Charter school achievement follies continue

A while back, Schools Now noted that state test averages for Milwaukee charter schools were disappointing. It also suggested two possible reasons: they were mostly new schools and there was no information on how students were doing before entering the charter school.

Now the New York Times has glommed onto a study done by the American Federation of Teachers of 4th grade scores on the NAEP for charter schools nationwide. The Times swallowed whole the claim that this study shows charters underperform public schools, causing widespread outrage among charter school supporters. (For links to the various points and counter thrusts, see this post by Eduwonk.)

Critics of the Times and the AFT pointed out the claims ignored differences in students. In fact, when matched by ethnic groups, apparently performance by charter schools was about the same as that for public schools. In other words, these critics are damning the AFT for not doing a value-added analysis, for not taking account of the students in the schools.

Schools Now sees a glimmer of a breakthrough here. Many of these same critics resisted the idea that in judging public schools adjustments needed to be made for the students, often with the accusation that doing so would signal to those students that not much was expected of them. Having recognized the need for value-added analysis with charter schools, perhaps they will see the need when it comes to judging all schools.

Eventually perhaps, the silliness of studies that attempt to measure all charter schools or all voucher schools will also be recognized. That a school has a charter or accepts vouchers tells nothing about the school's educational programs or its teachers. So we are likely to see the same variability of educational effectiveness among charter and voucher schools as among conventional public schools. Trying to make generalizations about outcomes from charter schools is a little like trying to prove that all schools whose name begins with B outperform their peers. Depending on the sample chosen (and who is paying the researchers' bills), sometimes they will do better and sometimes they will do worse.

Andrekopoulos' contract extended?

An article in Milwaukee's Journal Sentinel predicts the MPS board is likely to extend superintendent Bill Andrekopoulos' contract. If true, this is good news. The article (and an editorial) lists many of the reasons why this is good new: continuity, progress in many areas. Andrekopoulos brings two particular strengths to the job: a willingness to build on the programs of his predecessors rather than changing direction and an understanding and fascination with ways to apply management theory to the district.

Update: The board voted 6-3 to extend his contract.
Voting for: Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, Ken Johnson, Jennifer Morales, Larry O'Neill, and Jeff Spence.
Voting against: Tom Balistreri, Peter Blewett, and Charlene Hardin.

Third Education Group is here

Richard Phelps and I have just launched a new web site, the Third Education Group. We view it as an alternative to both the highly ideological educational establishment journals and other sites that defend the status quo, generally from a leftward perspective, and the think tanks and other sites that have critiqued the status quo but have become increasingly exclusive in their membership and intolerant of a wider discussion. Unlike Schools Now, its focus will not be specifically on Milwaukee.

As part of this, we plan to include a peer-reviewed on-line journal devoted to educational policy issues and open to any sound research so long as the conclusions are based on the evidence.

Please join us.

Student transfers under NCLB

An article in today's Journal Sentinel notes that only 280 MPS students are likely to transfer from one school to another under provisions of the federal No Child Left Behind act. Similar numbers in other districts have led to accusations that the districts are deliberately sabotaging student choice.

It is perhaps not surprising that this provision of the NCLB has disappointed its supporters. For one thing, timing is problematic. In MPS, parents start choosing schools in December of the previous year. By the time the NCLB ratings of schools are published, the most popular schools are likely to be filled.

As the superintendent points out, it is not clear that a transferring student student will get a better education in the new school. The new school might actually have lower test scores than the old one, so long as its scores have been showing improvement. And since the ratings of schools are based on absolute scores rather than a value-added measure, a high rating might reflect more the student population than the effectiveness of the school.

Schools barred from school choice program

An article in the Journal Sentinel notes that 21 schools were not allowed to participate in this fall's voucher program, because they did not complete planning. It is unclear how many, if any, of these schools would have tried to participate before new rules were passed. It appears that most, if not all, were simply not ready to open. The article states that none had received city occupancy permits, implying that they had not found viable space to operate.

Are MPS teachers underpaid?

The current Milwaukee Magazine has a point-counterpoint about teacher compensation (not available online). Refreshingly, they found a current teacher who argues that pay, especially considering benefits and vacations, is very fair and teachers should stop whining. (I wonder how things are going for him in the faculty lunchroom.)

A retired teacher argues that MPS has a retention problem. Interestingly, his argument is not that MPS teachers are poorly paid compared to suburban teachers, but that the working conditions in MPS are far more difficult than in the suburbs, leading to teachers leaving. This argument might suggest that the answer would lie in improving working conditions. Increasing pay might simply result in more unhappy teachers who felt they could not afford to leave.

One step might be to make sure that MPS teachers had the tools they need to succeed. Too often, texts and curricula are adopted with little testing of their effectiveness.

Are vouchers conservative?

I have been out of town for the past two weeks, which helps explain the lack of new posts. I will try to catch up with Milwaukee education news over the next few days.

A Journal Sentinel article notes that Republican state representative Scott Jensen has been hired by the Alliance for School Choice to promote charter and voucher programs in other states. Despite quoted objections from critics, this arrangement appears to have been approved by the state ethics board. Jensen is known as a skillful legislator who is also very partisan and increasingly conservative.

What does this say about the strategic direction taken by the dominant pro-choice group? It appears they have decided to cast their lot with conservatives and Republicans and have given up any hope of forging a bipartisan coalition in favor of increasing educational options for poor children.

One strength of the choice coalition of several years ago was that it was truly bipartisan, including people who might disagree with the Republican positions on most other issues. In addition to Republican governor Tommy Thompson and most Republican legislators, it included Milwaukee mayor John Norquist, Democratic legislators Polly Williams and Antonio Riley, and a majority of the Milwaukee school board. The apparent switch in strategy seems puzzling.

Today's Journal Sentinel has an article (not available on the web apparently) that gives further evidence of the growing willingness of voucher groups to forego any effort at bipartisanship. A new group, called People of Color United, is sponsoring a group of anti-Kerry ads on black radio stations. According to the article the new group is an outgrowth of DC Parents for School Choice. Apparently a major contributor is Patrick Rooney, a long-time supporter of choice. (See this article in Slate, which attributes his support--wrongly, I think--to his insurance interests.)

As I noted earlier, the lack of support by minority and other Democratic legislators who represent neighborhoods benefitting from choice and charters has frustrated the supporters of those programs. These efforts by choice supporters would seem to make it more difficult to gain that support.