Ignorance May Be Bliss, But It Makes Bad Policy

September 4, 2009

ignorance-is-bliss

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

ALELR draws attention to some problematic details in the Gallup/PDK poll finding on Americans’ support for charter schools.

 I hate to draw attention to the PDK poll, since its voucher support question has been shown to be misleading in a way that drives down the appearance of voucher support by an astonishing 23 percentage points. But I feel pretty safe because the PDK voucher question has lost so much credibility that it’s not really very dangerous any more.

So back to the charter school question. PDK finds 64% of Americans support charter schools. That’s the topline. But guess what else you find if you look below that?

A majority of Americans don’t think charter schools are public schools.

57% believe charter schools charge tuition.

71% believe charter schools can select their own students.

Perhaps vouchers and charters were separated at birth.

Bear that in mind the next time you hear charters are more popular than vouchers. First of all, I doubt that it’s true – I’ve seen plenty of polls with around 64% support for vouchers. But on top of that, how sure are we that when people say they support charters they don’t think they’re supporting sending children to private schools of their choice using public funds, which is the very definition of a voucher?

Image HT I Think I Believe

1 Comment | charter schools, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

Villaraigosa’s Big Lift in L.A.

August 26, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Big news out of Los Angeles- the school board has decided to emulate Philadelphia/New Orleans and outsource the management of 250 schools to charter operators, including several new multimillion dollar facilities. The LA Times reports:

“We’re here today to stand up for our children,” Villaraigosa told a cheering crowd while standing with about 25 students called up to appear with him. He stood under a banner proclaiming a “Parent Revolution,” which is the name of a parent-organizing campaign supported by leading charter school companies.

Outside the meeting room, waiting to get in, were both supporters and opponents of the resolution, written by Flores Aguilar. Labor unions, especially United Teachers Los Angeles, have opposed the measure, which Villaraigosa addressed in remarks that lasted about seven minutes.

“I am pro-union but I am pro-parent as well,” the mayor said. “If workers have rights, then parents ought to have rights too.” He added: “This school board understands that parents are going to have a voice.”

The Jurassic union thugs hate the proposal, but they got rolled. If you want to recall why, Drew Carey will give you a refresher:

My favorite part is when the union thug describes Steve Barr as “feeding at the public school trough” and “a vampire.” Paging Dr. Freud…we have a code red case of projection.

In any case, this is a BIG experiment in the nation’s second largest district. It will take skill and resolve to see it through. The reactionaries will be fighting it every step of the way. But for now, hats off to Mayor Villaraigosa, a former teacher union official, for showing the moral courage to take on the blob.

2 Comments | charter schools | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Let’s Get Ready to Rummmmmble!

August 24, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

I had a chance to watch the Fordham Foundation’s with ice cream ascendant is there a future for chocolate fudge event on charters and vouchers online. John Kirtley scored an early knockout when he noted that in Jacksonville Florida recently there all of 6 charter schools but 90 private schools serving low-income students through the Step Up for Students Tax Credit program. Kirtley then noted that not all 6 charter schools primarily serve low-income children. He likely could have added that not all six are high quality schools, but that would have been running up the score. Kirtley asked his debate opponents how much longer single mothers with children in the schools should have to wait for high quality school options.

DOWN GOES FRAZIER! DOWN GOES FRAZIER!

Kirtley’s opponents, Kevin Carey and Susan Zelman, raised the predictable totem of “accountability.” This of course is a real issue and a superficially powerful totem, but when you look behind the curtain, the Great and Powerful Oz is just an old man.

I live in a state where 44% of 4th graders scored below basic in 4th grade reading in 2007 and even a little worse in 2005. Who, pray tell, was held “accountable” for that sorry performance? Was a single administrator or teacher fired? Not that I am aware of. Did the public elect a new Superintendent of Public Instruction? Nope- the incumbent was reelected in 2006.

Who was held accountable? Try “not a single human being at all.” Public school “accountability” in short, is a cruel joke with kids as the victims.

Those who want to pretend that giving an all too often dummied down state test tied to a set of often sorry state academic standards constitutes “accountability” have confused their means with their ends. It isn’t the end all be all of accountability, nor is it necessarily really accountability at all.

Done well, I believe standards and testing can be a productive education reform. Choice programs however should be an opt-out of that system into one that is different, but which still contains a vitally necessary level of transparency. Something like the Stanford 10 will work nicely.

Kirtley’s point was the key: if we are really interested in helping disadvantaged children, all options must be on the table. Otherwise, pro-charter but anti-private choice folks do indeed come across like the gradualist white liberal wimps who urged the leaders of the civil rights movement to be “patient.”

Patience can be a virtue, but not when your hair is on fire.

7 Comments | charter schools, vouchers | Tagged: , , , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Marines vs. Schools and Culture

August 19, 2009

(Guest Post by Matthew Ladner)

Today is the 26th anniversary of the publication of the report A Military at Risk which decried the racial combat effectiveness gap in the armed forces. You will of course recall the stark rhetoric of the report: “We face a rising tide of mediocrity in our armed services” and “Despite military spending that would stagger the imaginations of generals from previous decades, our armed forces today are do better at fighting than forces in 1970.” And who can forget: “If a foreign power had imposed this military system on us, we would view it as an act of war. As it is, we have done this to ourselves.”

