Overregulation Is All You Need: A Response to Paul Bruno

February 29, 2016

6-blind-men-hans

(Guest Post by Jason Bedrick)

Over at the Brookings Institution’s education blog, Paul Bruno offers a thoughtful critique of  Overregulation Theory (OT), the idea that government regulations on school choice programs can undermine their positive effects. Bruno argues that although OT is “one of the most plausible explanations” of the negative results that two studies of Louisiana’s voucher program recently found, it is not “entirely consistent with the available evidence” and “does not by itself explain substantial negative effects from vouchers.”

I agree with Bruno–and have stated repeatedly–that the studies’ findings do not conclusively prove OT. That said, I believe both that OT is consistent with the available evidence and that it could explain the substantial negative effects (though I think it’s likely there are other factors at play as well). I’ll explain why below, but first, a shameless plug:

On Friday, March 4th at noon, the Cato Institute will be hosting a debate over the impact of regulations on school choice programs featuring Patrick Wolf, Douglas Harris, Michael Petrilli, and yours truly, moderated by Neal McCluskey. If you’re in the D.C. area, please RSVP at this link and join us! Come for the policy discussion, stay for the sponsored lunch!

Is the evidence consistent with Overregulation Theory?

Bruno notes that the differences in enrollment trends between participating and non-participating private schools is consistent with OT. Participating schools had been experiencing declining enrollment in the decade before the voucher program was enacted whereas non-participating schools had slightly increasing enrollment on average. This is consistent with the OT’s prediction that better schools (which were able to maintain their enrollment or grow) would be more likely eschew the vouchers due to the significant regulatory burden, while the lower-performing schools (which were losing students) were more desperate for students and funding, and were therefore more willing to jump through the voucher program’s regulatory hoops. However, Bruno calls this evidence into question:

For one thing, the authors of the Louisiana study specifically check to see if learning outcomes vary significantly between schools experiencing greater or lesser prior enrollment declines, and find that they do not. (Bedrick acknowledges this, but doubts there was enough variation in the enrollment trends of participating schools to identify differences.)

We should be skeptical of the explanatory value of the study’s enrollment check. There is no good reason to assume that the correlation between enrollment growth or decline among the small sample of participating schools (which had significantly negative growth, on average) is the same as among all private schools in the state. Making such an assumption is like a blind man holding onto the truck of an elephant and assuming that he’s holding a snake.

The study does not show the variation in enrollment trends among the participating and non-participating schools, but we could imagine a scenario where the enrollment trend among participating schools ranged, say, from -25% to +5% while the range at non-participating schools was -5% to +25%. As shown in the following charts (which use hypothetical data), there may be a strong correlation between enrollment trends and outcomes among the entire population, while there is little correlation in the subset of participating schools.

Enrollment Growth and Performance, Participating Private Schools (Hypothetical)

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 4.57.05 PM

Enrollment Growth and Performance, All Private Schools (Hypothetical)

Screen Shot 2016-02-29 at 10.05.29 PM.png

In short, looking at the relationship between enrollment growth and performance in the narrow subset of participating schools doesn’t necessarily tell us anything about the relationship between enrollment growth and performance generally. Hence the study’s “check” that Bruno cites does not provide evidence against OT.

Is there evidence that regulations improve performance?

Bruno also cites evidence that regulations can have a positive impact on student outcomes:

Joshua Cowen of Michigan State University also points out that there is previous evidence of positive effects from accountability rules on voucher program outcomes in other states (though regulations may differ in Louisiana).

The Cowen article considers the impact of high-stakes testing imposed on the Milwaukee voucher program during a multi-year study of that program. The “results indicate substantial growth for voucher students in the first high-stakes testing year, particularly in mathematics, and for students with higher levels of earlier academic achievement.” But is this strong evidence that regulations improve performance? One of the authors of both the original Milwaukee study and the cited article–JPG all-star, Patrick Wolf–cautions against over-interpreting these results:

Ours is one study of what happened in one year for one school choice program that switched from low-stakes testing to high-stakes testing.  As we point out in the report, it is entirely possible that the surge in the test scores of the voucher students was a “one-off” due to a greater focus of the voucher schools on test preparation and test-taking strategies that year.  In other words, by taking the standardized testing seriously in that final year, the schools simply may have produced a truer measure of student’s actual (better) performance all along, not necessarily a signal that they actually learned a lot more in the one year under the new accountability regime.

