Charter school waiting lists: the other side of the story

April 3, 2013

half-truth.png (500×300)

(Guest Post by Collin Hitt)

WBEZ in Chicago has published one of the more incomplete stories on charter schools I’ve read in a long time.  It asserts:

Charter advocates and even the Chicago Tribune editorial board say 19,000 kids are on charter school waiting lists in the city.

There’s just one problem with that number: it’s not accurate. It significantly overstates demand.

Charter schools in Chicago each maintain their own lotteries and waitlists. Many eager families apply to more than one school, and then suffer the double disappointment of failing to win a lottery to get into either. Thus – WBEZ’s main point – waitlist statistics overstate the demand of the charter school because many children are on more than one waitlist.

The effect of the story is to discredit the school choice movement in Chicago. A full story would have reached the opposite conclusion. WBEZ presents this line as its coup de grace.

Though Andrew Broy from the Illinois Network of Charter Schools has insisted that 19,000 children are on waiting lists for Chicago charter schools, he now says he believes the real number is around 65 percent of that.

Assuming Broy’s guess is correct, that means as many as 6,650 students are on more than one waitlist. How does that undermine the case for charter school demand? Thousands of parents have sought numerous options to flee their current schools. These are determined and desperate people. But limits on charter school supply have denied them any option. To boot, WBEZ reports that there are waitlists at district-run magnet schools as well, suggesting that some parents on charter waitlists have tried and failed to win lotteries into other schools of choice as well. That’s a tragic story that, to me, calls for more charter schools.

WBEZ took particular pleasure in needling the Chicago Tribune, who frequently cites the 19,000 number. There’s a reason, however, that the Trib reports that stat. It’s officially reported by the Illinois State Board of Education. Neither the state board nor WBEZ calculated a different figure that adjusts for double counting. If they did, I’m sure the Trib would report it.

All of this boils down to an obvious point. Waitlists are a crude way to measure charter school demand. Some children land on more than one waitlist. Some families don’t ever apply, discouraged by the long waiting lists they read about. Some families attempt to transfer after enrollment periods and waitlists have closed. Other families haven’t yet found a charter school they like – an inevitable side effect of policymakers limiting the number of charter schools permitted to open.

A complete journalistic account would have found other ways to estimate demand. One such way: commission a survey of families. Guess who did that – the Chicago Tribune, in partnership with the Joyce Foundation.

On the Trib’s behalf, the University of Chicago conducted a scientific phone poll of Chicago adults. Half of the 1,010 respondents were Chicago Public School parents.  It reports:

Many existing charter schools in Chicago have waiting lists because more parents want to enroll their children in public charters schools than these schools can currently accommodate. Would you agree or disagree that Chicago Public Schools (CPS) should make it easier for public charter schools to expand in neighborhoods where public charter schools have waiting lists ? (AFTER RESPONSE, PROBE) Do you…

Strongly agree 46.4

Somewhat agree 17.3

Somewhat disagree 8.0

Strongly disagree 24.0

Neither agree nor disagree 2.4

DON’T KNOW 1.2

REFUSED 0.7

So 63.7 percent of Chicagoans support increasing charter schools to meet demand. Chicago Public Schools enrolls 400,000 students. There are 19,000 students on waitlists and another 40,000 or so enrolled in charter schools. Together that’s 15 percent of total enrollment, yet 63 percent of Chicago residents support increasing supply. So do we really think – as WBEZ suggests – that the 19,000 number overestimates demand?

Relying on polling, of course, has its limits. Here’s something else that WBEZ could have done: looked at charter demand elsewhere. Gary, Indiana is a beleaguered suburb of Chicago. It’s a rough place with its share of academic struggles. Indiana policy is more permissive of charter schools than is Illinois’. In Gary, 31 percent of students are enrolled in charter schools, as compared to 11 percent in Chicago. In Detroit, 41 percent of students are enrolled in charter schools. In Milwaukee, 21 percent are in charters and even more students are enrolled in that district’s school voucher program.

Chicago and Milwaukee and Detroit are different. But not so different that charter school demand would be two to four times lower in the Windy City. There is unmet and unmeasured demand for charter schools in Chicago, which brings me to my final point.

Charter schools create their own demand. There were zero students on charter waiting lists when there were zero charter schools in Chicago. As charter schools expand in the city, more families will sign up to attend them. Waitlists tell a compelling story – people want into charter schools. But they don’t tell the whole story, and neither did WBEZ.