Oh, you don’t remember that report, do you? That’s because it was never written. The United States military of today chew up the United States military of 1970 and ask for a real challenge, despite the fact that we had far more men in uniform in the past. 

It’s called “progress.” It would be great if we had more of it in K-12.

Furthermore, the reason you’ve never heard of a racial/ethnic combat effectiveness gap is because it doesn’t exist. The integration of the military went much more smoothly than that of schools and universities, and people of all racial and ethnic backgrounds have served their country with distinction.

In my view, “race” is a cultural phenomenon, and one that does not handicap organizations with strong cultures. Diversity is not a problem in the United States Marine Corps because everyone signing up becomes a United States Marine.

The Marine Corps, of course, is not everyone’s cup of tea, precisely why the concept of parental choice is so crucial in schooling. Although there are many high quality traditional public schools, the task of maintaining a strong academic culture is complicated by consumers who may have little more in common than a zip code. Keeping a strong focus is difficult in any organization.

Like the Marines, KIPP charter schools are not for everyone. Parents must sign contracts requiring a high level of commitment. Half days on Saturdays will be viewed as a burden by some, an opportunity by others. KIPP isn’t for everyone, but it seems to serve the willing quite well indeed.

Inner city Catholic schools serve as another example, with profound and well documented benefits for students.

In the big picture, while we and others love fighting over the gory details (charters vs. vouchers, vouchers vs. tax credits, online vs. Jurassic, etc.) the truth is that a bipartisan consensus over the importance of choice in education has developed. Greatschools.net is a much better resource than real estate agent for judging schools.

The days of the vast majority of students being taught in zip code based schools by teachers who graduated from the bottom third of their university class are numbered. It’s almost certainly a big number, but it’s not going to last forever.

The sooner the better.

3 Comments | charter schools, tax-credit scholarships, vouchers | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by matthewladner

Public Schools Start 12-Step Program

August 17, 2009

The Wall Street Journal has a piece today on how urban school districts around the country have launched marketing programs to lure students back from charters and neighboring districts after having lost large portions of their enrollment. 

This is the first step in their 12-step program — acknowledging that they have a problem and need to do something about it.  For all of you folks out there who doubt that public schools respond to competitive pressure (Rick Hess, Sol Stern, Mike Petrilli, Kevin Carey, etc…), how do you explain this response?

I know, I know they might respond that marketing is not a real response in that it does not involve actually improving school quality.  That’s true, but if the schools are doing things to improve, how would anyone know about it if the schools don’t market their strengths? 

And I would agree that a marketing campaign is not a sufficient response, but it is an important sign that they are noticing the competition and experiencing pain from losing enrollment.  They’ve acknowledge that there is a power higher than them… and it is the customer.

5 Comments | charter schools, competitive effects | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Jay P. Greene

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc

July 17, 2009

Normally solid education reporter, Rob Tomsho, has fallen for the Arne Duncan mania by writing an article in today’s WSJ that attributes expansions of charter school laws to Duncan and the $5 billion “race to the top” stimulus money.

As a graph in the print version of the article shows, charters have been expanding steadily for the last several years — all of which was before Arne Duncan and the stimulus money.  The question is whether charters are growing faster than they otherwise would have.  I doubt it.  The progress of charters doesn’t seem any faster to me now than it has been.  After we get all of the numbers in a year or two we can check to confirm my hunch.

I’m afraid that this is just another example of post hoc ergo propter hoc (after this, therefore because of this).  Duncan made some speeches and conditioned some fraction of a modest sum on policy changes.  There were some policy changes.  So people are attributing the policy changes to his speeches and tiny financial leverage.

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

The Heathers Think-Tanks

July 15, 2009

DC-based think tanks run the risk of being obsessed with the latest policy fashion rather than searching for the best long-term solutions.  In the DC bubble, sticking to one’s principles and the evidence is difficult when there are no near-term prospects for advancing policies that are supported by those principles and evidence.  It’s tempting instead to switch one’s policy focus so that it is line with the the current administration and congressional majority.

I was reminded of these hazards of DC think tanks when I received an invitation to the latest Thomas B. Fordham Institute event: “With charter schools ascendant, is there still a future for vouchers?” 

There’s nothing wrong with organizing a panel to consider the relative policy merits of charters and vouchers.  What’s weird is the suggestion that if one policy is currently popular, another might not have a future.  It’s like having a panel that addresses the question:  With Democrats ascendant, is there still a future for the Republican Party? 

Things change.  The current dominance of the Democratic Party won’t last forever.  It may not even last more than a few years.  Similarly, the current popularity of charters relative to vouchers may not last very long.  Rather than assessing the future of policies based on their current popularity, shouldn’t we assess their substantive merits so that we can advocate for the policies that are the most effective?

