Charter School With 38% High School Completion Rate Brags About 88% College Completion Rate In USA Today

In yesterday’s USA Today there was an article with the enticing title “Charter schools’ ‘thorny’ problem:  Few students go on to earn college degrees”  This article was shared widely by the pro-teacher, pro-public school crowd.  And though the title does seem to support what many of us have been saying over the years, based on what they say in the article, I see it as something that can easily be quoted by the pro-charter crowd as evidence that charters are, in general, working.

Statistics for charter schools as a whole are hard to come by, but the best estimate puts charters’ college persistence rates at around 23%. To be fair, the rate overall for low-income students – the kind of students typically served by charters – is even worse: just 9%.

So if the rate of college completion for low-income students who attend charter schools is really 23%, that does sound like a big improvement over the non-charter rate of 9%.

The article goes on to highlight two charter chains who claim to have, respectively, a 45% and an 87.5% college completion rate.  The 45% chain was KIPP.  I remember a few years back when they first started saying this and I argued with Richard Barth, a co-CEO of KIPP, that you really can’t compare the rate KIPP publishes with the 9% statistic since the KIPP rate only applies to students who graduated KIPP and ignores the KIPP students who leave the school before reaching 12th grade.  Statistically speaking, the KIPP students are a ‘biased’ sample.

He wasn’t really interested in debating this, here is the exchange:

Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 9.26.04 PM.png

The real heroes of the article are the Democracy Prep charter chain.  They claim an amazing 87.5% college completion rate.  (There is not mention in the article about the recent incident where a Democracy Prep student threatened another student at gunpoint over a dispute about a Chicken McNugget.)

Having the KIPP numbers and the Democracy Prep numbers really make this into a pro-charter piece.  It basically says that some charters are struggling to get kids ‘to and through’ college, but the really good charter chains are doing well with this.  So the conclusion isn’t to slow down charter proliferation, but to only expand the really good charters like KIPP and Democracy Prep.

New York State has a pretty good public data system, so I investigated the numbers for Democracy Prep’s first cohort, the ones that 87.5% of their graduates are on track to graduate from college.  What I found was that in 2006-2007, they had 131 6th graders.  According to their testing data from that year where 127 students were tested, there were 63 girls and 64 boys tested.  Also, of the 131 students, 80% were Black while 20% were Latino.

Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 8.59.15 PM

Six years later they had 50 12th graders.  This represents just 38% of the original 131 students.  Of those 50, 13 were boys and 37 were girls.  So they went from 50% boys to 33% boys.  Also of their 50 students, they went from 80% Black in 2006 to 66% Black in 2013.

Screen Shot 2017-03-15 at 9.34.57 PM

The public New York State data page for Democracy Prep’s 2006-2007 data is here and the 2012-2013 data can be found here.

So Democracy Prep does not deserve to held up as a model for how to get low-income students through college when they can’t even get them through high school.  And USA Today, if they want to write an article about how Charter Schools are not a silver bullet for education, they should not publish misleading statistics that support the argument that they are.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

Is Louisiana’s NAEP Miracle ‘Significant’?

In a recent Washington Post editorial, Mitchell Chester and John White, wrote about their successes in turning around low performing schools.  Chester and White are both members of the organization Jeb Bush founded called Chiefs For Change.  Most of the members are actually former chiefs who have left for one reason or another, but Chester and White are currently in leadership roles, Chester in Massachusetts and White in Louisiana.

This Washington Post piece, was, of course, hailed by ‘reform’ zealots like Joel Klein and TFA CEO Elisa Villanueva-Beard

When I think of states that give evidence in any way about the possible positive impact of modern education ‘reform’ (closing down schools, replacing them with charters, evaluating and firing teachers based on a poor measure of ‘student achievement’, etc.), Massachusetts and Louisiana are not two of the states that come to mind.  Massachusetts has always been at or near the top of the rankings.  Based on the PISA scores, Massachusetts, if it were a country, would be one of the top performing countries in the world.  And for Louisiana, except for the statistics that they invent, their test scores on NAEP, the AP, the ACT, and any other sort of standardized test have been very low and continue to be.

