I’ll Have What Florida Charter Schools are Having

November 7, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Florida’s charter schools totally crushed the ball on the 2013 NAEP Reading test- an 11 point gain in 4th grade reading and a 5 point gain in 8th grade reading. As the number of charter schools in the state has gone up, the ability of NAEP to reliably sample them has improved.

Getting about as close to an “apples to apples” as you can get in the NAEP data by comparing only low-income general education students still shows huge gains and a big advantage for Florida charters to Florida district schools.

Florida charter 2013 NAEP

 


DC, Tennessee and Indiana Crush the Ball on 2013 NAEP

November 7, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The National Center for Education Statistics released the 2013 NAEP this morning for 4th and 8th grade Reading and Math. I will be crunching the numbers for some time to come, but here is a quick look at the net results by state jurisdiction (combined 2013 scores minus combined 2011 scores).

2013 NAEP Gains

Quick takes: DC and TN crushed the ball with gains four times larger than the national average. These look to be truly historic gains with both DC and TN scoring statistically significantly higher in all four tests.

Indiana scores big with gains almost three times the national average. Florida gets back on track with gains more than twice the national average.

More number crunching to follow but a

BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!!!!!

for top gainers DC, TN and IN is already in order.


Baby Boom and Baby Boomer Retirement Combo will Require Broad Public Sector Rethink

October 28, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

I have a guest post over at RedefinED today showing that Florida’s young and elderly populations will be simultaneously and hugely expanding over the next 17 years. The policy changes needed to successfully cope with such profound shifts will likely make the last 15 years seem quaint by comparison.

I’m generally a determined optimist, but the demographic changes in Florida will require substantial changes in every aspect of state policy-not just K-12, but higher education, health care and pensions.

By the way, the same phenomenon is coming to a state near you. The Census Bureau projects that the state with the lowest Age Dependency Ratio in 2030 will be greater than the state with the highest Age Dependency Ratio in 2010.

In K-12, we need to find ways to educate children that improve both academic and cost effectiveness. The sooner we do this the better, because the highly stressed working age taxpayers of 2030 are in the K-12 pipeline right now.


Many States Show Shameful Records in Holding Schools Accountable for the Progress of Special Needs Students

October 23, 2013

Special Ed inclusion

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The No Child Left Behind Act required student testing and reporting of data in return for continuing receipt of federal education dollars. The law however left granular details to the states, most of whom happily went about abusing them.

This chart is from a new study about the inclusion of special needs children in state testing regimes. As you can see from the third column, states held a glorious 35.4% of schools accountable for the academic performance of special needs children during the 2009-10 school year.  This ranged from a glorious 100% in Connecticut and Utah to a sickening 7% in Arizona.

I have heard through the grapevine that addressing this national scandal has been a major point of emphasis in Arne Duncan’s waiver process. As someone who views this process skeptically overall and suspects that it is creating a mess that will be difficult to unwind, let me say bully for Duncan on this score.

Those of us who have a preference for state and local control over K-12 policy need to recognize data like this and shamefully low cut scores as a major problem.  I’m not an enthusiast for Washington by any means. You won’t however be hearing me sing the glories of devolving K-12 power to Arizona as long as the Wall Street stock picking chicken can pass the AIMS test on a good day and 93% percent of the schools are not held accountable for the academic progress of special needs children.


School Choice the Next Generation Strikes Again

October 10, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The Friedman Foundation strikes again, with School Choice the Next Generation officers Butcher and Bedrick offering a new survey of parents in the Arizona Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program. Read the whole thing, but here is a useful summary graphic:

AZESA


17,000 march in support of Charter Schools in NYC

October 10, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Looks like a big battle looming in Gotham.  I predict DeBlasio’s notion of charging rent to certain types of public schools (charters) but not to others (districts) will end in tears one way or another if he is foolish enough to pursue it. Equal protection under the law anyone?

NYC charter supporters should be calling Clint Bolick about now.


Bill Knudsen for the Al Copeland Humanitarian Award

October 7, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

For this year’s “Al” award, I nominate William S. Knudsen. Knudsen is a little known name these days, but he was not only an American success story and industrialist, but played an indispensible role in saving the world from totalitarianism.

We face our share of challenges these days, but they mostly look absurd self-made problems compared to those that previous generations stared down. In the 20th Century, totalitarianism posed an immediate existential threat to liberal democracy. One of the three greatest democracies, France, folded like a house of cards once the shooting started in the World War II. Shortly thereafter, another of the three, Great Britain, resorted to sending fishing boats to the shores of France to avoid complete annihilation of their forces.

The third great democracy, the United States, largely sat by in a self-absorbed stupor during the pre-war period, hoping not to get drawn into this conflict. Hope of course is not a plan. It is much to President Franklin Roosevelt’s credit that he began to cautiously plan for the great conflict to come in the teeth of fierce skepticism by the American public. The American military was a sad, underfunded joke at the time. Moreover, American industry was in disarray-not only due to the Great Depression but also to a series of public witch hunts against the weapon manufacturers conducted by Senator Harry Truman and others. American troops trained with cars for standing in for tanks, and many of the companies that might be capable of manufacturing real tanks had decided that it wasn’t worth the political heartburn. America’s military and supporting infrastructure, in short, was a complete mess.

As Arthur Herman lays out in his compelling history Freedom’s Forge, Bill Knudsen was the man President Roosevelt called to clean up the mess.

Knudsen was a Danish immigrant who worked his way up from the docks to become President of General Motors. Knudsen developed/perfected not one but two revolutionary improvements to the assembly line process during his automotive career, historically noteworthy in their own right-continuous mass production and flexible mass production.  Under Knudsen’s leadership, GM had decentralized production into competing product lines under the notion that decentralization would lead the way to innovation. It worked, and GM stole an ascendency in the automotive industry that it would not surrender until the late 1980s.

“Big Bill” was living the American dream when he received a call from President Roosevelt.”Knudsen? I want to see you in Washington. I want you to work on some production matters,” President Roosevelt told him. With that, Knudsen resigned from General Motors to take a position paying him $1 per year.  Knudsen had been a life-long Republican, and when his daughter asked why he decided to take the position in Washington, his answer was simple and direct “This country has been good to me. I want to pay it back.”

Big Bill could scarcely have imagined how difficult it would prove to pay his country back. In return for his enormous sacrifice in relinquishing his private sector position, Knudsen endured constant political and bureaucratic backstabbing. Roosevelt’s Washington sounds all too familiar in Herman’s telling-full of bright but overconfident people imagining that America would enormously benefit from enlightened central planning. Knudsen however understood from the outset that so great a task could only be accomplished with the willing, voluntary participation of American industry.

“Industry in the United States does more for the country in direct, or indirect, contributions to the public wealth than any other country on earth. And it will continue to do so if given the opportunity without restrictions,” Knudsen told a public audience. In private, he explained to President Roosevelt “The government can’t do it all. The more people we can get into this program, the more brains we can get into it, the better chance we will have to succeed.”

Knudsen fought hard to create voluntary participation of American industry through incentives rather than state coercion and control. The wisdom of this approach ultimately manifested itself in the greatest surge in industrial production in the history of mankind, but also in smaller ways. Along the way, for instance, American industrialists figured out that the Pentagon was too hidebound to reliably figure out what kind of weapons and material they wanted. Increasingly over time the manufacturers figured it out for themselves by competing to create the best products possible.

By the time Japan attacked Pearl Harbor and Hitler declared war on the United States, Bill Knudsen had a very, very unpleasant surprise waiting for them. Knudsen had primed the industrial might and creative power of American industry to go to war against the Axis powers. Japan’s military leaders and Hitler’s Nazis obviously could have scarcely imagined what they were in for, but these regimes signed their death warrants when the decided to cross swords with the United States of America.

Bill Knudsen deserves as much credit for this remarkable turnaround as anyone, perhaps more.

The attacks Knudsen endured along the way simply made his ultimate vindication all the more sweet. Senator Truman compared his contracting out to Santa Claus leaving gifts under a Christmas tree, and Roosevelt ultimately fired Knudsen in a Machiavellian move to assuage criticism without even speaking to Knudsen in advance. It didn’t matter- Knudsen’s replacement discerned the wisdom of the Big Dane’s approach and carried on his policies, much to the chagrin of the New Dealers. Knudsen accepted a commission as a three star general in the War Department to head up purchasing-the highest rank ever granted to a civilian.

Herman wrote:

The New Dealers thought they had won. They were too late. America was indeed in production now, with 25,000 prime contractors and 120,000 subcontractors making products they had never dreamed of making, and thousands more to come. And nothing the people in Washington or the Axis could do now would stem the tide…In the first year after a production order, output was bound to triple; in the second it would jump by a factor of seven; at the end of the third year the only limits on output were material and labor-whether it was trucks or artillery pieces or bombs or planes.

Knudsen believed that American industry would generate its own spontaneous order to match the needs of wartime America, so long as the government was wise enough to create the necessary incentives. Herman notes that four days before Pearl Harbor Hitler had ordered German industry to start a program of “mass production on modern principles” (aka Knudsen principles) and put Albert Speer in charge of the effort with all of the central planning powers desired by the New Dealers, and more. Speer had the ability to decide which factory would produce what, could move labor around at will, controlled wages and prices and made extensive use of slave labor.

The result- total blowout in America’s favor. Herman explains:

What Speer lacked was Knudsen’s secret weapon: America’s prodigious industrial base built around free enterprise, which was now giving its full attention to war production…The German car industry, including the Opel factories the government had seized from General Motors, sat half-idle through the entire war. And constant meddling and changes of priorities by the German military ensured that time and energy and materials were lost in a limitless bureaucratic maze.

Meanwhile, American car manufacturers were building the war material which ensured Britain’s and then the Soviet Union’s tenuous survival against the Nazi onslaught before turning the tide completely and dispatching the “Thousand Year Reich” a few short years later. Nazis needed killing, and after that, Soviets needed containing (a second struggle for freedom in which President Truman redeemed himself) in order to make the world safe for self-determination.

Fortunately Bill Knudsen had waded through nearly brain-dead American politics at great personal sacrifice in order to equip American soldiers with everything they needed to get the job done. For this great service to humanity, the Big Dane gets not only a nomination for the Al, but also a heart-felt:

!!!BOOOOOOOOOOOOOOM!!!


ESA Court Victory in Arizona

October 1, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

The Arizona Court of Appeals rendered a unanimous ruling in favor of the Empowerment Scholarship Accounts program, which you can read here. In so doing, they completely rejected all of the arguments made by those seeking to destroy the program.

Congratulations to our crack legal-eagles at the Institute for Justice, Goldwater Institute and Arizona Attorney General’s Office. If you are not in the mood to read a long legal decision, here are some highlights drawn out by Jonathan Butcher. The Cain decision is the Arizona Supreme Court decision which found vouchers unconstitutional on the basis of our Blaine amendment. The Appeals Court however finds very big distinction between ESAs and vouchers:

The parents of a qualified student under the ESA must provide an education in reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science. Whether that is done at a private secular or sectarian school is a matter of parental choice. The ESA students are pursuing a basic secondary education consistent with state standards; they are not pursuing a course of religious study.

The ESA does not result in an appropriation of public money to encourage the preference of one religion over another, or religion per se over no religion. Any aid to religious schools would be a result of the genuine and independent private choices of the parents. The parents are given numerous ways in which they can educate their children suited to the needs of each child with no preference given to religious or nonreligious schools or programs. Parents are required only to educate their children in the areas of reading, grammar, mathematics, social studies, and science.

Where ESA funds are spent depends solely upon how parents choose to educate their children. Eligible school children may choose to remain in public school, attend a religious school, or a nonreligious private school. They may also use the funds for educational therapies, tutoring services, online learning programs and other curricula, or even at a postsecondary institution.

The specified object of the ESA is the beneficiary families, not private or sectarian schools. Parents can use the funds deposited in the empowerment account to customize an education that meets their children’s unique educational needs.

Thus, beneficiaries have discretion as to how to spend the ESA funds without having to spend any of the aid at private or sectarian schools.

Thus, unlike in Cain II, in which every dollar of the voucher programs was earmarked for private schools, none of the ESA funds are preordained for a particular destination.

The supreme court has never interpreted the Aid Clause to mean that no public money can be spent at private or religious schools.

This program enhances the ability of parents of disabled children to choose how best to provide for their educations, whether in or out of private schools. No funds in the ESA are earmarked for private schools.

First, the ESA does not require a permanent or irrevocable forfeiture of the right to a free public education.

All the ESA requires is that students not simultaneously enroll in a public school while receiving ESA funds. This same restriction applies to any children who attend private school or are homeschooled.