And if we must obsess on the political prospects of policies rather than their substantive merits, it’s weird to pit the two policies against each other.  Wouldn’t it seem more reasonable to think that as school choice becomes more common, whether with charters or with vouchers, all forms of choice will become more politically palatable?  As I’ve argued before, vouchers have helped make the world safe for charters, so the two policies may work well together. 

Just because the current congressional majority is hostile to vouchers doesn’t mean that the idea has no future or that we have to pit it against other, similar policies that are currently more in fashion.  Dismissing policies because they aren’t on the agenda of the current majority is like the type of argument heard in the 1988 film, Heathers:  “Grow up Heather, bulimia’s so ’87.”

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

WSJ Dances Kabuki

June 12, 2009

Pollyanna

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

First it was Mike Petrilli, now the Wall Street Journal joins the Obama/Duncan dance on charter schools.

Kids, simply having a charter law does not mean you actually have charter schools worthy of the name.

It can’t be! The Journal!

Jim, we knew this was a possibility when we first confirmed the presence of the kabuki phenomenon.

But . . . the Journal!

The Wall Street Journal is a newspaper, subject to the same political imperatives as any other. To expect it to be immune to kabuki would be illogical.

Oh, come of  it! This is the Journal we’re talking about, you green-blooded hobgoblin! Can’t you think about anything but logic at a time like this!

Shouting will not remedy the situation, doctor. I recommend we ask Mr. Checkov to arm the photon torpedoes.

1 Comment | charter schools | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Greg Forster

I Want A New Civics Teacher

May 18, 2009

Kevin Carey offers a Civics 101 lesson on his blog.  All I can say is that I want a new civics teacher because this one doesn’t even have basic facts right. 

For example, Kevin writes that DC is “the one place in America without representation in Congress.”  The people of Guam, Samoa, the Marshall Islands, U.S. Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico will be thrilled to learn that they’re not part of America or that Kevin has decided to give them representatives. 

But this is a bit of a distraction from the main issue, which is whether charters are good because they are allegedly accountable while vouchers are bad because they allegedly are not.  And here Kevin makes yet another bold, false assertion saying that vouchers schools are “currently unaccountable.” 

In what meaningful sense are DC charters more accountable than vouchers?  Both are subject to market accountability so that if they fail to perform to parental satisfaction they can lose students and the revenue those students generate.  In this sense both charters and vouchers are far more accountable than D.C. district public schools, which receive ever more revenue even as they perform miserably and lose students.  The only “currently unaccountable” schools are the district public schools, not the voucher schools.

But I imagine that Kevin only understands accountability to mean directly accountable to a public authority.  Even with that narrow meaning of accountability vouchers are accountable because they are subject to Congressional regulation and oversight.  Just watch the excellent hearings on DC vouchers held last week if you want to see what accountability looks like.

Perhaps Kevin has an even more narrow understanding of accountability, meaningful compliance with a particular set of rules regarding testing and reporting of results.  But even then DC vouchers are truly more accountable.  DC voucher students are required to take a standardized test and an independent evaluator is assessing whether students are benefiting from having access to the voucher program.  It’s true that DC charters must report test results by school, but that doesn’t make them any more accountable.  Knowing raw test results does not tell parents or public authorities whether those students would have done better had they not gone to that school or had access to the charter program.  The only way to know that with high confidence would be with a random-assignment evaluation, which many voucher programs have had and charter programs almost never have.

By accountability maybe Kevin means checking boxes on some regulatory check-list regardless of benefit to parents or the public.  Kevin would be right about that one.  Charters do have more meaningless and even counter-productive regulation with which they have to comply in the false pursuit of accountability.  The net effect of those mindless regulations is to undermine charter effectiveness and help preserve the unionized traditional district stranglehold.  That’s the kind of false accountability that I’m glad vouchers don’t have.

(edited for typos)

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

The Negative De-Sarcasticizer

May 14, 2009

Kevin Carey ran my post from yesterday through a “negative de-sarcasticizer”  and wants to take issue with the suggestion that D.C. vouchers were adopted democratically. 

First, I should warn Kevin that a negative de-sarcasticizer actually makes things more sarcastic.  I know because I bought one on Ebay and I use it to help make my posts as sarcastic as they are.  The negative de-sarcasticizer comes with a large, yellow label warning about the hazards of double negatives.

Second, the suggestion that DC vouchers were not democratically created because they affected DC and DC does not have a vote in Congress wouldn’t just call into question the legitimacy of DC vouchers.  All federal laws affecting DC would be undemocratic by this standard.  This would include NCLB and other federal education legislation that Kevin praises charter schools for more strictly obeying.

Third, I am glad that Kevin believes that “giving parents educational choices and opening up public education to competition and innovation will improve outcomes for students.”  And I agree with him that charters would be one way of expanding choices and competition.  But I continue to be puzzled by the argument that vouchers are bad because they are less accountable than charters.  Whatever regulation you believe is desirable for schools could be applied to vouchers as well as to charters.

Finally, I continue to be troubled by Kevin’s need to dismiss vouchers by labeling the idea as “unworkable” or “not serious.”  This is just argumentation by name-calling rather than addressing the substance of the issue.  When I hear this kind of argument it makes me want to turn my negative de-sarcasticizer up to full power.

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »