Coulson Schools LA Times on Charters

December 2, 2009

Andrew Coulson teaches the LA Times a thing or two about charter schools in his post on the Cato blog.  Here’s the meat of it:

Yesterday’s LA Times editorial on charter schools combined errors of fact and omission with a misrepresentation of the economic research on public school spending. First, the Times claims that KIPP charter public schools spend “significantly more per student than the public school system.” Not so, says the KIPP website. But why rely on KIPP’s testimony, when we can look at the raw data? LA’s KIPP Academy of Opportunity, for instance, spent just over $3 million in 2007-08, for 345 students, for a total per pupil expenditure of $8,917. The most recent Dept. of Ed. data for LAUSD (2006-07) put that district’s comparable figure at $13,481 (which, as Cato’s Adam Schaeffer will show in a forthcoming paper, is far below what it currently spends). Nationwide, the median school district spends 24 percent more than the median charter school, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

Next, in summarizing the charter research, the Times’ editors omitted the most recent and sophisticated study, by Stanford professor Caroline Hoxby. It finds a significant academic advantage to charters using a randomized assignment experimental model that blows the methodological doors off most of the earlier charter research. The Times also neglects to mention Hoxby’s damning critique of the CREDO study it does cite….

There are certainly reasons to lament the performance of the charter sector, and the Times’ editors even came close to citing one of them: its inability to scale up excellence as rapidly and routinely as is the case in virtually every field outside of education. Before getting into such policy issues, however, the Times should make a greater effort to marshal the basic facts.

Leave a Comment » | charter schools | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Mid-Riffs on Arkansas Charters

December 1, 2009

Brian Kisida and Josh McGee, who blog at Mid-Riffs, had an op-ed in the Sunday Arkansas Democrat Gazette on the State Board of Education’s rejection of all six new charter applications.  Here is the money quote:

The Board often cited the same tired reason for denying charter applicants: The proposed charter wasn’t innovative enough. Arkansas Education Commissioner Tom Kimbrell echoed this sentiment after the Board’s meeting, summarizing that he thought the Board was looking for “something different and innovative that students can’t get in a normal public school.” Likewise, a Springdale representative in attendance said that “if a charter school is going to go in, it should offer something better or do something we can’t.” Board member Brenda Gullett, at a Democratic luncheon last week, confirmed that demonstrating innovation was the standard to which she held charter applicants. Some version of this reasoning seems to show up in state and local school board discussions every time a charter school is opposed in Arkansas.

It is an undue burden to force charter applicants to demonstrate radically new techniques before they open their doors. Imagine that Taco Bueno had to get permission from Taco Bell to open a store in the same town. You might hear the same anti-competitive argument from Taco Bell: “Why should Taco Bueno be allowed to open? They’re just going to offer the same things that we do. They have tacos; we have tacos. They have burritos; we have burritos.” But of course, the whole point of choice and competition is that a competitor will offer essentially the same goods or services. If the goods or services are too different, it isn’t really competition after all. It’s up to the customer-not Taco Bell-to decide whose tacos are, in fact, “better.”

Moreover, the question regarding whether charter applicants must demonstrate innovation is a legal one. The state legislature has the power to make laws. The Board, as an arm of the executive branch, has a duty to execute the law. And nothing in Arkansas’ charter school law can reasonably be construed to empower the Board to reject charter applicants solely for not demonstrating innovation. The word “innovation” doesn’t even appear in the Arkansas Department ofEducation’s rules and regulations that govern the requirements for charter school applicants.

2 Comments | charter schools | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

School Choice Reduces Crime, Increases College-Attendance, and Makes Your Breath Smell Better

November 29, 2009

Well, at least the first two claims are supported by rigorous new research based on school choice lotteries in Charlotte, North Carolina. Harvard researcher, David Deming, looked at a public school choice program that allows families to rank order their preferred schools and then admits students by a weighted lottery formula.  The program is designed primarily to facilitate school integration but it also allows random-assignment designed research of the effects of choice.  In the paper, “Better Schools, Less Crime?” , Deming found: 

Seven years after random assignment, lottery winners have been arrested for fewer and less serious crimes, and have spent fewer days incarcerated…  The reduction in crime persists through the end of the sample period, several years after enrollment in the preferred school is complete. The effects are concentrated among African-American males whose ex ante characteristics define them as “high risk.”

In another paper Deming wrote with Justine Hastings, Tom Kane and Doug Staiger, they examined the same Charlotte program but this time focused on the effects of choice on high school completion and college attendance.  They found:

We find strong evidence that high school lottery winners from neighborhoods assigned to the lowest-performing schools benefited greatly from choice. Girls are 12 percentage points more likely to attend a four-year college. Boys are 13 percentage points more likely to graduate from high school but are less likely to attend a four-year college. We present suggestive evidence that changes in relative rank within schools may explain these puzzling gender differences. In contrast with the results for students from low-performing home school zones, we find little evidence of gains for students whose home schools are of average quality.

So, expanding school choice reduces the likelihood that students will become criminals (particularly among African-American males) and increases the chances that boys will graduate high school and girls will attend college.  Given previous research showing that choice increases achievement for participating students, students who remain in traditional public schools, and improves civic goals (like school integration) in addition to these new findings, maybe choice really does make your breath smell better.  It seems to do so many other useful things.

2 Comments | charter schools, vouchers | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Gloomy Required Reading

November 24, 2009

As I reviewed my 9th grader’s required reading list for English class I saw good and bad news.  The good news is he is reading some excellent literature, including Romeo and Juliet, Of Mice and Men, Night and To Kill a Mockingbird.  The bad news is that these works are remarkably gloomy. 

To Kill a Mockingbird is the most upbeat of the bunch and can at its most positive be described as a bittersweet recollection of childhood and at its most negative a horrifying tale of the lynching of an innocent man.  The other books are more consistently downbeat, featuring mutual suicide, killing an innocent retarded man, and the holocaust.

I know that the world can be a nasty place and I know that great literature tends to explore that nastiness.  But I have to wonder whether it is really such a good idea to require our moody adolescents to read a steady stream of such depressing works.

Can I suggest that we break-up the persistent gloom by substituting some more upbeat books?  Maybe students could read Measure for Measure instead of Romeo and Juliet.  Measure for Measure would appeal to youthful resistance to authority without modeling overwrought teen crushes.  Maybe schools could add some Kurt Vonnegut, which softens the gloom with absurdist humor.

Don’t get me wrong, I think my child’s reading list is pretty typical and I like everything on it.  I’m just wondering if people have thought about how downbeat the list is.

11 Comments | instructional reform | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

The Case for Israel

November 23, 2009

We had a screening of the film, The Case for Israel: Democracy’s Outpost, Saturday night in the newly constructed Temple Shalom in Fayetteville, AR with comments from the producer, Gloria Greensfield.  It was a huge success.

There were nearly a hundred people there of whom about a third were from pro-Israel Christian Churches.  As certain segments of the Jewish community have gone wobbly on Israel, the support of the Christian community is becoming more important.

But the most important reason that the screening was a huge success is that it was probably the largest pro-Israel gathering in a college community dominated by the anti-Israel King Fahd Center for Middle East and Islamic Studies, created with an $18 million gift from the Saudi Arabian government.  The King Fahd Center along with the Omni Center for Peace, Justice, and Ecology host a few anti-Israel conferences each year.

The oddest thing about these King Fahd and Omni Center events is their singular focus on human rights abuses by Israel.  Yes, the government of Israel along with the governments in the US and all other democracies can work on improving how they treat their own and other people.  But if we really wanted to address human rights abuses wouldn’t we be paying a whole lot more attention to the flagrant oppression perpetrated by the dictatorships governing every other country in the Middle East?

In Saudi Arabia , Iran, Gaza and elsewhere in the Middle East (but not Israel) homosexuality is a crime sometimes punished by death.  Religious and political dissent is almost entirely repressed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Gaza, and elsewhere in the Middle East (but not Israel).

Shouldn’t progressives who value freedom for homosexuals as well as religious and political minorities (as I do) be devoting much more energy protesting other countries in the Middle East?  And shouldn’t people who value democracy and human rights (as I do) praise those countries in the world where such values exist and are implemented (even if very imperfectly) rather than concentrating the bulk of their energy denouncing those countries?  It’s as if we have gone through the looking glass and up is now down.

3 Comments | Fayetteville, politics | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Can’t Think of A Blog Post

November 18, 2009

I apologize for my lack of a post yesterday and this lame post today.  I just can’t seem to think of a good post.

Yesterday Greg suggested that I blog about this excellent editorial in the Wall Street Journal denouncing the Ford Foundation for giving $100 million to the teachers union to spur education reform and claiming that this money would “shake up the conversations surrounding school reform and help spur some truly imaginative thinking and partnerships.”  The Ford Foundation might as well give $100 million to the city of Las Vegas to address gambling addiction. 

But the Wall Street Journal already did a great job, so it didn’t seem worth my blogging about since I really wouldn’t have anything to add.

I also thought about blogging about how the Race to the Top criteria issued this week hardly demand meaningful reform from states.  But I’ve already written several times on how little we should expect from Race to the Top, such as here.  The bigger surprise is that anyone is surprised.  Besides, Jeanne Allen did a fine job critiquing the Race to the Top criteria here.  And on top of all that, I’ve probably been beating up on Obama and Duncan about education reform too much.  The reality is that at least they are saying a lot of the right things, which has had a big effect on education reform battles at the state and local level.  It’s a big deal that a Democratic Administration has (at least rhetorically) thrown its weight fully behind expanding choice and competition (if only via charters), merit pay, weakening teacher tenure, etc…

I also thought about blogging about a bunch of local issues.  A state school board member was featured in an article in the Northwest Arkansas Times explaining why she opposed every newly proposed charter school in Arkansas this year.  She helpfully explained that she had visited a predominantly Hispanic school in Springdale, AR that was making AYP with its ESL students and “that helped convince her Springdale’s services were sufficient for their students.”  There’s no need to let those families decide if the quality of their education is sufficient.

But some of my friends who write the excellent blog, Mid-Riffs, were already working on something to address this.  I saw no need to duplicate.

In short, I’m sorry, folks.  Maybe I’ll think of something fresh soon.  Or maybe I can just keep writing about all the things that I was going to write about but didn’t.  Or did I?

17 Comments | charter schools, teacher union | Tagged: , , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Stop the National Standards Train

November 16, 2009

As I’ve said before (here, here, and elsewhere), I can’t understand the enthusiasm of education reformers for national standards and testing.  Advocates for the status quo and/or pure nonsense are much better positioned to control the process of national standard-setting and test-writing than are advocates for meaningful reform grounded in evidence-based approaches.

In case you had any doubts, the current round of national standards and testing craze is once again being hijacked by the Dark Side.  My colleague, Sandra Stotsky, has an excellent piece in the current issue of City Journal ringing the alarm bells:

A distinct lack of interest in allowing mathematicians a major voice in determining the content of the high school mathematics curriculum isn’t confined to educational research publications or presentations. A new effort is under way to develop national math standards for K–12. The two organizations running the effort—the National Governors Association and the Council of Chief State School Officers, with support from both the Department of Education and the National Education Association—have not yet invited a single mathematical or science society to ensure that the high school mathematics standards and “college-readiness” standards they propose in fact prepare American high school students for the freshman calculus courses that serve as the basis for undergraduate majors in engineering, science, and mathematics (as well as other mathematics-dependent majors and technical/occupational programs). The effort, which is being pushed very quickly, seems determined to do an end run around the country’s mathematical and scientific organizations and the panel’s recommendations on the major topics for school algebra.

Who controls this process?  Advocates of “constructivism” and  “cultural-historical activity theory” do.  If you don’t know what this gobbledy-gook means, Sandy helpfully explains: 

Two theories lie behind the educators’ new approach to math teaching: “cultural-historical activity theory” and “constructivism.” According to cultural-historical activity theory, schooling as it exists today reinforces an illegitimate social order. Typical of this mindset is Brian Greer, a mathematics educator at Portland State University, who argues “against the goal of ‘algebra for all’ on the grounds that . . . most individuals in our society do not need to have studied algebra.” According to Greer, the proper approach to teaching math “now questions whether mathematics as a school subject should continue to be dominated by mathematics as an academic discipline or should reflect more fully the range of mathematical activities in which humans engage.” The primary role of math teachers, constructivists say in turn, shouldn’t be to explain or otherwise try to “transfer” their mathematical knowledge to students; that would be ineffective. Instead, they must help the students construct their own understanding of mathematics and find their own math solutions.

We need to stop this national standards train before we all go off the rails.

12 Comments | instructional reform, school accountability | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Phony Conflict

November 10, 2009

I don’t understand why enthusiasts of curricular or pedagogical reforms feel the need to pick fights with choice supporters.  Are they so starved for attention that they need to create a phony conflict about whether focusing on choice or curriculum is a more effective strategy for school improvement?

I say that this is a phony conflict because there is no necessary tension between expanding choice and competition in education and spreading the adoption of more effective curriculum and pedagogical practices.  In fact, the two strategies should usually complement each other nicely.  Given that the educational establishment is hostile to reforms proposed by backers of Core Knowledge, phonics-based reading instruction, etc…, the best way to expand access of students to these alternative approaches is to allow them to choose charter or voucher schools where they are more likely to find these alternatives.  We can expand access to Core Knowledge by expanding access to choice.

But curriculum reform enthusiasts often seem uncomfortable with choice.  What if people choose the wrong thing?  Wouldn’t it be much better if we just made everyone adopt the right approach?

The problem with this strategy is that it reflects an amazing amount of political naivete.  If someone were in a position to impose a single curriculum and pedagogy, through national testing, standards, and restricted choice, why would they assume that their view of the desirable curriculum would be the one to prevail?   Opponents of Core Knowledge, phonics, etc… are much better positioned politically to control national testing and standards.  Even if the reformers could gain control over those centralized institutions for a period of time, they can’t simply assume that they would remain forever in control.

It’s time for the curriculum people to suppress these periodic inventions of a phony conflict with choice supporters.  The vast majority of choice supporters are sympathetic to the goals of curriculum reformers and we can make much better progress if we work together than if we get drawn into these phony fights.

9 Comments | instructional reform | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Is Percentage-Based Compensation Unethical?

November 2, 2009

Teacher unions aren’t the only ones who have a problem with linking compensation to performance.  The Association of Fundraising Professionals (AFP), the interest group representing the people who raise money for non-profit organizations, has declared that it is unethical. 

As the AFP’s standards of ethics puts it: “Members shall not accept compensation or enter into a contract that is based on a percentage of contributions; nor shall members accept finder’s fees or contingent fees.”  According to the AFP, paying fund-raisers a percentage of what they bring in is not just a bad idea, it is wrong.

I have been a member of three non-profit organization boards and at each one the board was told that it could not pay a fundraiser a percentage of money brought in.  Instead, we were told that we were ethically bound to pay a fundraiser a flat fee and hope that the person would raise significantly more than the flat fee.  I must also add that at each one of these organizations the fund-raiser we hired barely covered his/her flat fee and the non-profit came away with virtually nothing. 

I have never understood why percentage-based compensation for non-profit fund-raisers is unethical.  I understand that it is in the AFP and their members’ interest to declare that it is unethical.  Doing so almost always stifles discussion on boards about what is the best way to compensate fund-raisers.  It also shifts all risk to the organization from the fund-raiser and assures them a profit.

The AFP has gone as far as proposing that Congress pass a law forbidding non-profits from using percentage-based funding for fund-raisers.  The argument about why this is such an awful practice that it needs to be outlawed is flimsy at best.  First, the AFP claims: “Percentage-based compensation sets up a conflict of interest. A consultant’s desire for personal gain shouldn’t trump the broader social interests of the organization.”  But it is not clear why paying fund-raisers a percentage of what they bring-in sets up a conflict of interest.  If anything, paying fund-raisers a percentage aligns the interests of fund-raisers and organizations by providing the fund-raiser with an incentive to raise more money, which is exactly what most organizations also want. 

If percentage-based compensation creates a conflict of interest, why should that be any more of a problem for fund-raisers in the non-profit sector than among sales-people in the for-profit sector?  As the AFP concedes: “Percentage-based compensation methods are generally legal. They are also common practice in the commercial sector.” 

Every objection that the AFP raises to percentage-based compensation could apply equally well to the profit-seeking sector.  And each of these problems can be successfully managed.  If they cannot, people in the profit-seeking sector would avoid percentage-based compensation as unproductive, but almost no one would denounce it as unethical.

Here are the objections that the AFP has that they say makes percentage-based compensation in the non-profit world unethical:

What if a consultant were to receive compensation based on an unsolicited gift or on an annual contribution that commenced before and continues after the consultant leaves? Such reward without merit would create resentment among organization staff and donors. Since many contributions are the result of teamwork among organization staff and consultants, no one person should be able to cart off the rewards of that effort. Consultants motivated by personal gain could unduly pressure a donor to make a contribution, without consideration of the donor’s wishes or timetable. And if the practice became widely known, the organization’s reputation and credibility could suffer irreparable harm.

Sales also come to businesses “that commenced before and continues after the [salesperson] leaves.”  Businesses that use percentage-based compensation devise ways of assigning responsibility for sales (some of which may be  arbitray) or they exclude certain sales.  These problems are not unique to non-profits and have been addressed in the profit-seeking sector.