If we had had another year to examine the trend in scores in our study we might have been able to tease out a possible test-prep bump from an effect of actually higher rates of learning due to accountability.  Our research mandate ended in 2010-11, sadly, and we had to leave it there – a finding that is enticing and suggestive but hardly conclusive.

It’s certainly possible that the high-stakes test improved actual learning. But it’s also possible–and, I would argue, more probable–that changing the stakes just meant that the schools responded to the new incentive by focusing more on test-taking strategies to boost their scores.

For that matter, even if it were true that the regulations actually improved student learning, that does not contradict Overregulation Theory. Both advocates and skeptics of the regulations believe that schools respond to incentives. Those of us who are concerned about the impact of the regulations don’t believe that they can’t improve performance. Rather, our concern is that regulations imposed from above are less effective at improving performance than the incentives created by direct accountability to parents in a robust market in education, and may have adverse unintended consequences.

To explain: We’re concerned that regulations forbidding the use of a school’s preferred admissions standards or requiring the state test (which is aligned to the state curriculum) might drive away better-performing schools, leaving parents to choose only among the lower-performing schools. We’re concerned that price controls will inhibit growth, providing schools with an incentive only to fill empty seats rather than to scale up. We’re concerned that mandatory state tests will inhibit innovation and induce conformity. None of these concerns rule out the possibility (or, indeed, the likelihood) that over time, requiring private schools to administer the state test and report the results and/or face sanctions based on test performance will improve the participating schools’ performance on that test.

Again: we agree that schools respond to incentives. We just think the results of top-down incentives are likely to be inferior to the results of bottom-up choice and competition, which have proved to be powerful tools in so many other fields for spurring innovation and improving quality.

Can Overregulation Theory alone explain the negative results in Louisiana?

Finally, Bruno questions whether OT alone explains the Louisiana results:

[E]ven if regulation prevented all but the worst private schools from participating, this would explain why students did not benefit from transferring into them, but not why students would transfer into them in the first place.

So Overregulation Theory might be part of the story in explaining negative voucher effects in Louisiana, but it is not by itself sufficient. To explain the results we see in the study, it is necessary to tell an additional story about why families would sort into these apparently inferior schools.

Bruno offers a few possible stories–that parents select schools “that provide unobserved benefits,” that the voucher program “induced families to select inferior schools,” or that parents merely “assume any private school must be superior to their available public schools”–but any of these can be consistent with OT.  Indeed, the second story Bruno offers is practically an extension of OT: if the voucher regulations truncate supply so that it is dominated by low-quality schools, and the government gives false assurances that they have vetted those schools, then it is likely that we will see parents lured into choosing inferior schools.

That’s not to say that there are no other factors causing the negative results. It’s likely that there are. (I find Douglas Harris’s argument that the private schools’ curricula did not align with the state test in the first year particularly compelling, though I don’t think it entirely explains the magnitude of the negative results.) We just don’t have any compelling evidence that OT is wrong, and OT can suffice to explain the negative results.

I will conclude as I began: expressing agreement. I concur with Bruno’s assessment that “it is likely that the existing evidence will not allow us to fully adjudicate between competing hypotheses.” Indeed, it’s likely that future evidence won’t be conclusive either (it rarely is), but I hope that further research will shed more light on this important question. Bruno concludes by calling for greater efforts to “understand how families determine where their children will be educated,” noting that by understanding how and why parents might make “sub-optimal — or even harmful” decisions will help “maximize the benefits of school choice while mitigating its risks.” These are noble goals and I share Bruno’s desire to pursue them. I just hope that policymakers will approach what we learn with a spirit of humility about what they can accomplish.


