I will protect your pensions. Nothing about your pension is going to change when I am governor. - Chris Christie, "An Open Letter to the Teachers of NJ" October, 2009

Friday, February 12, 2016


Looks like Eva Moskowitz has yet another p.r. disaster to contend with, courtesy of the New York Times: a one-minute video of a Success Academy teacher ripping into her first grade student because... well, honestly, I can't tell. Clearly, the girl in the video gets something wrong on her math problem -- but it's also clear this burst of anger from the teacher was a long time coming.

Of course, what Charlotte Dial does in this video is really horrible teaching; even she admits that. If Success Academy knew that she had behaved this way even once, they should have intervened and let her know in no uncertain terms how unacceptable what she did was. And if she did it again, she should have been removed from the classroom.

The fact that Dial is white and the student is black makes this especially troubling. I'm all for teachers being authoritative, but too many students of color are living a school experience where they are dehumanized by teachers of a different race. To be clear: I don't think this is confined just to "no excuses" charter schools; we've seen far too many examples of bad behavior against students of color in public district schools to pretend that it's only the charters that are guilty of perpetuating a hidden curriculum.

That said, I'm not about to say, on the basis of a one-minute video, that Dial should be fired immediately. If any teacher tells you that they've never said anything to a student that they later regretted, they're either lying, deluded, or a living saint.

Teaching is hard, frustrating work -- especially if you actually give a damn about your students. You have to make all sorts of snap decisions, and it's impossible to get them all perfectly right. And teachers are human beings who have personal worries and woes. You try to leave them at the door of the school, but you're only human, so sometimes something regrettable happens. That doesn't excuse it -- but it also doesn't make sense to me to immediately force out a good teacher who may have just had a really bad day.

Of course, if the Times had put out multiple videos of Dial yelling at students like this, I'd be saying something else. And the fact that the teaching assistant was concerned enough about Dial's behavior that she recorded this also bothers me. So I don't think we know enough about all this other than to say this was a really bad moment and a great example of what not to do in the classroom. Let's see how it all plays out.

All that said...

This is not the first time we've heard about problems with classroom management and discipline at Success Academies. And yet Eva Moskowitz has been held up by many on the reformy side as an educational genius, and she's been very happy to play along.

Is Success Academy really the model we want for the education of urban children of color, many living in economic disadvantage? "Got to go" lists? High suspension rates? Teachers who rip up their students' work (according to one teacher in the Times story, it happens regularly at SA)? Test score fetishism? Churning faculty, many of whom are young, white, and not adequately trained? Chanting in the classrooms and marching in the halls?

Moskowitz's approach is premised on the idea that urban students of color need extraordinarily harsh discipline codes; she says so herself:
Suspensions convey the critical message to students and parents that certain behavior is inconsistent with being a member of the school community. Pretend suspensions, in which a student is allowed to remain in the school community, do not convey that message. Many students actually feed off the attention they get for misbehaving. Keeping these students in school encourages that misbehavior.
Proponents of lax discipline claim it would benefit minority students, who are suspended at higher rates than their white peers. But minority students are also the most likely to suffer the adverse consequences of lax discipline—that is, their education is disrupted by a chaotic school environment or by violence. 
As Leo Casey points out, Moskowitz is bucking a national trend away from harsh discipline practices that are clearly racial biased. Is it any wonder, then, that one of her star teachers ripped up a first grade child's work in her face? Isn't this behavior exactly aligned with Moskowitz's philosophy? Why are we the slightest bit surprised that a teacher is harsh with her students in a school whose leader embraces a "no excuses" pedagogy?

I've said it time and again, and I'll keep on saying it: urban "choice" is not the same as suburban choice. Success Academies' practices would never be tolerated in Chatham's or Scarsdale's or Winnetka's pubic schools. If you told parents there the only way to get their child into a safe, clean, well-appointed school was to give up their democratic local control of the school board and accept a "no excuses" discipline plan, you'd have a riot (probably one with lots of tasty hors d'oeuvres). Why, then, is it OK to force this "choice" on to parents of color living in cities?

One more thing:

Today we learned that Marylin Zuniga -- the Orange, NJ third grade teacher who was fired for having her students write get-well letters to Mumia Abu-Jamal -- will have her day in court. I wrote about Zuniga previously, but the best piece you'll read about her plight is from (who else?) Jose Vilson.

Jose and I have different takes on the appropriateness of the assignment; what we don't disagree on is that Zuniga got a raw deal, and her punishment was way out of proportion to whatever transgression she committed (if, indeed, she transgressed at all). Zuniga was cynically used by a group of outsiders to score political points; the support she got from so many Orange parents is proof enough of that.

It just so happens that word of Zuniga's case comes on the same day as the Times report on Success Academies. I think the comparison between the two is instructive. Here's what I want to know:

Why does a white teacher who yelled at a six year old black girl and ripped up her work in a humiliating tantrum get to return to work after a week and a half as an exemplar within her school...

While a young teacher of color who gave an admittedly controversial assignment had to be fired immediately? Especially given that she didn't have tenure and her contract could have simply not been renewed at the end of the year?

When it comes to students of color, it seems that our priorities are very, very warped.

I'm shocked! Shocked to find a teacher yelling at a student in a "no excuses" school!

