superior to “public” schools, then wouldn’t the proper thing to do–if one really cared about giving every child the best education possible–be to make every school a charter school? Then they’d all get the science labs and new playgrounds, right?
I imagine this is how organizations like the NAACP will inevitably die. They become so resistant to change and so corrupted by bad influences that eventually they become irrelevant. The NAACP is squandering what little credibility it has left by opposing policies that are near and dear to the hearts of the people who should be their core constituents. So it goes.
Up in Milwaukee, the ACLU is also doing its best to betray its own principles by fighting the expansion of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program (MPCP). Like the NAACP, the American Civil Liberties Union is no friend of school choice. Their own director, way back in 1994, agreed that school vouchers, if properly administered, were no more a violation of the First Amendment than were Pell Grants (which means they aren’t a violation at all). But in the ensuing years, the ACLU has become one of the most vocal opponents of expanding individual liberty through school choice. And it’s not exactly clear why. At the very least, it’s worth noting that the word “liberty” doesn’t regularly appear in any of the ACLU’s public statements against school choice.
Last week, the ACLU filed a lawsuit claiming that the MPCP discriminates against children with disabilities and asked the Department of Justice to delay Governor Walker’s planned expansion of the program. To make their case, they cite flawed statistics generated by the politically minded state Department of Public Instruction (DPI) that claim that nearly 20% of students in Milwaukee’s public schools have a disability, but only 1.6% of the students in the MPCP have the same condition.
Of course, the claim is misguided in multiple ways. Independent research by Patrick Wolf from the University of Arkansas and John Witte from the University of Wisconsin does confirm an asymmetry with regard to disabled students, but not nearly as high as the one claimed by DPI and the ACLU. In their analysis, they concluded that:
“Public schools have both strong incentives to classify students as requiring exceptional education, because they receive extra funding to teach such students and well-established protocols for doing so. Private schools have neither. A student with the same educational needs often will be classified as exceptional education in MPS but not so classified in the choice program.”
“Nine percent of choice parents said their child has a learning disability, compared to 18% of the parents of the carefully matched public school students in our sample. The proportion of students with learning disabilities in the choice program is about half that of MPS, but it is certainly not less than 1%, as the state Department of Public Instruction recently reported.”
In addition, the lawsuit brought by the ACLU completely ignores the funding disparity that exists between Milwaukee public schools and the voucher program. Currently, students in Milwaukee’s public schools receive more than $15,000 in per-pupil funding, while students in the choice program receive $6,442. If the ACLU were truly concerned about the liberties of disabled students and their families, wouldn’t it make the most sense to argue for an increase in the voucher amount for disabled students? Wouldn’t that be the most liberty-maximizing course of action?
Like the NAACP, the ACLU has veered far from its own principles as an organization whose stated purpose is to “defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to all people in this country.” And, like the NAACP, it’s largely because they’ve sold out. They’ve gone from being an organization founded on certain principles to being simply another political hack-unit heavily influenced by party politics and the agendas of other interest groups. Unless they can find a way to change, they’ll continue to slide towards complete and total irrelevance.
(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
This is so misguided that I don’t even know where to start, so just go watch the video yourself.
Very sad.

It’s hard to criticize people who generously give away money in the hopes of improving outcomes for other people. But it is also important to recognize the limits and dangers of philanthropic activity. Non-profits can help alleviate particular suffering and they can help promote beneficial ideas, but they cannot effectively substitute for markets. Foundations, like the government, may try to engage in central planning, picking winners and losers in the market, but quite often they may end up perpetually subsidizing losers. The only difference is that at least foundations do not back losers with money they have forcibly taken from others. Even so, a common pitfall for foundations is to fantasize that they know what works and what doesn’t rather than encouraging market forces to sort that out.
This point is nicely illustrated by a new report released by Andrew Coulson at Cato today. Andrew examines academic progress by students in different charter school networks in California. He then looks at which charter networks receive the most financial backing from philanthropies. He finds:
The results are discouraging. There is effectively no correlation between grant funding and charter network performance, after controlling for individual student characteristics and peer effects, and addressing the problem of selection bias.
For example, the three highest-performing charter school networks perform dramatically above the level of conventional public schools on the California Standards Tests, but rank 21st, 27th, and 39th in terms of the grant funding they have received, out of 68 charter networks. The AP results are worse; the correlations between charter networks’ AP performance and their grant funding are negative, though negligible in magnitude.
The problem is not that foundations need to be smarter in their giving, although I have written a book chapter on how they could be smarter. The problem is that foundations are no substitute for market forces in identifying what works and what doesn’t for kids. Rather than focusing on picking winners and losers, foundations should focus on pushing the idea that we need stronger market forces. In particular, foundations could back the idea that we need a broader set of options for students (including charters); that whatever public subsidies exist for schools should be equal across all schools in this market; and that schools should be allowed to compete on price as well as quality. The last item could be achieved with something like educational savings accounts that were recently passed in Arizona, where families could keep any savings between the state subsidy and school costs in an account to be used for future educational needs. Another option is to allow families to top-off the state subsidy with their own funds.
The point is that foundations need to beware of the corruption that frequently follows the concentration of wealth and power, just like governments. There is a danger that foundation officials will begin to imagine that they know what people should want, just like government officials, academics, and D.C. pundicrats often do, rather than allowing people to figure out what works for them. Foundations, like government, can play a useful role by trying to create sensible rules for markets so that they can function efficiently. They can also alleviate particular suffering and misfortune. But if they start focusing the bulk of their money on picking winners and losers in the educational marketplace, they are very likely to get it wrong. Central planning doesn’t work any better for foundations than it does for governments.
I should add that profit-seeking corporations are as prone to corruption as they concentrate wealth and power as are non-profits and governments. The difference is that, absent government protection, corporations suffer the consequences of this hubris. If they stray from their mission and become swollen with power-seeking administrative bloat, they tend to lose in the marketplace to leaner, more focused organizations.
The danger for non-profits (and governments) is that there is no similar mechanism of accountability. If they back foolish ideas or suffer from administrative bloat, they never have to stop as long as they can continue to extract funds without demonstrating effectiveness.
Gigantism in the foundation world is a real problem. Organizations, including Gates, Ford, Carnegie have the funds to keep foisting foolish ideas on people for a long, long time without any accountability. And as they get big financially, they get even bigger in their staffing so that they become a self-perpetuating power-seeking bureaucracy, much like the government (except without taking funds by force).
For example, it is interesting to note that over the last decade the Gates Foundation doubled its assets, but it increased its staffing by almost ten-fold. Empire building afflicts the non-profit and university world almost as much as government. Wise foundations avoid building empires and focus on promoting sensible rules for efficient market operation as well as the alleviation of misfortune that occurs within markets.

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)
Jonathan Alter calls out Little Ramona. Money quote from Ed Sec. Arne Duncan:
Arne Duncan, President Barack Obama’s normally mild-mannered education secretary, has finally had enough. “Diane Ravitch is in denial and she is insulting all of the hardworking teachers, principals and students all across the country who are proving her wrong every day,” he said when I asked about Ravitch this week.