The Narcissus Index

April 2, 2013

Twitter can be handy for announcing links to other material, following breaking news and unfolding events, or for humor.   But for policy discussion, Twitter has to be just about the dumbest thing on the planet.  Watching people attempt to have meaningful exchanges on Twitter is just ridiculous (and I should know because I have occasionally attempted it with miserable results).

Some education policy analysts, however, are undeterred by the stupidity of Twitter and are determined to attempt to change the world through thousands of 140 character messages.  Quite often they are communicating thousands of profound 140 character messages to a relatively small number of followers.  As is too typical in education policy debates, everyone is on the stage and almost no one is in the audience.

So, I’ve developed the Narcissus Index, which is the ratio of the number of Tweets people have issued to the number of their followers.  Essentially it is the ratio of how much we love hearing ourselves talk to how many people actually want to listen to us.  I identified 80 education policy analysts from Mike Petrilli’s ranking of the most influential education policy Tweeters as well as the list of Tweeters followed by the Fordham Institute.  I excluded the Twitter accounts of organizations, focusing only on individuals.  I also excluded office-holders and reporters who may Tweet or be followed by virtue of their position rather than as a means of influencing education policy.  I then recorded the number of Tweets and followers for each of these analysts as of today.

I’m sure that I’ve missed some people who I should have included and vice versa, but hey… this is a blog post, not a dissertation.  And it’s true that people have been on Twitter for different lengths of time, but more time should allow people to accumulate more followers as well as send more Tweets, so I think that mostly balances out.  Lastly, this list is also probably distorted by age, since younger people are more likely to Tweet about everything, including how delicious dinner was, in addition to their thoughts about education policy.

As you can see in the table below, 47 of the 80 education policy analysts I examined had more Tweets than followers.  That is, they had more things to say to the world than there were people who wanted to hear them.  Some people have quite a lot that they need to tell the world in 140 characters.  Teacher and blogger, Larry Ferlazzo has the most Tweets, with 55,215, followed by Diane Ravitch (41,798), and RiShawn Biddle (37,514).  Ravitch has even more followers than she has Tweets, for a ratio of .87 Tweets to followers, but Ferlazzo and Biddle don’t have the followers to match their prolific Tweeting, with ratios of 2.21 and 6.89, respectively.

USC professor, Morgan Polikoff, wins the prize for the highest ratio, with 15.19 times more Tweets than followers.  I think he is relatively new to Twitter, so perhaps his followers will catch up to his Tweeting.  The Frustrated Teacher, Dave Russell, may be frustrated by having 12.64 times more Tweets than followers.  Wisconsin professor, Sara Goldrick-Rab has 9.93 times more Tweets than followers.  And South Florida professor, Sherman Dorn, has 8.82 times as many Tweets as followers.

At the opposite end of the list we see some education policy analysts with very large numbers of followers relative to Tweets.  A lot of people want to hear the relatively few things they have to say.  Jeb Bush has 79,312 followers compared to only 582 Tweets for a Narcissus Index score of only .01.  When Michelle Rhee talks, people want to listen, giving her a a ratio of only .03.  Alfie Kohn has nearly 20 times more followers than his 1,243 Tweets.  And Linda Perlstein has nearly 10 times as many followers as Tweets.

Now while you guys search for your own names and argue about the results, I’ll just go ahead and Google myself to read more about me.  I clearly need to invest more in my Narcissism.

Name Handle Tweets Followers Ratio
Morgan Polikoff  @mpolikoff 6,576 433 15.19
The Frustrated Teacher @tfteacher 25,742 2,036 12.64
Sara Goldrick-Rab  @saragoldrickrab 32,516 3,276 9.93
Sherman Dorn   @shermandorn 9,558 1,084 8.82
RiShawn Biddle  @dropoutnation 37,514 5,442 6.89
Neal McCluskey  @NealMcCluskey 7,266 1,112 6.53
Ben Boychuk  @benboychuk 10,384 1,627 6.38
Nancy Flanagan @nancyflanagan 16,354 2,914 5.61
Matt Williams  @mattawilliams 2,572 464 5.54
Mike Klonsky @mikeklonsky 20,575 3,777 5.45
Ashley Inman  @ahsleyemilia 819 151 5.42
Allie Kimmel  @allie_kimmel 5,409 1,019 5.31
Rachel Young  @msrachelyoung 2,230 445 5.01
Laura Bornfreund  @laurabornfreund 2,819 565 4.99
Deborah M. McGriff  @dmmcgriff 2,660 548 4.85
John Bailey  @john_bailey 12,545 2,901 4.32
Jamie Davies O’Leary  @jamieoleary 870 236 3.69
Terry Stoops  @terrystoops 1,795 546 3.29
Eric Lerum  @ericlerum 1,614 491 3.29
Marc Porter Magee  @marcportermagee 4,284 1,414 3.03
Jenna Schuette Talbot  @jennastalbot 5,165 1,708 3.02
Kathleen Porter Magee  @kportermagee 2,997 1,229 2.44
Larry Ferlazzo  @larryferlazzo 55,215 25,016 2.21
Sam Chaltain @samchaltain 7,742 3,540 2.19
Erik Syring  @eriksyring 2,825 1,325 2.13
John Nash  @jnash 2,945 1,383 2.13
Matthew K. Tabor  @matthewktabor 10,081 4,811 2.10
David DeSchryver  @ddeschryver 1,546 747 2.07
Lindsey Burke  @lindseymburke 2,943 1,593 1.85
Mike McShane  @MQ_McShane 658 358 1.84
Matthew Ladner  @matthewladner 660 360 1.83
Alexander Russo @alexanderrusso 17,254 9,665 1.79
Bruce Baker  @schlFinance101 6,049 3,768 1.61
Joanne Jacobs  @joanneleejacobs 5,182 3,303 1.57
Howard Fuller  @howardlfuller 4,163 2,673 1.56
Robert Pondiscio  @rpondiscio 3,013 1,999 1.51
Adam Emerson  @adamjemerson 787 532 1.48
Chad Alderman  @chadalderman 1,984 1,458 1.36
Anthony Cody @anthonycody 5,759 4,289 1.34
Andrew P. Kelly  @andrewpkelly 693 532 1.30
Irvin Scott  @iscott4 1,565 1,221 1.28
Matt Chingos  @chingos 878 710 1.24
Neerav Kingsland  @neeravkingsland 956 824 1.16
Andy Smarick  @smarick 4,840 4,267 1.13
Doug Levin  @douglevin 4,671 4,286 1.09
Charles Barone  @charlesbarone 2,311 2,163 1.07
Kevin P. Chavous  @kevinpchavous 1,340 1,339 1.00
Michael Petrilli @michaelpetrilli 5,967 6,196 0.96
Gary Rubinstein  @garyrubinstein 1,219 1,344 0.91
Patrick Riccards @Eduflack 11,356 12,671 0.90
Diane Ravitch @DianeRavitch 41,798 47,956 0.87
Greg Richmond  @GregRichmond 366 455 0.80
Randi Weingarten @rweingarten 16,353 21,071 0.78
Paul Queary  @paulqueary 1,117 1,496 0.75
Heather Higgins  @TheHRH 383 530 0.72
Ulrich Boser  @ulrichboser 1,332 1,923 0.69
Vicki Davis  @coolcatteacher 34,109 50,600 0.67
Mickey Kaus  @kausmickey 8,813 14,362 0.61
Justin Cohen  @juscohen 895 1,470 0.61
Tom Vander Ark @tvanderark 8,044 13,805 0.58
Andrew Rotherham  @arotherham 5,396 9,425 0.57
Jeanne Allen  @jeanneallen 1,998 3,538 0.56
Roxanna Elden  @roxannaElden 644 1,159 0.56
Lisa Duty  @lisaduty1 1,801 3,359 0.54
Sara Mead   @saramead 2,268 4,597 0.49
Dana Goldstein @DanaGoldstein 5,826 12,820 0.45
Richard Lee Colvin  @R_Colvin 1,472 3,336 0.44
Not Diane Ravtich  @NOTDianeRavitch 270 616 0.44
Ben Wildavsky  @wildavsky 577 1,327 0.43
Brian Backstrom  @nyedreform 824 1,948 0.42
Kevin Carey  @kevincarey1 1,444 3,601 0.40
Jay P. Greene  @jaypgreene 454 1,416 0.32
Matt Kramer  @kramer_matt 204 978 0.21
Michael Barber  @michaelbarber9 935 4,719 0.20
Wendy Kopp  @wendykopp 906 6,015 0.15
Vicki Phillips  @drvickip 476 3,842 0.12
Linda Perlstein  @lindaperlstein 364 3,202 0.11
Alfie Kohn @alfiekohn 1,243 27,489 0.05
Michelle Rhee @m_rhee 1,353 48,945 0.03
Jeb Bush  @jebbush 582 79,312 0.01