ADDING: Moskowitz goes into crisis mode:
On Friday, after the New York Times published a video showing a Success Academy teacher lashing out at a first grader, Success CEO Eva Moskowitz again sought to portray the behavior as an isolated incident. But she also mounted a forceful defense of the network’s teachers and its methods, while criticizing the Times’ reporting as biased. 
“I’m tired of apologizing,” Moskowitz said at a press conference. Calling the video “an unfortunate moment,” she said, “Frustration is a human emotion. When you care about your students so much … and you want them to go to college and graduate, it can be frustrating.”
I guess "no excuses" only applies to the kids, huh?
Moskowitz said that Dial had been suspended and received an extra week of training. On Friday, she said she would not “throw Charlotte Dial under the bus.”
“She has helped hundreds of children thrive and be successful,” Moskowitz said, flanked by more than 150 Success teachers, administrators, and parents.
If what happened on the video was the only incident Moskowitz knew of, then OK -- I think this makes sense (although I have to wonder about what kind of "training" Dial got). But the NY Times metro editor who oversaw the story makes a good point:
Wendell Jamieson, the New York Times’s Metro editor, isn’t in a ground-yielding mood. “I reject Eva Moskowitz’s criticism of our coverage,” he says in a chat with the Erik Wemple Blog. In October, Taylor stung Success with a story about a “Got to Go” list of students one of the schools. According to the story, “school leaders and network staff members explicitly talked about suspending students or calling parents into frequent meetings as ways to force parents to fall in line or prompt them to withdraw their children.”
Nor does the school’s talk of anomalies and bad days impress Jamieson. “It seems impossible to me that the one time she did it there was a video camera there,” he says. Speaking of the students assembled in the classroom, Jamieson continued, “You can see a sort of in their body language an accepting that this is the way they are treated.” Even if it is an exception: “These are first graders. You can’t have a bad day like that with a 1st grader — I don’t care,” says the Metro editor. As the father of an elementary school girl, the Erik Wemple Blog endorses the no-abusive-eruptions-ever school of pedagogy. [emphasis mine]
Well, look -- it was shot on a phone (wasn't it?), so it's not like it's a surprise the assistant had a camera with her.

Still, it is awfully hard to think this happened only once; of course, having proof of that is another matter. As to never having a bad day: I agree it should never happen -- but it does happen. Getting teachers help first, however, seems to me to be a more appropriate response than mandatory firing. It is well within the realm of possibility that a teacher can get past a bad incident and still be productive. Of course, some things ought to get you fired immediately. This one comes right up to the line for me... your mileage may vary.

But that doesn't address the larger question: was Dial's behavior really that out of line with Success's practices? If not, then we're looking at a systemic problem, and not solely an individual one.

In a way, by treating Dial's actions as an outlier, Moskowitz is throwing her under a bus. She's refusing to take responsibility for what happened, just like the "got-to-go" list. She's refusing to look at her own possible culpability in the matter. Doesn't she feel any obligation to do so? Or is protecting the Success brand ultimately more important to her?

ADDING MORE: Also from the SA presser:
Natasha Shannon, the parent of three students in Success schools who attended, said she believes in Success’ mission, including the disciplinary policies.
“I think [discipline] is necessary,” she said. “People who don’t like it, they don’t have to send their children there.” [emphasis mine]
No, they just have to send their child to an underfunded, crumbling, large class-sized, segregated public school.

If SA works for Ms. Shannon, I'm happy for her. I've never criticized a parent for sending their child to a school like SA, and I never will. But her menu of "choices" would never be tolerated in a white, suburban public school district.

Isn't this a serious problem?

AND MORE: Professor Katz opines:
As is typical for Eva Moskowitz, the Success Academy leader lashed out at The New York Times in an email circulated to all of her employees where she claimed the newspaper has a “vendetta” against her and called her critics “haters” who are trying to “bully” the network.  While it may be desirable, even necessary, to deflate the self aggrandizing mythology of Success Academy by documenting reality, it is also important to remember that the charter network is not actually the illness.  It is merely an extreme rash that has broken on the surface.  Looking deeper, it is evident that much of our schooling today suffers from “Successification”.  Whether it is black and brown children subjected to zero tolerance policies that send them on a collision course with the criminal justice system or it is students terrified of making errors because their education has no time for learning from mistakes and genuine discovery, we are slowly building a school system where the worst priorities are granted full control.
It is time for a good, long, hard look in the mirror to see if Eva Moskowitz is staring back at us.

Saturday, February 6, 2016

Reforminess IS The Status Quo

I'm going to put the charts and graphs and scatterplots and citations away for a minute so we can cut right to the heart of the matter.

The 25th Anniversary celebration of Teach For America is only a few hours old, and already I see from following social media that it has become yet another event where reformsters, like a Top 40 radio station, will play the same songs over and over again until they are hopefully fixed into the brains of the American public:

- Charter schools are "beating the odds."

- Teacher quality is the number one "in-school" factor affecting student success. But teacher education programs are not working and should be replaced with "real" teacher training, like TFA and Relay Graduate School.

- "Choice" is bringing equity to urban schools. So is testing. If you question the proliferation either -- even for your own children -- you're pretty much a classist and/or racist.

- Poverty is not destiny; "miracle" schools are proving poverty's effects can be overcome.

And so on. I find that bromides like these have the primary intent of shutting down critiques of the "reform" movement: for example, if you point out that we really don't know much at all about the vast majority of charter schools...

... or that even the studies charter advocates themselves cite don't show substantial gains for the sector as a whole, or that the "high-performing" charter chains largely get their gains by student sorting on both observed and unobserved variables...

Well, you're obviously a union hack who is protecting the status quo. Because all we need to do is move school governance away from "the blob" and into the marketplace and we'll have equity between urban and suburban districts. After all, teacher quality is so important, and clearly charter teachers are better, because their schools' results are better. Which means the much more awesome staffs at urban charters -- who are far less experienced and have much less training than unionized, ed school-trained, public district school teachers -- have found the secret to overcoming poverty: getting out from under the thumb of the corrupting unions and into prep programs that give them five weeks of summer training...

If you follow the arguments of the "reform" movement, you'll know what I'm saying is not a parody -- these people really do believe this stuff. They really do think schools, by themselves, can overcome massive economic inequality, generations of racism, and a social system whose primary task is to replicate itself. They really do think that simply changing the governance structure of a school away from democratic local control to market-based private control will somehow unleash education excellence.

They really do think the quality of teachers is uniformly mediocre, but that it can be improved without spending any additional monies simply by changing incentive structures. They really do think fast turnaround prep programs are perfectly adequate for training people in the incredibly complex art and science of classroom teaching.

They really do think test-prep pedagogy is adequate for gaining the social and cultural capital necessary for social mobility. They really do think everyone should go to college, and that over-credentialing the millions of people who do necessary work will somehow ameliorate socio-economic inequity.

It's amazing to me that we are arguing about things that, to my mind, defy all common sense. You really think charter proliferation is going to change the social structure of this country? You really think teacher quality is uniformly poor given how much we're willing to pay teachers? You really think university-based ed schools are prepping teachers worse than TFA? You really think you can replicate the tiny number of charters who "beat the odds" -- and that their test score gains are indicative of the success of a "No Excuses" pedagogy in preparing students for elite colleges?

And you really think this is, all together, the "civil rights issue of our time"? Seriously?

Some of the reformsters are clearly nothing more than hacks. But I genuinely do believe the majority are sincere. I think the vast majority of college kids who sign up for TFA are committed to making this country a better place. I think the vast majority of charter school teachers are committed professionals who are proud of their work, and should be.

I think the parents and students who enroll in charters are absolutely correct in their disdain for our under-funded, crumbling, at times dangerous urban public schools. I think "reform" advocates who point out that suburban schools are highly segregated are spot on, and all children have a right to attend a school that is safe, clean, and well-ordered. As I've said many times, no one should ever blame a parent for enrolling their child in a charter school when the alternative is far worse.

I think teacher prep in universities and colleges could be improved. I do think there are teachers who gain tenure and then backslide; they should be made to improve or be removed. I do think teachers are important; I wouldn't be one if I didn't. I know that adequate funds are a necessary precondition for school success, but that schools should be held to account for efficient spending.

But the "reform" arguments have become so incoherent, and the "reform" claims of success have become so overblown, that we can't even have a serious discussion of these realities any more. What we have is a conversation about education where the voices of teachers and other education professionals have been drowned out by a small group of well-paid mouthpieces, supported by the very, very wealthiest people in this country. And they've created a new reality in American education:

Reforminess is the status quo. 

But because reforminess has come to dominate our media and our policy initiatives, its tenets deserve to be analyzed and critiqued. I invite everyone to judge for themselves the merit of the arguments for and against "reform"; I am quite confident that if you keep an open mind, you'll come to the same conclusions I and the good folks who are listed at the left side of this blog have.

Friday, February 5, 2016

The Mis-NAEPery of @TeachForAmerica

Teach For America is having a big party in Washington, D.C. this weekend to celebrate its 25th year -- and look who's crashing:
Teach for America, the program that places newly minted college graduates in some of the nation’s most difficult classrooms for two-year teaching stints, is holding a summit this weekend in Washington to mark its 25th anniversary.
The list of speakers reads like a who’s who of activists and leaders behind recent changes in education policy around the country, from former D.C. Schools chancellor Michelle Rhee to Eva Moskowitz, the head of the largest chain of charter schools in New York City. The singer Janelle Monáe will entertain at a glittery gathering of an estimated 15,000 Teach For America alumni; the organization’s many donors will also be on hand.
And roaming among them is Gary Rubinstein, a nationally known scold of TFA.
Rubinstein, a former TFA volunteer who is in his 14th year of teaching math at Stuyvesant High School in New York City, says he wants to force an “honest discussion” about TFA — including its weaknesses.
To that end, he created a Twitter account @TFA25FactCheck and a new blog and will attend the summit, looking for opportunities to inject what he calls “reality” into discussions about the best ways to improve public education. He is helping to organize a happy hour for those who share his concerns about TFA and said he will also hold an impromptu discussion during the three-day event, after he said his requests to join official panels were spurned by TFA organizers.
TFA doesn't welcome critics? I'm simply shocked...

You can follow this weekend's festivities via Twitter: @TFA25FactCheck. But be prepared: if you haven't recalibrated your B.S. detector, it might just explode:

Apparently, this slide was shown as "proof" that the reformy reforms in Washington D.C. -- including innumerate teacher evaluation -- are leading to gains so large in the nation's capitol that they must be rendered in bright yellow bars

Too bad whoever made this forgot a few things:

- Test score gains are not necessarily equivalent across different tests. In other words: we don't know if gaining 10 points on the Grade 4 reading test is at all equivalent to gaining 10 points on the Grade 8 math test.

- Test score gains are not necessarily equivalent across different parts of a score distribution. In other words, going from a 230 to a 240 is not equivalent to going from a 260 to a 270: it might be much harder to gain 10 points from one starting point than it is from another.

So combining the scale scores of different tests at different starting points and then comparing them is pretty much worthless.

- It is pointless to compare test score gains without accounting for changes in student populations. We know D.C. has seen substantial demographic changes; you can't just slap up scores that correlate to student characteristics without acknowledging these changes.

- Test score changes are not, by themselves, proof that particular policies are successful. Look at the top of this slide: "How the DC Public Schools Changed Everything to Get, Grow, and Keep Great Teachers and Principals." Is the person who put this up seriously suggesting a few teacher policy choices are the cause of the test score gains? That it couldn't possibly be a host of other factors? Really?

OK, I wasn't there. Maybe this was a simple descriptive introduction, leading up to a sophisticated analysis with proper controls for student population changes and scale differences. Maybe this was used as an example of how not to use NAEP data to make a case for a particular policy intervention. Maybe TFA is going to have a weekend full of serious policy discussions, and not engage in some really shameless data manipulation to push their particular agenda.


ADDING: Tonight's menu:

Mis-NAEPery a la Baker.

Mis-NAEPery a la Polikoff.

Mis-NAEPerty a la DiCarlo.

Bon appétit!

Monday, February 1, 2016

Charter School Realities: East Brunswick, NJ

This year, I'm doing an occasional series about the many unknown charter schools that aren't affiliated with the big, non-profit charter management organizations like KIPP or Uncommon or Success Academies. Last time, I showed how a small charter in Red Bank, NJ, was likely impeding any chance of the community being able to integrate their schools. Let's stay in the Jersey 'burbs and discuss another small charter, and how it's affecting the local public district schools.

  * * *

Nearly two years ago, the NJDOE denied an expansion request for Hatikvah Academy Charter School in East Brunswick. But if there's one thing to know about charter operators, it's that they can be a persistent bunch: a year later, Hatikvah got permission to enroll its current students, who were in grades K through 5, to stay until Grade 8. But even that wasn't enough...

According to this letter from the East Brunswick Public Schools -- the "hosting" public school district for Hatikvah -- the charter now wants to expand its enrollments for all of its grades. The reason, ostensibly, is that Hatikvah has more students on its wait list than it does available seats. But the district says there really isn't a community demand for the charter, because Hatikvah is drawing students from all over the state:

I made this map from NJDOE data provided to me by concerned citizens whose districts are affected by Hatikvah (more in a minute). The sending districts to the north are more than 25 miles away; the furthest to the east is more than 15 miles. But not only that:

About half of Hatikvah's students are in East Brunswick, where the school is located. But small numbers of students -- in some cases, a single student -- are coming from districts within a wide area. Florham Park, the northernmost district, is sending one student. What's going on here?

The answer is to be found in Hatikvah's unique curriculum: it's a Hebrew immersion school. Apparently, the NJDOE thinks it's so important for a publicly funded school to teach Hebrew that it's willing to allow students from a wide area to enroll in Hatikvah, dragging their share of taxpayer revenue with them.

If you're surprised to hear that tax dollars can be used to support Hebrew charter schools, you shouldn't be: there is actually a group called the Hebrew Charter School Center, which "...works with public charter schools and planning groups who focus on the instruction of the Hebrew language and culture, as well as the study of the culture and history of Israel and its immigrant communities." The group claims Hatikvah as one of its schools; according to spekaupnj.org, it has also funded a religious after-school program at the charter:
We have looked at all of the HCSC's available Form 990s, and what we found is that from 2010-2013 the HCSC has given over $1 million dollars to Hatikvah, and over $500,000 to create a religious after school program that ONLY serves students from Hatikvah. The stated goal of the program, called Nefesh Yehudi Academy, is "to provide a Jewish education to complement the curriculum of a Hebrew immersion charter school program, while encouraging students to appreciate the diversity of all Jews."

This is not surprising, since the mission of the Steinhardt Foundation for Jewish Life is "to revitalize Jewish identity through educational and cultural initiatives that reach out to all Jews, with an emphasis on those who are on the margins of Jewish life, as well as to advocate for and support Hebrew and Jewish literacy among the general population."

While Mr. Steinhardt is welcome to use his vast fortunate to "revitalize Jewish identity," his efforts to do so using public tax dollars to create secular charter schools supplemented by religious after school programs, both created and supported with HCSC funds, is a misuse of the tax dollars that flow into the public charters. Steinhardt has essentially created a low cost alternative to a religious education (Hatikvah is free, and Nefesh Yehudi Academy is $2,800 as per their registration form). 
So the taxpayers pony up for the Hebrew instruction during the school day, and private funds supplement the religious instruction "after school." I guess that's one way around the First Amendment...

Now, this might not be all that serious if the hosting districts weren't feeling the effects of having to support a charter -- even one that enrolls just a few of their students. Districts, however, have fixed costs; depending on the size of the districts, losing students to a charter can have a real fiscal impact on the hosts. Ask East Brunswick:
As in the past, Hatikvah posits that increasing enrollment would not harm East Brunswick. They suggest that only approximately 9 students of the proposed expansion of 200 students would come from East Brunswick and this would only cost the district in year one an additional $100,000 or so. (Think what it would cost the other districts that have no say in Hatikvah’s expansion into their districts.) Even another $100,000 next year would harm East Brunswick. The East Brunswick Public Schools already spend a sum equal to 98% of the State imposed cap to support Hatikvah. Another $100,000 would make it more than 100% of the cap! The cost would increase each year as students move up through the grades.
That's the host district, again, sending about half of the students. But what about some of the others -- like, say, Highland Park, which makes up about 6 percent of Hatikvah's students? Well, funny you should ask...

Long time readers know one of my best blogging (and real-life) buddies is the intrepid Darcie Cimarusti, aka Mother Crusader. Darcie has been fighting for a good long time to bring sanity to the New Jersey education system, starting with her hometown of Highland Park. Her activism led her to run for the school board and win a seat; this past year, she was elected board president.

Darcie and I have been talking about Hatikvah and how its expansion will damage her own daughters' school district, which led me to look more carefully at the data and produce the analysis below. As Darcie recently told the state BOE in testimony, Hatikvah has done real damage to her district's finances:

My board would like to inform you that Hatikvah has essentially morphed into a statewide charter school, pulling students from 28 districts in 7 counties to fill their seats. Hatikvah was approved to serve East Brunswick, and East Brunswick alone. In fact, in their 2009 application to the state they stated that they didn’t anticipate any out of district enrollment. Now five years into their charter, 50% of their enrollment comes from districts other than East Brunswick, demonstrating a clear lack of interest in their district of residence.

There are no provisions in the state’s charter school law that allow a statewide charter to even exist. This Department has written no regulations, and this Board has approved no regulations to oversee the operation of a statewide charter. If Hatikvah were restricted to accepting students only from their district of residence, not only would they be unable to expand, they would be forced to close. Even if they were restricted to their district of residence and a handful of contiguous districts they would be unable to exist.

In order to keep their doors open they continue to draw more students from more districts, and as each year passes, more funds are lost. When Hatikvah opened in 2010 we lost $61,847. This year Highland Park lost $318,201. In 5 years time, Highland Park’s costs have increased fivefold.

But Highland Park is not part of Hatikvah’s district of residence, so Hatikvah is not required by law to notify our district of their plans for expansion, and our district is not given an opportunity to respond to the proposed expansion. 

We are essentially left in the dark and rendered voiceless.
And that is the insanity of NJ charter school law: because the state is the authorizer, a charter does not need local approval before it can enroll students and cause harm to a district's programs. A district, therefore, has to bear the fiscal burden of supporting a redundant school system simply to support a boutique curriculum that the vast majority of families in the town do not want.

How does this make any sense? Is it really so important that a few families, scattered over a wide region, get a publicly funded school to teach their children Hebrew? Is the benefit from this so great that it's worth negatively impacting the finances of local, district public schools?

And, perhaps more importantly: why should local towns have to support charter schools that increase economic and racial segregation?

Here's the free and reduced-price lunch percentages over the last five years for Hatikvah and its top seven sending districts. Hatikvah has never enrolled the same proportion of economically disadvantaged students as its largest sending districts. And the racial differences are also pronounced:

Hatikvah's concentration of white students is higher than any of its largest feeder schools. Is anyone really surprised that a Hebrew immersion school would enroll a mostly white population? In addition:

Hatikvah enrolls fewer special education students than its feeders -- in some cases, far fewer. This is typical for New Jersey charter schools, which largely under-enroll special needs students. When you look at the raw numbers, this becomes even more obvious:

In addition: the very few special education students Hatikvah does enroll tend to have lower-cost needs compared to East Brunswick.

Again, this is quite typical for a New Jersey charter school. And it matters not just in terms of cost: it matters for accountability measures.

You see, it's easier to raise your test scores when you serve proportionally fewer children in economic disadvantage, or fewer who have special education needs. But what if you control for those differences? As I've done many times before, I use a linear regression model here that adjusts test scores for differences in student populations (see below for specifics). The sample is every school in Middlesex County, NJ; the scores are from the last administration of the NJASK in 2014. Let's see how Hatikvah's 5th Grdaers did compared to East Brunswick's in English Language Arts (ELA):

The East Bruswick schools are in green: they all "beat prediction," meaning they all scored better than we would predict based on their free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) and special education proportions. Hatikvah scored under prediction.

Does this mean East Brunswick's schools are "better" than Hatikvah's? I wouldn't ever make that claim based on a few tests scores, but I will say this: it's hard to justify Hatikvah's expansion based on any claim that the charter educates its students better than East Brunswick's schools. Here are the adjusted math scores:

Can anyone credibly make a claim that Hatikvah is a badly needed alternative to East Brunswick's public district schools?

I have more of these below for Grades 3 and 4; they vary somewhat, but there is no consistent pattern of Hatikvah outscoring East Brunswick. And it's the same in Highland Park:

Highland Park has more than twice the students, proportionally, who are FRPL than Hatikvah. Yet they outstrip the charter on adjusted Grade 5 ELA and math scores -- handily. Again, there's variation by grade... but where is any proof these districts' students need a charter for a "better" educational option than their already fine public district schools?

Folks, if you want your kids to go to a school where they learn Hebrew, then by all means, sign them up at a private school. Or send them for religious instruction after school -- it's your right, of course. But the idea that our schools should be able to cater to every parent's desire, every educational whim, is absurd.

The taxpayers should not be made to support redundant and inefficient systems of schools simply to fulfill the specialized wishes of a scant few families.

It took former Education Commissioner Chris Cerf a while to figure it out, but he eventually came to the realization that putting a bunch of boutique charters in the 'burbs was a really bad idea -- educationally, fiscally, and politically. After all, Chris Christie's (quickly eroding) political base was in the suburbs: why would they want to see their public schools, which enhance the value of their homes, damaged just so a few students could enroll in a Hebrew immersion school fueled by their tax dollars?

Unfortunately, a few of these charters out in the leafy 'burbs got approved; now, some are having trouble enrolling enough students from their own towns to justify their existence. I don't doubt that if I started a charter based on a clown college curriculum, I could probably find enough students across a wide area who would sign up. That doesn't mean allowing these schools to expand their reach is good public policy -- partially if they increase racial and economic segregation while damaging the public district schools' bottom lines.

Next in this series: let's stay out in the Jersey 'burbs for a bit more -- but then I want to get to Upstate New York...

Highland Park: One of the nicest small towns you'll ever visit.

ADDING: Here are some other adjusted scores. The regression model uses NJASK scale scores for the dependent variable, and school-level FRPL percentage or special education percentage (all courtesy of the NJDOE) for the independent variables. Residuals are expressed as scale score differences and are not standardized. For the Grade 4 models, special education percentage wasn't a statistically significant factor, so I removed it (yeah, we could argue about that, I know, but I ultimately decided it was more fair to do so if I couldn't get p < 0.05). I plotted the residuals on the y-axis against FRPL percentage on the x-axis just to give a little more description to the data.

Here are adjusted SGP or "growth" scores. It's a weaker model because SGPs account somewhat more for student characteristics, but again: there's no consistent pattern of Hatikvah outscoring its host districts.

 Here are the same graphs for Highland Park:

Again: where's the evidence Hatikvah is really needed in either town?

Tuesday, January 26, 2016

Charter School Realities: Red Bank, NJ

ADDING: I've mentioned this before: hyperlocals are becoming some of the best sources for local reporting out there. RedBankGreen.com was the source for the quotes below, but I also read some earlier reports to get some context. They do a really nice job.

Let me show a pie chart Bruce Baker made that I keep coming back to:

This is from a dataset I made (with Bruce's guidance) of charter schools and their affiliated charter management organizations (CMOs). We hear a lot these days about KIPP or Uncommon or Success Academies; however, we hear much less about Academica or Charter Schools USA or White Hat. What do we really know about these schools?

Further: what about that "OTHER" category? Who runs these schools? How do they perform? How do they affect their local districts?

One goal I have over the next year at this blog is to spend some more time looking at these lesser-known charter schools -- the ones who, in reality, are the backbone of the charter sector. Let me start here in New Jersey with a story that doesn't involve a high profile charter leader like Eva Moskowitz or a high profile CMO like KIPP; however, it's a story that I believe is quite instructive...

* * *

Red Bank might be best known as the hometown of the great Count Basie. Like many small towns in New Jersey, it runs its own K-8 school district; high school students attend a larger "regional" high school that is fed my two other K-8 districts, Little Silver and Shrewsbury. The three districts are all quite small; when combined, their size is actually smaller than many other K-12 districts or regional high schools in the area.

This map from the National Center for Education Statistics shows the Red Bank Regional High School's total area, and the three smaller K-8 districts within it. You might wonder why the three districts don't consolidate; just the other day, NJ Senate President (and probable gubernatorial candidate) Steve Sweeney argued he'd like to do away with K-8 districts altogether. The estimates as to how much money would be saved are probably too high, but in this case it would still make a lot of sense.

The reality, however, is that these three K-8 districts are actually quite different:

Here are the free-lunch eligible rates for the three K-8 districts, and the regional high school. Red Bank students are far more likely to qualify for free lunch, a measure of economic disadvantage. Last year, Shrewsbury had one student who qualified for free lunch. It's safe to guess most of the high school's FL students came from Red Bank.

But I've also included another school: Red Bank Charter School. It's FL population is higher than Little Silver or Shrewsbury, but only a fraction of the FL population in Red Bank. What's going on?

Well, if you read the local press (via RedBankGreen.com), you'll see that this charter school is a huge source of controversy in the town:
With the first flakes of an anticipated blizzard falling outside, a hearing on a proposed enrollment expansion by the Red Bank Charter School was predictably one-sided Friday night.
As expected, charter school Principal Meredith Pennotti was a no-show, as were the school’s trustees, but not because of the weather. They issued a statement earlier in the day saying they were staying way because the panel that called the hurry-up session should take more time in order to conduct “an in-depth analysis without outside pressure.”
Less expected was district Superintendent Jared Rumage’s strongly worded attack of charter school data, which he said obscured its role in making Red Bank “the most segregated school system in New Jersey.”
That's a very strong claim. I'm not about to take it on, but I do think it's worth looking more closely at how the charter school's proposed expansion might affect Red Bank's future:
The charter school proposal calls for an enrollment increase to 400 students over three years beginning in September. Supporters of the non-charter borough schools contend the expansion would “devastate” the district, draining it of already-insufficient funding, a claim that charter school officials and their allies disputed at a closed-door meeting Wednesday night.
As a row of chairs reserved for charter school officials sat conspicuously empty, a standing-room crowd gathered in the middle school auditorium heard Rumage revisit familiar themes, claiming that the expansion plan filed with the state Department of Education on December 1 relies on outdated perceptions about the district.
Continuing a battle of statistics that’s been waged for the past eight weeks, Rumage countered assertions made at a closed meeting Wednesday, where charter school parents were told the expansion would have no adverse impact on the district, and would in fact bolster the district coffers.
This is, of course, the standard play by charter schools these days when confronted with the fiscal damage they do to their hosting districts: claim that they are actually helping, not hurting, their hosts. Julia Sass Rubin*, however, did a study of how Red Bank CS funding affects the local schools. What she points out -- and what seems to have been lost on the charter's spokespeople in their own presentation to their parents -- is that the charter gets less funding per pupil largely because it enrolls a different student population than the public district schools.

This is one of the great, untold secrets of NJ charter school funding: the amounts are weighted by the types of students you enroll. If a charter school takes a student who qualifies for free lunch, or is Limited English Proficient, or has a special education need, the charter gets more money than if it took a student who was not in those categories. That's only fair, as we know students who are at-risk or have a particular educational need cost more to educate.

Here are the special education classification rates for all schools in the Red Bank Regional HS area. Red Bank CS has, by far, the lowest classification rate of any district in the region. Of course they are going to get less funding; they don't need it as much as their host district, because their students aren't as expensive to educate. Further, by enrolling fewer special education students, they are concentrating those students in the Red Bank Borough Public Schools. Is this a good thing?

But that's not the only form of segregation that's happening:

Red Bank Borough has few white students in its public district; the charter school has far more. But look at the high school and the other two feeders: they have even more white students proportionally than the charter school. Yes, the charter is creating segregation -- but that's hardly the entire story.

In addition, there's one more very curious thing about this situation. There are, in fact, other areas in New Jersey with K-8 districts that feed into regional high schools, and those K-8 districts, like here, can have very different student populations. StateAidGuy points out a particularly interesting case in Manchester Regional High School: many students who attend K-8 school in North Haledon, a more affluent town than its other neighboring feeders, don't go on to the regional high school. The unstated reason is that parents in that town do not want their children attending high school with children from less-affluent districts; Jeff also notes the racial component to that situation.

But that's not the case for Red Bank Regional High School; in fact, the school attracts more students than those who graduate from its feeders!

These are the sizes of different student cohorts when they are in Grade 8 in the feeders, and then Grade 9 in the high school. The high school actually attracts more students from the area: it has popular vocational academies that can enroll students from other districts, and an extensive International Baccalaureate program.

So the notion that the largely white and more affluent families in Shrewsbury and Little Silver would be scared off by a three-district consolidation with Red Bank doesn't seem to have a lot of evidence to support it. The students already come together in the high school, and that appears to be working out well (at least as far as we can learn from the numbers).

Furthermore, the three towns are within a small geographic area, about 4 miles across. A centrally located school, particularly for the younger children, wouldn't be any further than a couple of miles away for families. It would be quite feasible to implement a "Princeton Plan" for the area; for example, all K-2 students would attend one school, 3-5 another, and 6-8 another.

But the Red Bank Charter School appears to be moving the area away from desegregation. If the expansion goes through, it's likely to make any chance at consolidation go away, because the Red Bank district is likely to become more segregated.

Again, the effects of consolidation on the budgets of the schools would probably be modest -- but the effects on desegregation could be enormous. New Jersey has highly segregated schools; this would be a real chance to undo some of that. But expanding a charter which serves a fundamentally a different student population is almost certain to make segregation in the Red Bank region more calcified. 

And for what? In their application for expansion, Red Bank CS boasts about its higher proficiency rates than Red Bank Boro. But it's not hard to boost your test scores when you enroll fewer special need students and fewer students in economic disadvantage. What if you take into account the different student populations?

What I've done below is to create a simple linear regression model that predicts mean scale scores. The sample is all schools in Monmouth County, NJ. The model uses free and reduced-price lunch (FRPL) as an independent variable in Grade 5. I add special education percentages (which weren't statistically significant in the Grade 5 model) for Grade 8.

What I'm basically doing here is looking at all the schools in the county and, based on their scores and their students, creating a model that predicts where we would expect the school's average test score to be given its student population. Some schools will "beat prediction": they'll score higher than we expect. Some will score lower than prediction.

Let me be very clear on this: I would never suggest this is a comprehensive way to judge a school's effectiveness. I'm only saying that if you're going to make a case that a school should be allowed to expand based on its test scores, this is a far more valid approach than simply putting out numbers that are heavily influenced by student population characteristics.

Let's start with Grade 5 English Language Arts (ELA).

That's Red Bank Middle School in the upper right. About 76 percent of the variation in Grade 5 ELA scale scores in Monmouth County can be statistically explained by the percentage of FRPL students enrolled in each school. Red Bank Middle has one of the highest FRPL rates in the county, yet it does exceptionally well in getting test scores above where we'd predict they'd be based on its student population.

What about Grade 8?

For those with sharp eyes: I changed the x-axis to FL instead of FRPL (the model still uses FRPL). The charter does somewhat better than Red Bank Middle school; however, the public district school in Red Bank still beats prediction.

Here are the models for math:

Same thing: in Grade 5, Red Bank Middle beats Red Bank CS in adjusted scores. The reverse happens in Grade 8, but Red Bank Middle still beats prediction.

I always say this when I do these: absent any other information, I have no doubt that Red Bank CS is full of hard-working students and dedicated teachers; they should all be proud of their accomplishments. But it's clear that it's very hard to make the case that Red Bank CS is far and away superior to Red Bank Middle. 

The Red Bank region has a chance to do something extraordinary: create a fully-integrated school district that serves all children well. I don't for a second believe that will be at all easy; we have plenty of research on the tracking practices, based on race and other factors, of schools that are integrated in name only.

But why turn down the chance to at least attempt something nearly everyone agrees is desirable in the name of "choice"? Especially when the "choice" is going to have a negative effect on the hosting school's finances? And when there's little evidence the "choice" is bringing a lot of extra value to its students to begin with?

Who knows -- maybe there's some way to have Red Bank CS be part of this. Maybe it can provide some form of "choice" to all students in the region. But not like this; all an expansion will do in this case is make it even harder to desegregate the area's schools. This is exactly the opposite of NJDOE Commissioner Hespe's mandate; can he honestly say there are benefits from expanding Red Bank CS that are worth it?

I wish I could say that what's happening in Red Bank is an isolated incident; it's not. Let's stay out in the NJ 'burbs for our next stop...

Stay strong, Red Bank!
(photo via RedBankGreen.com)

* Full disclosure: Julia and I co-wrote the NJ charter school report for the Tanner Foundation last year.

Monday, January 25, 2016

Once Again: The FACTS On Newark, Charters, and Spending

I see we have to go over this once again. Fine:

- TEAM Academy Charter School, the Newark branch of the nation charter chain KIPP, outscored the Montclair School District one year in one grade on one test -- by 0.2 scale score points.

The next year, that same cohort of students, who were now in Grade 4, showed substantially different results on the same test; the Montclair average was now substantially higher than TEAM/KIPP's.

I don't point this out to suggest either that Montclair's schools are superior, or that TEAM/KIPP's schools are inferior. Without adequately controlling for at least the observed variations in each district's populations (and acknowledging that there are likely many unobserved variations), any comparison between the two systems is utterly pointless.

My point here is that facile, a-contextual, cherry-picked factoids like these are completely meaningless, and that people who bring them up time and again show themselves to be fatuous.

- The latest official figures for TEAM/KIPP's post-secondary (college) enrollment rate is 82 percent. I think this is very good and TEAM/KIPP should be proud of their work; however, once again, it is pointless to say that TEAM/KIPP is getting far superior results than the district schools unless and until you account for the differences, both reported and unreported, in the student populations. Further, simply citing one year's post-enrollment rate, which has not even been confirmed by official sources, is at best incomplete and at worst just plain old lazy.

- Dale Russakoff's book, The Prize, does not make the claim that TEAM/KIPP spends $400 per student on custodians while the Newark Public Schools spends $1,200 per student. As I wrote in my brief on Russakoff's (mis-)use of data, here is the relevant passage from the book:
“Christie had not funded the full formula since taking office, citing the state fiscal crisis, but the allocation was still equivalent to about $20,000 per student. Less than half of this, though, reached district schools to pay teachers, social workers, counselors, classroom aides, secretaries, and administrators – the people who actually delivered education to children. For example, the district calculated that it spent $1,200 a year per student on Avon’s janitorial services; BRICK founder Dominique Lee researched the cost on the private market and found it was close to $400 per student.” (p.135)
First of all, there is nothing in here about TEAM/KIPP. Second, the claim of $1,200 per year at BRICK, an NPS school, is unsourced. My review of NPS data calls into question the veracity of the claim; NPS documents showed spending of about $225 per pupil on custodial salaries (see my brief for the data source). Finally, there is no documentation of how Lee calculated her figure, or what the "private market" means.

I think I've been more than fair to Russakoff, but I also think it's simply unacceptable for "facts" like these to work their way into the mainstream media. She has actually misquoted her own book in interviews. It's important to be clear and rigorous with this stuff; I have found Russakoff's use of data in The Prize to be neither. Sorry to be blunt, but enough's enough.

- The notion that Newark's charters have less bureaucratic bloat than NPS schools is contradicted by state data.

Newark spends more on classroom instruction per pupil than most Newark charters, including TEAM/KIPP.

NPS spends far more on student support services -- guidance counselors, nurses, librarians, psychologists -- than the charters.

This is reflected in the large number of these support personnel per student at NPS compared to most charters.

While TEAM/KIPP has equivalent numbers of social workers per student compared to NPS, the district also has many more psychologists, school counselors, and nurses per student.

NPS has lower administration costs per pupil than any Newark charter school.

NPS's administrative salary costs are among the lowest in the city.

Despite having a crumbling infrastructure, NPS plant costs are not inordinately high compared to the charters.

Russakoff has claimed that only half the money spent by NPS makes it "into the classroom." Yet she never explains what that means, she never explains her methodology for arriving at the figure, and she never fully sources the figure. In the face of all this contradicting evidence that comes directly from the state, Russakoff and the people who quote her have an obligation to explain the apparent contradiction here. Is the state data wrong? If so, how do we know?

You can't just fling data around without explaining how it was created, where you got it, and how it should be interpreted in the proper context.

I'm tired of hectoring people who clearly don't give a damn about their own reputations. But I'm not going to stop pointing out when claims are made about schools that have no proper context, are cherry-picked, are poorly sourced, or are just plain wrong. What I have above are the facts. You can check them out yourself. If I'm wrong, I'll correct them.

But if I'm right...

You can't argue with people who repeatedly bury their heads in the sand. All you can do is point out the facts to those who are willing to listen.

ADDING: This is very, very frustrating to me. In an otherwise excellent conversation about Newark and its schools, Owen Davis, who I admire greatly, uses Russakoff's book as a source to make the case the charters have less bureaucratic bloat than NPS:
OD: Of course the district should undergo the “forensic audit” that Russakoff suggests. More money should be going to the children in the classrooms, especially when that means more social workers, counselors, teachers assistants, etc. But it has to be understood w/in the context of a depressed local economy where middle class jobs are scarce.
The charter schools in Newark aren’t weighed down by that economic drag, and Russakoff shows how kids and teachers benefit from leaner bureaucracies and more agile administrators. There’s no question that kids are better off when their schools can provide them with more, faster. But the existence of charter schools doesn’t answer the question of wider economic impacts when the district shrinks. [emphasis mine]
Again: Russakoff's tale is contradicted by official state data. Further, she has absolutely not made the case that her sources are better than the state's own reporting.

This has got to stop. We are telling the wrong story, and it's going to lead us to the wrong conclusions.