Second, parents are not coerced in deciding whether or not to participate in the ESA…Parents are free to enroll their children in the public school or to participate in the ESA; the fact that they cannot do both at the same time does not amount to a waiver of their constitutional rights or coercion by the state.

Finally, the ESA does not limit the choices extended to families but expands the options to meet the individual needs of children.

BOOOOOOOOOM!!!!!

One of the three judges had previously found vouchers unconstitutional. Next stop- Arizona Supreme Court for what will be the only binding legal decision. So far, so good.


AP Reporter Tom LoBianco Smeared Tony Bennett

September 10, 2013

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Just in case there is any lingering doubt out there about just what happened in the faux Indiana grading “scandal” the Sunshine State News very helpfully dispels it:

It was Tony Bennett’s successor in Indiana, state Superintendent of Public Instruction Glenda Ritz, formerly head of the teachers union in Washington Township schools, who turned over Bennett’s entire Outlook file — six months of emails, four years of calendar items, everything — to Associated Press reporter Tom LoBianco, according to two of Ritz’s employees.

Ritz beat Bennett in the 2012 Indiana general election, becoming the first Democrat to win the job in 42 years. Bennett had been a favorite of former Republican Gov. Mitch Daniels and the GOP-controlled Legislature.

Two employees in Ritz’s office spoke late Monday to Sunshine State News on condition of anonymity. “Glenda is Tony’s sworn enemy,” said one of the employees. “She approached Tom (LoBianco) and cooperated with the press right down the line.”

“I think the idea was to destroy what Tony stands for by tainting him with a little dirt,” the second employee added, saying what offended Ritz was his hard-driving agenda of charters, vouchers and high-stakes testing.

So you take someone’s entire Outlook file, sift through it, put out a few emails without any context whatsoever. Oh and you make up a story to go along with your out of context emails, and you don’t even bother to learn whether your story holds up to the most basic levels of scrutiny. Questions like “were the changes made reasonable given the circumstances and did they apply across the board?” don’t carry the slightest bit of relevance if your aim is to smear someone, which of course is precisely what Ritz and LoBianco accomplished.

I’m curious where have the rest of the Indiana press been during all of this. Why did it take a news outlet from Florida to reveal what ought to have been immediately suspected from the outset?

UPDATE: While I have a difference of opinion regarding “super-subgroup” and other details RiShawn Biddle’s analysis on this subject is a must read.


Tony Bennett Cleared in A-F grading controversy

September 9, 2013

(Guest Post from Matthew Ladner)

We now have a bipartisan analysis of what actually happened in Indiana grading-gate scandal. Rick Hess covers the subject here:

Flash-forward five weeks, and we finally have a resolution. The headline: Bennett exonerated. That’s the conclusion of a 56-page official report, requested by Indiana’s legislative leaders, and released Friday.  Authored by Democrat John Grew, executive director of state relations and policy analysis at Indiana University, and Republican Bill Sheldrake, president and founder of Indianapolis-based research firm Policy Analytics, the report finds that Bennett acted appropriately and fair-mindedly.  Grew and Sheldrake spent the past month or so investigating what happened and reviewing the data.  They concluded that Bennett and his staff made “fair” and “plausible” changes to Indiana’s school rating system before releasing 2012′s A-F grades.  They found that a lack of planning and capacity had forced Bennett and his team to make a series of on-the-fly “interpretations” and judgments, but that  Bennett and his staff “consistently” applied changes to Christel House and 180 other affected schools.  In short, nothing to see here.

Since Tony’s critics are on the whole fair-minded people with only a tiny minority suffering from some sort of derangement syndrome, I’m sure Tony’s inbox will be filling up with apologies. Some analysts who were willing to pontificate much with little in the way of facts just might be feeling a bit sheepish today as well. Pundits are extremely responsible after all and never just shuffle on to the next subject when they are way off base on something.

I have believed from the outset that no one from Diane Ravitch to Charles Murray sitting in Tony’s position would have told 16 schools without junior and senior students to simply eat getting zero points from graduation rates and AP completion categories. “Would you shut up already and get some juniors and seniors” is simply not a response that any half-way reasonable person was going to utter.  I have also believed from the outset that if the changes made applied to only one school then it was a scandal, but that if they evenly applied the changes across schools then this was a hatchet-job.

For the record it was a hatchet-job.