It is also true that “many [sales] are the result of teamwork among organization staff and consultants, no one person should be able to cart off the rewards of that effort.”  Again, these are problems that also exist in the businessworld and solutions have been developed.

Lastly, it is also true that “[salespeople] motivated by personal gain could unduly pressure a [customer] to make a [purchase], without consideration of the [customer]’s wishes or timetable.”  This is also not a unique or intractable problem in the businessworld.

In the end, the declaration that percentage-based compensation for fund-raisers just feels like self-interested bullying.  Non-profits may choose not to pay fund-raisers on a percentage basis, but they should feel free to consider whatever way would best serve the organization without being told that they are behaving “unethically” without any valid reason.

I’m thinking about starting a new organization, “People United for Jay P. Greene.”  One of our first actions is likely to be to declare it unethical not to give Jay P. Greene a million dollars.  We’d have about as much reason for saying so as the AFP has for its “ethics.”

3 Comments | bullying, teacher pay | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Debrilla M. Ratchford — Winner of the Al Copeland Humanitarian Award

October 30, 2009

We had several excellent nominees this year for the Al Copeland Humanitarian Award.  Each one of them has made a significant contribution to improving the human condition.  Steve Henson gave us ranch dressing,  Fasi Zaka ridiculed the Taliban,  Ralp Teetor invented cruise control, and Mary Quant popularized the miniskirt.  But this year’s winner is Debrilla M. Ratchford, the inventor of the rollerbag.

Ms. Ratchford was a flight attendant who realized that if you attached wheels and a handle to a suitcase, it would be much easier to transport baggage through airports.  She obtained a patent in 1978 for this invention, but it took almost a decade before the rollerbag became standard airport equipment.

Prior to the rollerbag people had to carry their suitcases or pay attendants with carts to get their luggage from the car to the check-in counter.  Dragging heavy bags to and from the car and around airports was a pain.  And having to wait for (or lose) checked bags was as much of a pain.  The rollerbag allows us to zip through airports and avoid checking bags.

This invention didn’t just ease our aching backs and save us time, it facilitates commerce.  Making it easier to travel, all things equal, means that there will be more travel.  More travel means more business transactions, which adds to our wealth.  Debrilla M. Ratchford didn’t just invent a handy device and make some money for herself.  She also benefited others by reducing the hassle of carrying around luggage and contributing to economic growth.  That makes someone a great humanitarian.

A central purpose of the Al Copeland Humanitarian Award is to highlight the fact that a humanitarian can be someone who benefits him or herself while also benefiting others.  There is no necessary tension between self-gain and improving the human condition.  On the contrary, when people are monetarily rewarded for their efforts, they are more likely to do things that benefit humanity.  The entrepreneur and inventor isn’t a necessary evil, he or she has a morally positive role in society.

This is what Al Copeland did, which is why this award is named in his honor.  As I wrote:

“Al Copeland  may not have done the most to benefit humanity, but he certainly did more than many people who receive such awards.  Chicago gave Bill Ayers their Citizen of the Year award in 1997.  And the Nobel Peace Prize has too often gone to a motley crew including unrepentant terrorist, Yassir Arafat, and fictional autobiography writer, Rigoberta Menchu.   Local humanitarian awards tend to go to hack politicians or community activists.  From all these award recipients you might think that a humanitarian was someone who stopped throwing bombs… or who you hoped would picket, tax, regulate, or imprison someone else.

Al Copeland never threatened to bomb, picket, tax, regulate, or imprison anyone.  By that standard alone he would be much more of a humanitarian.  But Al Copeland did even more — he gave us spicy chicken.”

I decided against Steve Henson because I didn’t want to give the impression that only gastronomic innovation improves the human condition (although cool ranch Dorritos are pretty awesome).  I decided against Fasi Zaka because he has not yet achieved the improvement in the human condition he is seeking — making the Muslim extremists seem uncool in the Muslim world.  We wouldn’t want to give an award just for the hope of future accomplishment.  I decided against Ralph Teetor because I personally almost never use cruise control, so the improvement in the human condition seems less impressive to me.  And while Mary Quant was a close second, I decided against selecting her because, like my concerns with making this award too gastronomic, I didn’t want to suggest that improving the human condition was primarily sensual (although Quant also added to freedom — particularly the freedom to run for a bus more easily).

Congratulations to Debrilla M. Ratchford and Happy Halloween!

2 Comments | Al Copeland Humanitarian Award | Tagged: | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »