The very prolific Jay Greene is out with a new study comparing graduation rates at Milwaukee public high schools with those at voucher schools. The study is described in this article and sponsored by School Choice Wisconsin, which unfortunately does not yet list it on its website. The authors, themselves, seem cautious about their results--and rightly so. They point out that their study does not follow actual students from freshman to graduation; rather it compares the size of the freshman class with that of the graduates.
One problem with the Greene approach is that it apparently makes no adjustment for ninth graders who are repeating that grade (around 30% in Milwaukee). This inflates the denominator of the ratio. In other words, 30% of the students counted as starting the race to graduation one year would have been counted in the previous year.
Another problem is the simplistic model it implies: of a contest between two groups of students, one in public schools, the other in private, to see which will have the most survivors over the next four years. An alternative model is at least as plausible: that many students first try the public schools, later switching to private schools. (I am aware of a private school--not a voucher school--with 27 freshmen and 211 seniors--which would, under the Greene calculation, give it a graduation rate of almost 800%.)
In the alternative model, the voucher schools are more a complement than competition to public schools, particularly valuable in serving students who might otherwise be lost.
Thursday, September 30, 2004
Wednesday, September 29, 2004
Value added strikes again!
A Journal Sentinel article describes a new study from the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance comparing school districts' performance on the fourth grade reading exam. From the article, it appears the methodology used is very similar to one I have been pushing for several years: first predict the performance of a district based on its poverty rate and other available data. Then compare its actual performance to its predicted performance. At the very least this answers the most common complaint about school performance comparisons: that schools serving wealthier students have an unfair advantage.
The Taxpayers Alliance web site gives little information on the study's methodology or conclusions, but does offer to send a copy for free. I may comment further when I have had a chance to read the report.
The Taxpayers Alliance web site gives little information on the study's methodology or conclusions, but does offer to send a copy for free. I may comment further when I have had a chance to read the report.
Sunday, September 19, 2004
Why liberals lose
For a certain type of liberal, good intentions are far more important than good outcomes. Thus they are far more interested in making emotional statements about the need for more money for schools than making sure that the money being spent is actually helping students. In some cases, in fact, the high-minded statements about the need for more money are much more important than figuring out how more money could be obtained. Schools Now finds this tendency particularly frustrating because he usually sympathizes with liberal goals.
Two articles in the Sunday Journal Sentinel illustrate this face of liberalism. Onedescribed the rally of a group a churches, who promise "to vote against candidates in the Nov. 2 election who fail to support alternatives to prison, better funding for public education and greater civil rights for immigrants." There seemed to be no discussion of--or a recognition of the need to consider--how to make these goals compatible with an environment obsessed with cutting spending and taxes.
The other described an ad campaign by the state teachers' union. (To view the ad, click on this link.) It shows a group of "politicians and profiteers" discussing how to increase class sizes, cut programs, increase testing to fail more schools, "let the market decide" who gets educated, and privatize the schools. Eventually we realize they are sitting in a classroom and the teacher throws them out, accusing them of interfering with her ability to teach. The announcer comments the "state and federal interference are threatening the quality of our schools."
In both of these, intentions are everything. Whether the proposals discussed have a positive or negative effect is irrelevant. Unfortunately, obsession with intentions leads to a failure to propose plausible solutions to problems, so liberals as a group come to viewed as irrelevant.
Two articles in the Sunday Journal Sentinel illustrate this face of liberalism. Onedescribed the rally of a group a churches, who promise "to vote against candidates in the Nov. 2 election who fail to support alternatives to prison, better funding for public education and greater civil rights for immigrants." There seemed to be no discussion of--or a recognition of the need to consider--how to make these goals compatible with an environment obsessed with cutting spending and taxes.
The other described an ad campaign by the state teachers' union. (To view the ad, click on this link.) It shows a group of "politicians and profiteers" discussing how to increase class sizes, cut programs, increase testing to fail more schools, "let the market decide" who gets educated, and privatize the schools. Eventually we realize they are sitting in a classroom and the teacher throws them out, accusing them of interfering with her ability to teach. The announcer comments the "state and federal interference are threatening the quality of our schools."
In both of these, intentions are everything. Whether the proposals discussed have a positive or negative effect is irrelevant. Unfortunately, obsession with intentions leads to a failure to propose plausible solutions to problems, so liberals as a group come to viewed as irrelevant.
Spring school board elections
Four of the nine Milwaukee school board members are facing elections this spring: Peter Blewett, Jennifer Morales, Charlene Hardin, and Larry O'Neill. The campaign will start in earnest right after the presidential election, with December devoted to collecting nomination signatures, a primary on February 15, and the election itself on April 5.
Over the next few weeks Schools Now plans a series on each of these races including the strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and vulnerability of the incumbents. Readers are invited to submit their insights.
Each of the incumbents is different. Yet they have one thing in common: all were elected with the support of the MTEA. Along with Tom Balistreri, they give the MTEA a 5-4 majority on the board. Thus the defeat or replacement of any one of them would make the board much more independent of MTEA. If history is a guide this would make major reforms much more likely and could ease contract negotiations.
Over the next few weeks Schools Now plans a series on each of these races including the strengths, weaknesses, effectiveness, and vulnerability of the incumbents. Readers are invited to submit their insights.
Each of the incumbents is different. Yet they have one thing in common: all were elected with the support of the MTEA. Along with Tom Balistreri, they give the MTEA a 5-4 majority on the board. Thus the defeat or replacement of any one of them would make the board much more independent of MTEA. If history is a guide this would make major reforms much more likely and could ease contract negotiations.
Saturday, September 18, 2004
New "failing schools" list published
The Journal Sentinel reports that 123 schools in Wisconsin--and 67 in Milwaukee--failed to make adequate progress under the standards of the No Child Left Behind act. As in past years, the schools on this list are heavily skewed towards those serving low-income kids.
Schools Now feels that identifying low-performing schools is a good thing and can serve as an incentive to improve, but the means of identifying these schools could be much better. The present system does too little to separate factors under the control of the school from those outside its control. Value-added measurements offer a way to get around this dilemma, particularly with next year's introduction of annual testing.
Schools Now feels that identifying low-performing schools is a good thing and can serve as an incentive to improve, but the means of identifying these schools could be much better. The present system does too little to separate factors under the control of the school from those outside its control. Value-added measurements offer a way to get around this dilemma, particularly with next year's introduction of annual testing.
Afro Urban Institute gets reprieve
Late Tuesday night, the MPS Innovation and School Reform committee voted 3-2 to give the Afro Urban Institute another three months to improve. Voting against more time for this charter school were Ken Johnson and Larry O'Neill. Voting for more time were Tom Balistreri, Jennifer Morales and board president Peter Blewett. Charlene Hardin, not a member of the committee, gave a fist-pounding speech in favor of the school and denouncing the superintendent.
This school has clearly been a "disaster," to use Morales' description. At the most basic level, for instance, it has claimed far more students than actually attend. Thus the vote to further extend the time allowed the school is a vote against holding charter schools accountable.
In that light, the line-up is ironic. Ken Johnson has been a strong supporter of charter schools. By contrast, neither Morales, Balistreri, Blewett, nor Hardin are generally viewed as strong charter school advocates, in part because of their dependence on the teachers' union and in part for ideological reasons.
Update: By votes of 5-3, the board voted to pull the measure out of committee and terminate the charter. This is good news for all those who believe that charter schools should be accountable. Voting to terminate were Ken Johnson, Jeff Spence, Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, and Larry O'Neill. Voting to continue the school were Peter Blewett, Charlen Hardin, and Tom Balistreri. Jennifer Morales did not attend the meeting but had earlier indicated her support for continuing the charter.
This school has clearly been a "disaster," to use Morales' description. At the most basic level, for instance, it has claimed far more students than actually attend. Thus the vote to further extend the time allowed the school is a vote against holding charter schools accountable.
In that light, the line-up is ironic. Ken Johnson has been a strong supporter of charter schools. By contrast, neither Morales, Balistreri, Blewett, nor Hardin are generally viewed as strong charter school advocates, in part because of their dependence on the teachers' union and in part for ideological reasons.
Update: By votes of 5-3, the board voted to pull the measure out of committee and terminate the charter. This is good news for all those who believe that charter schools should be accountable. Voting to terminate were Ken Johnson, Jeff Spence, Joe Dannecker, Barbara Horton, and Larry O'Neill. Voting to continue the school were Peter Blewett, Charlen Hardin, and Tom Balistreri. Jennifer Morales did not attend the meeting but had earlier indicated her support for continuing the charter.
Teachers and private schools
The Journal Sentinel reports on a study by the Thomas Fordham foundation on the number of public school teachers who send their children to private schools. As the Journal article notes, the study found almost 30% of public school teachers living in Milwaukee sent their children to private schools. This percentage is higher than either that for all Milwaukee parents or for urban teachers in general.
It seems likely to Schools Now that this sort of statistic is more compelling to those already convinced (including Schools Now) that school choice is good public policy than those convinced it is a bad idea. After all, opponents of school choice (with rare exceptions) don't argue against parents sending their children to private schools; they simply argue that tax money should not fund that choice.
To the extent that school choice has turned into a liberal versus conservative argument, the two groups have reversed their usual positions towards equity for the poor. Conservatives argue that poor parents should have the same right as middle class parents--including teachers--to opt out of the public schools. Liberals, by contrast, say that if the public school is not working for a child and the parent cannot afford a private school, tough luck.
It seems likely to Schools Now that this sort of statistic is more compelling to those already convinced (including Schools Now) that school choice is good public policy than those convinced it is a bad idea. After all, opponents of school choice (with rare exceptions) don't argue against parents sending their children to private schools; they simply argue that tax money should not fund that choice.
To the extent that school choice has turned into a liberal versus conservative argument, the two groups have reversed their usual positions towards equity for the poor. Conservatives argue that poor parents should have the same right as middle class parents--including teachers--to opt out of the public schools. Liberals, by contrast, say that if the public school is not working for a child and the parent cannot afford a private school, tough luck.
Friday, September 10, 2004
Goodbye, Third grade reading test
The Department of Public Instruction announced that it would drop the Wisconsin third grade reading test and replace it with the Terra Nova test. It also added Terra Nova testing in fifth, sixth, and seventh grade to meet requirements of the federal No Child Left Behind Act. While the announcement was accompanied by lamentations ("we test them till the cows come home"), the change means that it will be easier to track student progress over time, since the scores on one year's test can be directly compared to those for the previous year.
MTEA proposes teachers contribute to health insurance
Last week, the teachers' union proposed that teachers pay a portion of health insurance premiums. This represents something of a breakthrough, since the union has always resisted any teacher contribution. That said, it does not appear that the union proposal would create any incentive to hold down costs, since the payment would simply be a percentage of salary. There appears to be no reward for the teacher who chooses a less expensive policy or one who avoids unnecessary procedures.
(When I was on the Milwaukee school board I would meet for breakfast with Sam Carmen, the MTEA's executive director. I argued that the primary reason for teacher contributions was not cost shifting but creating incentives to reduce costs and that it made sense for teachers to share the benefits of any savings. This led to a union proposal for a revised insurance plan which the union believed would save money. The union proposed that any savings would be shared by MPS and the teachers. MPS agreed to this proposal. Unfortunately for this story, there were no savings.)
The MTEA also proposed getting rid of the supplemental retirement plan, but apparently only for new employees, in exchange for relazing the residency requirement. While getting rid of the plan seems a very good thing, by restricting the proposal to new employees, the immediate savings are likely small. It could also create two classes of employees, causing resentment in the future. If the present value of the current teachers' rights to the supplemental pension could be calculated, it would seem preferable to buy out those rights and reduce the need for future contributions.
(When I was on the Milwaukee school board I would meet for breakfast with Sam Carmen, the MTEA's executive director. I argued that the primary reason for teacher contributions was not cost shifting but creating incentives to reduce costs and that it made sense for teachers to share the benefits of any savings. This led to a union proposal for a revised insurance plan which the union believed would save money. The union proposed that any savings would be shared by MPS and the teachers. MPS agreed to this proposal. Unfortunately for this story, there were no savings.)
The MTEA also proposed getting rid of the supplemental retirement plan, but apparently only for new employees, in exchange for relazing the residency requirement. While getting rid of the plan seems a very good thing, by restricting the proposal to new employees, the immediate savings are likely small. It could also create two classes of employees, causing resentment in the future. If the present value of the current teachers' rights to the supplemental pension could be calculated, it would seem preferable to buy out those rights and reduce the need for future contributions.
MPS tries to close charter schools
Tomorrow's Journal Sentinel has a story that the MPS administration will propose closing a school it chartered, called the Afro Urban Institute. My impression of the founders is that they had more enthusiasm than administrative skills.
It will be interesting to see which board members agree, since the founders of the charter school have connections with several directors.
It will be interesting to see which board members agree, since the founders of the charter school have connections with several directors.
Urban Schools and the Middle Class
I have missed posting for the past three weeks because I have been traveling on family business. Much of that time was spent in Cleveland. The big news in Cleveland is that recent census data rate it as the city with the highest poverty. This number one rating seems to have caused some consternation locally. The mayor appointed a task force to recommend ways to reduce the poverty rate.
Logically, there are two types of strategies to reduce poverty rates: (1) attract more middle class people and (2) convert poor people into middle class people. On the first strategy, Milwaukee seems far ahead of Cleveland: converting warehouses into condominiums, reviving neighborhoods such as Bay View, and developing interesting projects such as those along the river. The process of warehouse conversion in Cleveland, for example, has barely begun. By building freeways along its lake shore, Cleveland may have eliminated much of the land that would today be most attractive to potential city dwellers.
But Cleveland and Milwaukee have much in common as old industrial cities much of whose traditional industry as left. They also underwent massive busing programs aimed at integration but leading to a middle class exodus.
Which brings us to the question of the role of schools in determining whether cities have a strong middle class. When it comes to schools, most of the attention has been devoted to the second strategy: how to give poor children the skills they need to get good jobs and leave poverty behind. This is an extremely important goal but a very frustrating one because of the lack of consensus as to how it can be done, or even whether it is possible.
By comparison, very little attention has been paid to the schools' role in supporting the first strategy. Without attractive schools, the city's ability to build its middle class will be limited to those not needing schools. The lack of attention is frustrating, especially because educators know how to make schools attractive to middle class parents. Every superintendent of a wealthy suburb knows how to do it--or they lose their jobs. In Milwaukee, schools like Golda Meir, the language immersion schools, arts schools, Montessori schools, and others show it can be done in an urban environment.
Part of the explanation for the lack of attention to schools that would attract middle class families is that the needs of middle class children seem far less pressing than those of poor kids. Educators know that the middle class kids will probably survive--but if they leave how well will the city survive? There is sometimes the view that the schools can serve one group or the other and must choose between them. Programs targeted at different groups may be attacked as unfair or discriminatory.
Logically, there are two types of strategies to reduce poverty rates: (1) attract more middle class people and (2) convert poor people into middle class people. On the first strategy, Milwaukee seems far ahead of Cleveland: converting warehouses into condominiums, reviving neighborhoods such as Bay View, and developing interesting projects such as those along the river. The process of warehouse conversion in Cleveland, for example, has barely begun. By building freeways along its lake shore, Cleveland may have eliminated much of the land that would today be most attractive to potential city dwellers.
But Cleveland and Milwaukee have much in common as old industrial cities much of whose traditional industry as left. They also underwent massive busing programs aimed at integration but leading to a middle class exodus.
Which brings us to the question of the role of schools in determining whether cities have a strong middle class. When it comes to schools, most of the attention has been devoted to the second strategy: how to give poor children the skills they need to get good jobs and leave poverty behind. This is an extremely important goal but a very frustrating one because of the lack of consensus as to how it can be done, or even whether it is possible.
By comparison, very little attention has been paid to the schools' role in supporting the first strategy. Without attractive schools, the city's ability to build its middle class will be limited to those not needing schools. The lack of attention is frustrating, especially because educators know how to make schools attractive to middle class parents. Every superintendent of a wealthy suburb knows how to do it--or they lose their jobs. In Milwaukee, schools like Golda Meir, the language immersion schools, arts schools, Montessori schools, and others show it can be done in an urban environment.
Part of the explanation for the lack of attention to schools that would attract middle class families is that the needs of middle class children seem far less pressing than those of poor kids. Educators know that the middle class kids will probably survive--but if they leave how well will the city survive? There is sometimes the view that the schools can serve one group or the other and must choose between them. Programs targeted at different groups may be attacked as unfair or discriminatory.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)