Great Spoof, Kid!

February 26, 2016

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

If you liked Emo Kylo Ren you’ll love this. You’re welcome.


NAEP Reading Gains and Spending Trends by State

February 26, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

2003 to 2015 NAEP reading by spending

New York and North Dakota are your team captains of the Washington Generals in the spending up NAEP scores down sweepstakes. Meanwhile out west AZ and California did more with less.


NAEP Gains by Spending Trend- Some States are the Harlem Globetrotters, Others the Washington Generals

February 24, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Notice the large number of states on the negative side of zero on the spending bar. In the immortal words of Lee Ving it’s already started.

Winning

Once again let me note with insufferable state pride that Arizona is your ROI champion doing things that no one would have thought possible.

Go majority-minority, cut funding and improve scores? No problem-nothing but net!

So it is tough to pick a Washington Generals, but I’ve got mine narrowed down between Alaska, New York and Wyoming.

 


Arizona Senate Votes to Phase In Universal Public School Student ESA Eligiblity

February 22, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Congrats to Senator Debbie Lesko and the band of happy school choice warriors for passing SB 1279 today, which would phase in making all Arizona public school students eligible to participate in the Empowerment Scholarship Account program.


DCPS Tragedy

February 22, 2016

Ford table

 

Note: I am very grateful to longtime Jayblog reader Peter D. Ford III for sharing his first-hand perspective on DCPS. -ML

(Guest Post by Peter D. Ford III )

While I have been a public school educator in the Los Angeles area for the past 20 years, DCPS will always have an impact on my teaching being the son of career DCPS educators through three decades (60’s through 80’s). Followers of professional sports wax nostalgic about the feats of great players from the past and the numbers they produced ‘before records were kept.’ The tragic data portraying the minimal academic growth of Black DCPS students would not surprise my parents as they confronted the seeds of this tragedy when they were teaching. Unless there are fundamental changes in the teaching profession the educational crime perpetrated upon Black children in our Nation’s Capital may never end.

Until this day the question posed by one of my Daddy’s colleagues, “Who’s gonna teach these kids?” still resonates. In the 70’s when I first heard that over another dinner conversation that statement implied there were too many teachers not committed to teaching Black children, poor Black children specifically. Back then Parliament called it ‘Chocolate City’ for a reason, thus the lyric “…the last percentage count was 80…” The typical retort ‘but most teachers do a great job’ has never held up to my scrutiny. For example, very recently the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has had about 30,000 teachers. If 95% were ‘doing a good job,’ that leaves 1500 teachers ruining children’s futures year after year after year. Unlike the military you cannot staff the neediest schools with the best teachers, even if you could figure out who the best teachers were as seniority isn’t an automatic identifier.  Not all teachers can teach in upper Northwest or the Gold Coast; somebody has to teach in Hanover or Anacostia. For decades before NAEP and NCLB there’s been a deficit of teachers willing and committed to teaching these children, or at least there has been enough poor education in the neediest schools that has grown like a cancer with no chemotherapy.

The late, great, Dr. Barbara Sizemore, first African-American to head a major city school system in the 70’s, was my parents’ hero no matter how embattled her tenure as head of DCPS. Dr. Sizemore’s quote, as told from my parents, also predicted the horrid learning we see in DCPS students today: “These teachers aren’t teaching these kids anything.” Dr. Sizemore and my parents were not happy with their colleagues getting into a classroom and doing their own damn thing vs. inspiring and expecting young people to acquire the very same body of knowledge they did to earn their education. If you were to talk to 50-60 year old native Washingtonians it would appall you how many of them were allowed to stop taking math after their freshman year in high school, let alone the natural sciences. My father was a music teacher, and a pretty damn good one. Music instruction in DCPS began a slow death from the late 70’s onward; the famed Ellington School for the Arts today was no better than Cardozo or McKinley Tech in music instruction was then. Listening to NPR’s ‘From the Top’ you see these incredible young performers are great students, just as my father’s best musicians were good at math. Black children in DC aren’t getting this, and haven’t for decades. When you combine teachers not committed to teaching these children with teachers not teaching them much of anything, the current data we see was inevitable. This perfect storm of malfeasance is the root of poor Black academic achievement in every major metropolitan area. In a K-12 career all it takes is to have a lousy 3rd grade teacher, so you don’t learn your times tables, then an 8th grade teacher who couldn’t control your classroom, and your math career is all but ruined.

I hope, no I pray Ms. Davis’ plan includes giving school cites more control over whom they can hire to teach the children who need the best instruction. I pray there isn’t another finger pointed at poverty from educators. None of us have credentials in violence prevention, dysfunctional family mitigation, or poverty abatement. Like coach Belichik says teachers must ‘do your job,’ and that must be a 100% commitment to the young people in your classroom, and a laser focus on students acquiring a body of knowledge, skills, thus reasoning from your respective content.  If you’re going to point to poverty, then also point at everyone else who has a hand at fixing it. When Ms. Davis hopes for “the voice of those working with the students in the classroom is a meaningful part of the improvement discussion,” that’s a direct indictment of the other impediment to academic achievement for Black children: bad school leadership.

Don’t save your trump card waiting for DCPS admin to respond; during my parents’ time as now the so-called leaders of DCPS were pretty much who drove them to retire (their sons were educated and out the house, so they said ‘to heck with these knuckleheads’ running things). Is Ms. Davis willing to challenge traditional union contracts to allow teachers to be assigned where they’re needed? Is the DCPS bureaucracy willing to decentralize control to allow schools to meet the needs of their students as Dr. Sizemore sought? DC’s per student revenue has always been one of the highest in the country; I remember being aghast at $18,000/student, let alone $29k./ student. Who will demand for parents to be able to use that $29k as they see fit?

When I transitioned from my military career to teaching the only thing my father told me was “Focus on the students, not the adults.” My corollary to his words of advice: “It’s not the students (who are the problem), but the adults.”

While I have been a public school educator in the Los Angeles area for the past 20 years, DCPS will always have an impact on my teaching being the son of career DCPS educators through three decades (60’s through 80’s). Followers of professional sports wax nostalgic about the feats of great players from the past and the numbers they produced ‘before records were kept.’ The tragic data portraying the minimal academic growth of Black DCPS students would not surprise my parents as they confronted the seeds of this tragedy when they were teaching. Unless there are fundamental changes in the teaching profession the educational crime perpetrated upon Black children in our Nation’s Capital may never end.

Until this day the question posed by one of my Daddy’s colleagues, “Who’s gonna teach these kids?” still resonates. In the 70’s when I first heard that over another dinner conversation that statement implied there were too many teachers not committed to teaching Black children, poor Black children specifically. Back then Parliament called it ‘Chocolate City’ for a reason, thus the lyric “…the last percentage count was 80…” The typical retort ‘but most teachers do a great job’ has never held up to my scrutiny. For example, very recently the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD) has had about 30,000 teachers. If 95% were ‘doing a good job,’ that leaves 1500 teachers ruining children’s futures year after year after year. Unlike the military you cannot staff the neediest schools with the best teachers, even if you could figure out who the best teachers were as seniority isn’t an automatic identifier.  Not all teachers can teach in upper Northwest or the Gold Coast; somebody has to teach in Hanover or Anacostia. For decades before NAEP and NCLB there’s been a deficit of teachers willing and committed to teaching these children, or at least there has been enough poor education in the neediest schools that has grown like a cancer with no chemotherapy.

The late, great, Dr. Barbara Sizemore, first African-American to head a major city school system in the 70’s, was my parents’ hero no matter how embattled her tenure as head of DCPS. Dr. Sizemore’s quote, as told from my parents, also predicted the horrid learning we see in DCPS students today: “These teachers aren’t teaching these kids anything.” Dr. Sizemore and my parents were not happy with their colleagues getting into a classroom and doing their own damn thing vs. inspiring and expecting young people to acquire the very same body of knowledge they did to earn their education. If you were to talk to 50-60 year old native Washingtonians it would appall you how many of them were allowed to stop taking math after their freshman year in high school, let alone the natural sciences. My father was a music teacher, and a pretty damn good one. Music instruction in DCPS began a slow death from the late 70’s onward; the famed Ellington School for the Arts today was no better than Cardozo or McKinley Tech in music instruction was then. Listening to NPR’s ‘From the Top’ you see these incredible young performers are great students, just as my father’s best musicians were good at math. Black children in DC aren’t getting this, and haven’t for decades. When you combine teachers not committed to teaching these children with teachers not teaching them much of anything, the current data we see was inevitable. This perfect storm of malfeasance is the root of poor Black academic achievement in every major metropolitan area. In a K-12 career all it takes is to have a lousy 3rd grade teacher, so you don’t learn your times tables, then an 8th grade teacher who couldn’t control your classroom, and your math career is all but ruined.

I hope, no I pray Ms. Davis’ plan includes giving school cites more control over whom they can hire to teach the children who need the best instruction. I pray there isn’t another finger pointed at poverty from educators. None of us have credentials in violence prevention, dysfunctional family mitigation, or poverty abatement. Like coach Belichik says teachers must ‘do your job,’ and that must be a 100% commitment to the young people in your classroom, and a laser focus on students acquiring a body of knowledge, skills, thus reasoning from your respective content.  If you’re going to point to poverty, then also point at everyone else who has a hand at fixing it. When Ms. Davis hopes for “the voice of those working with the students in the classroom is a meaningful part of the improvement discussion,” that’s a direct indictment of the other impediment to academic achievement for Black children: bad school leadership.

Don’t save your trump card waiting for DCPS admin to respond; during my parents’ time as now the so-called leaders of DCPS were pretty much who drove them to retire (their sons were educated and out the house, so they said ‘to heck with these knuckleheads’ running things). Is Ms. Davis willing to challenge traditional union contracts to allow teachers to be assigned where they’re needed? Is the DCPS bureaucracy willing to decentralize control to allow schools to meet the needs of their students as Dr. Sizemore sought? DC’s per student revenue has always been one of the highest in the country; I remember being aghast at $18,000/student, let alone $29k./ student. Who will demand for parents to be able to use that $29k as they see fit?

When I transitioned from my military career to teaching the only thing my father told me was “Focus on the students, not the adults.” My corollary to his words of advice: “It’s not the students (who are the problem), but the adults.”


Much to her credit, Washington Teachers Union President Elizabeth Davis responds to DC achievement gaps before anyone in DCPS or in the broader DC Reform Community

February 19, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Washington Teacher’s Union President Elizabeth Davis left a response to the post here on Jayblog showing that DCPS black students would go well into their high school years before catching up to where White DCPS students stood in 4th grade. I disagree in large part (but agree partially) with her take, and will briefly explain why below. Let the record show however that the score as of now stands WTO 1, DCPS 0 on the acknowledgement scorecard. Anyone? Anyone? Kaya?

 

Perhaps the large community of DC K-12 reform oriented organizations would like to join the conversation that Heritage started as well. I know the allure of delving into the minutiae of federal statutes can be very powerful, but it’s okay to leave the tower now and again to examine what is going on around you. As in right around you with your own tax dollars.

But silly me I digress! Ms. Davis’ response:

The PARCC scores showed that 24% of students in grades 3-8 in public and public charter schools met or exceeded expectations in math and 25% of those same students met or exceeded expectations in English Language Arts. The bottom line is that a full 75% of our students failed to meet expectations.

The Washington Teachers’ Union acknowledges that some aggregate gains have been made, and some of those gains have been significant. However, those significant gains are found in schools that have been least effected by the so-called reform strategies. In other words, where the school district has made the greatest gains is in the schools that were already high performing and not a target of the reforms. Conversely, students in schools where the most teachers were fired, that attended schools that were closed due to low test scores, and had the most teacher turnover saw meager gains compared to their wealthy counterparts.

For years the WTU has called on the District Administration to adequately address these unacceptable and rapidly growing achievement gaps. Those calls were met with hubris and more of the same top-down failed policies.

Today we ask the community to review these data and understand that doing more of the same will only make a bad situation worse. In the coming days we will share more data that helps explain this unfortunate situation and share the plan we proposed to the district many months ago.

We can close the achievement gap. But that will only happen when the current failed policies are discontinued and the voice of those working with the students in the classroom is a meaningful part of the improvement discussion.

Maybe most importantly, we must ensure that the school district’s teacher evaluation system does not penalize those teachers who take on the challenge of educating our neediest students. Over the past eight years, DCPS has replaced over 3,000 of its teachers. So the bad teacher narrative no longer applies as a credible reason for the growing achievement gap in our school district. Many of our members have told us that the IMPACT evaluation system victimizes those who teach in low-performing schools.

-Elizabeth Davis, President of the Washington Teachers’ Union

My brief take on the substance: yes the gentrified schools will have been least affected by the reforms but when they are posting NAEP scores that make Massachusetts blush policies aimed at removing ineffective educators won’t be very much in play.  Given the plight of disadvantaged children in DCPS it would seem difficult at best to argue that the staff hired to educate these children have too little job security. I am however willing to hear the case made.

Please note further that the DCPS charter sector has made progress in closing the achievement gap with significantly fewer resources per pupil than those granted to DCPS. I’ve seen but have not explored claims that these reforms are contributing to progress in DCPS, but I will say this much to agree with Ms. Davis- it is very difficult to find evidence of that claim in DC NAEP scores to date. While there is absolutely blindingly clear evidence that DC choice policies (charters and OSP) have clear benefits to disadvantaged DC children, you are hard pressed to make the case that anything else has done much for these kids to date in terms of generating positive trends.

I am entirely open to discussion and debate on that point, but when you have schools with scores barely above Detroit receiving over $29,000 per student in revenue, I find it difficult to reach any other conclusion. DC charters get less and show higher NAEP scores and gains. OSP shows higher graduation rates for profoundly disadvantaged kids with a fraction of the spending.

I’m at the point where it only makes sense to decentralize power further into the hands of the parents and let them sort things out. The details over equity (more money for low-income kids), academic transparency (light touch please) and financial accountability (brutal is better) would be crucial, but disadvantaged children in DCPS have nothing to lose and much to gain.

(edited for typos)


The Way of the Future-Doomed to Slow Economic Growth?

February 19, 2016

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Must read article by Adam Davidson in the New York Times Magazine on America’s prospects for growth. Easily the most important debate in economics today imo- the inequality debate being a symptom of a slow growth disease. The article doesn’t mention societal aging but easily could have, as it is widely acknowledged by economists as serving as a headwind to growth.

In the end however I fully agree with Davidson’s conclusion about technology (3d printing for instance is clearly in the early stages of moving out of the hobbyist phase in my mind) and his ultimate conclusion:

If we are indeed doomed to a generation of slow growth, it’s a lapse in our collective imagination, not in technological innovation, that is holding us back.

I would add only this proviso- improving the productivity of the public sector will be key to a better future. You can’t for instance get much further away from constantly improving productivity than this:

Is it even possible to increase the productivity of education spending? Arizona says hello! but buckle up because the politics are rough.

 


OK Supreme Court OKs School Choice

February 16, 2016

(Guest Post by Jason Bedrick)

In a unanimous decision today, the Oklahoma Supreme Court ruled that the state’s school voucher program for students with special needs is constitutional. You can read the details over at Cato-at-Liberty. In short:

Plaintiffs had argued that the vouchers unconstitutionally aided religious schools, but the court found that the voucher law “is void of any preference between a sectarian or non-sectarian private school” and that “there is no influence being exerted by the State for any sectarian purpose with respect to whether a private school satisfies [the law’s eligibility] requirements.”

Despite being “religion neutral,” the plaintiffs argued that the law is unconstitutional because more voucher recipients chose to attend religious schools than non-religious schools. However, the court rejected this claim, citing the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris (which upheld school vouchers in Ohio): “the constitutionality of a neutral educational aid program simply does not turn on whether and why, in a particular area, at a particular time, most private schools are religious, or most recipients choose to use the aid at a religious school.” What matters to the constitution, the Oklahoma court explained, is only that the law is religiously neutral and that parents have a choice: “When the parents and not the government are the ones determining which private school offers the best learning environment for their child, the circuit between government and religion is broken… Scholarship funds deposited to a private sectarian school occur only as a result of the private independent choice by the parent or legal guardian.” [emphasis in the original]

(H/t to Tim Keller of the Institute for Justice.)

giphy


DCPS Black Students need six years to reach where DCPS White students stood in 4th grade

February 15, 2016

“DC achievement gaps now, DC achievement gaps tomorrow, DC achievement gaps FOREVER!”

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Last week I told you that White DC 4th grade students were outscoring the average achievement of Black 8th graders on math by a wide margin. The below chart presents data from the 2011 4th grade math NAEP along with 8th grade scores from 2015. Data for White and Black students from the DCPS and Black students from DC charters are presented.

DC gap trend 1

I’ve looked at the both the main NAEP and the Trial Urban District Assessment and you simply cannot find another spot that matches DC for achievement gaps. As you can see, by 4th grade DC White students have already demonstrated  a level of mastery of mathematics that 8th grade Black students come nowhere close to matching by 8th grade. At fourth grade a sixty point gap between the achievement of White and Black students yawns (272 to 212). Meanwhile DCPS Black students have not come close to catching up to the 4th grade White score 4 years later. In fact at the rate of progress shown by DCPS Black students we would expect them to catch up to the 4th grade scores of DCPS White students somewhere around their sophomore or junior year of high-school.

No one should view the closing of these gaps as easy. Notice that DC Black students attending charter schools started 8 points ahead of their district counterparts in 2011 and then gained more between 2011 and 2015 (46 points for charter students, 36 for District). This left DC Black students within striking distance of the 4th grade score of DC White students (272 to 266) but still far behind DCPS 8th grade White students (314 to 266). Still DC’s Black charter school students made the largest overall gains (46 points) and did so for about half of the average revenue per pupil in DCPS.

Sick to your stomach yet? Can’t believe it? Well let’s check the tape for the NAEP reading exam.

DC gap trend 2

 

We see precisely the same pattern- by 4th grade DC White students demonstrate a level of mastery of reading that Black students will not equal by 8th grade. A huge gap between DCPS White and Black students (64 points) yawns out in the 2011 4th grade scores and does not meaningfully narrow by the time the cohort reaches 8th grade in 2015 (63 points). DC Black students attending charter schools demonstrated a smaller gap in 2011 (57 points) and had narrowed it a bit further by 2015 (51 points) but had still not caught up to the score of DCPS White students in 2011.

Before you reach for your demographic fatalism pistol let me just note that FRL eligible Black students attending district schools in Boston scored 24 points higher than FRL Black students attending district schools in DC. New York City and Houston clobbered DCPS by 16 points in the same comparison. None of these districts receive $29,000 per student in revenue. Houston didn’t sniff half of that figure. We cannot disentangle the effect of schooling and family with these data, but other systems seem to do much more for similar students with much less.

Getting back to the Heritage study– someone take a look at this data and tell me why oh why would we want to shower $29,000 per student on the system that produces such catastrophic results for disadvantaged kids. Charters receive only $14k per student that and get better results. Congress provides a constantly politically imperiled $8k per child on a small voucher program for low-income DC kids that merely gets them over the high-school graduation finish line at a 20% higher rate. This system of finance has been in place for decades now. Piling money on a system proficient only at serving the needs of the already advantaged while starving systems serving the disadvantaged for funds makes sense to someone.

It just doesn’t make sense to me. It shouldn’t make sense to you either.