So why are we listening to John White, who came to Louisiana from New York where he was mentored by Joel Klein, about how to improve low performing schools?  Well of course he backs up his case with some statistics:

In Louisiana, radical change means that 128,000 fewer students attend schools rated D or F than did in 2011. That’s had a powerful impact on the historically disadvantaged children too often consigned to failing schools, vaulting the performance of African-American fourth graders into the middle of the pack on the National Assessment of Educational Progress in 2015. In 2009, for example, black fourth graders ranked 43rd and 41st in the nation for proficiency in reading and math, respectively. Those rankings jumped to 20th and 23rd in 2015.

As far as the 128,000 fewer students attending schools rated D or F, since they are the ones who assign those ratings and since the criteria for getting a D or F has changed over the years, I don’t take that one too seriously.

But I was interested in ‘fact checking’ that NAEP statistic since that was one I hadn’t heard of before.  I knew that Louisiana as a whole had very low NAEP scores and they were not improving very much over the years the way, for example Tennessee and Washington D.C. have, otherwise we’d be hearing about Louisiana NAEP much more.

White says that black fourth graders ranked 43rd in reading and 41st in math in 2009 and now rank 20th and 23rd.  So I went to the National Center for Education Statistics website and dug into the data.

Since NAEP isn’t just for 4th graders, the first thing I checked was what their current ranking was for black 8th graders and saw that for 8th grade math they actually dropped from 39th to 44th between 2009 and 2015.  For 8th grade reading they dropped from to 43rd to 45th between 2009 and 2015.  So it is obvious why they don’t mention their 8th grade change in rankings.

I also checked how they have done in math for all 4th graders regardless of race.  I found that in 2009 they were 48th while in 2015 they were not much better, at 44th.  In reading they went from second to last in 2009 to 8th to last in 2015.  A jump, but not the sort of thing that John White would ever use to prove his point about his knowledge of improving schools.

But still I could see someone being compelled by the improving position for the scores of black 4th graders since those are students who have had their entire schooling after the ‘greatest thing that ever happened to New Orleans’ (according to Arne Duncan) event, Hurricane Katrina.  I did see that it was accurate that Louisiana had leapfrogged over a bunch of states in the most recent 4th grade tests.  And I could see how it sounds good to go from the bottom to the middle.  But what I wanted to find out is if this was a ‘significant’ change.

In statistics, ‘significant’ has a very specific meaning.  It doesn’t necessarily mean that the change is large.  There can actually be times where a large difference is not considered ‘significant’ and times where a small difference can be considered ‘significant.’  Also, saying that the difference in a comparison is significant (or not significant) has nothing to do with whether or not the difference is ‘important.’  It’s actually a tricky thing to explain what it means for a change to be, or not to be, ‘significant’ but I’ll try to explain.

Suppose you have 100 tomato plants and you give half of them plant food ‘A’ and the other half plant food ‘B’.  A month later you check on the tomatoes and you find that the tomatoes that got plant food ‘B’ grew, on average, 3 inches taller than those that got plant food ‘A.’  Before you can declare that plant food ‘B’ causes plants to grow taller, you enter the data for all 100 plants into a computer.  Then you have the computer randomly select fifty plants from the hundred and you compare the average of this new, random, grouping with the average of the other 50 that were not selected by the computer.  Then you have the computer do that ten thousand times with ten thousand different ways of splitting the 100 plants into two groups.  Then you check to see if it is common for one group to grow, on average, 3 inches taller than the other group.  If it turns out that this actually happens for enough of the groups (maybe 10% or so), the the difference is considered to not be ‘significant’ meaning that the difference was just as likely to be because of random chance than because plant food ‘B’ actually caused the plants to grow more.  In layman’s terms, if the difference is not statistically significant, it’s kind of like a tie.

Well, the NAEP data explorer allows you to create these nifty maps that show how states compare to each other and which are ‘significantly’ better or worse.

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 8.42.00 PM

This map shows that in math black 4th graders in Louisiana are not ‘significantly’ different from about 40 states and are better than about 5 and worse than about 5.  So with this pretty weak measurement, it could be argued that Louisiana 4th graders are tied for 45th or that they are tied for 6th.  Basically, there isn’t much that can be concluded when the scores are run through this ‘significance’ filter.

A similar thing happens for 4th grade reading, which can be seen below.

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 8.45.52 PM

I also produced these maps for the 2009 NAEP to see how different they were and, as can be seen from these two maps, back in 2009 in reading there were even more ‘ties’ with respect to statistically ‘significant’ differences.

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 8.54.54 PM

Screen Shot 2017-03-11 at 8.50.42 PM

I always felt that using NAEP scores as a way to prove that reforms are (or are not working) wasn’t a great idea.  I think the worst ever use of NAEP scores was in ‘Waiting For Superman’ as it was used to show that the public school in every state were pretty much ‘failing.’

Since reformers love to use them when it seems to support their ideas, I feel no guilt when I use them against the reformers when I find things in the NAEP that seem to support the idea that the reform agenda is failing.  If they know that cherry picking isolated NAEP statistics will cause people to dig deeper into the full picture and find many statistics that will be used against them, maybe they will think twice before using them to support their position in the first place.  Not using NAEP against the reformers would be like an attorney not cross examining an unreliable witness who was deliberately chosen by the other side to help their case.

I never thought that NAEP scores were very significant, but I didn’t realize until now how, mathematically speaking, ‘insignificant’ NAEP differences really are.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

Odd questions on the latest TFA alumni survey

As a TFA alum, each year I get invited to fill out the annual alumni survey.  Sometimes I boycott the survey, knowing that TFA is likely to misrepresent the results of this survey.  Whether it is the claim that two-thirds of alumni are still teachers or that 80 percent of alumni are still working in education or are otherwise impacting low income communities, TFA is never very transparent with the raw data they use to generate these numbers.

This year I decided to take the survey anyway.  Maybe it would give some insights into what TFA is thinking nowadays DeVos and everything.  They’ve actually been pretty quiet lately.

I’ve always wondered about that statistic about how 80 percent of alumni are either working in schools or otherwise in low-income communities.  It seemed like there would have to be some staffer at TFA who would make a judgement call if, for example, someone working as an admissions officer at a college would count as being ‘in education’ or if someone who is a lawyer and from time to time has clients who are low-income if they would count as ‘impacting low-income communities.’  It turns out that it is much simpler than that:


So the person doing the survey gets to make the judgement.  I’m not sure if this is a statistically valid way of doing this.

Also notice the wording of these questions.  The first one doesn’t say “I currently work in education.”  It is so vague about ‘impacting the field of education’ or just impacting ‘issues affecting education.’  Yet when the survey results are reported, they claim “we’ve got … over 80 percent [of alumni] in schools or with low-income communities.”  See, they clearly say “in schools” not “impacting issues affecting education.”  This is very deceptive.

Near the end of of the survey I encountered a series of questions that I would best describe as ‘creepy.’  Everyone in TFA can recite Wendy’s famous mission statement “One day, all children in this nation will have the opportunity to attain an excellent education.”  That was the motto back in 1991 when I was a corps member and that is still it today.  It is an optimistic mission statement and I wonder, since TFA is all about data, if they know what percent of students had this opportunity to attain an excellent education back in 1990 when TFA started and what percent of students have an opportunity to attain an excellent education today, so see how we are doing on that goal.

So here are the series of questions I’m referring to:


I find the questions to be very odd.  The fact that someone on staff, maybe a team of people, wrote these questions and edited them and then looked them over again before sending out the survey and though “Oh Yeahhhhh” shows that they are really living in a different reality.

I say this since I’m not sure what information they are trying to elicit here.  If I say I disagree with the first statement, does that mean to them that I don’t believe that poor kids are capable of learning?  For me, I am not confident that “One Day” will become a reality since I think the reforms that TFA supports like charter schools, school closings, and teacher-bashing are taking us further away from “One Day” and since Democrats and Republicans generally agree with these ideas, I’m not so optimistic about things getting much better for “all children.”  The other questions are also kind of weird.  I guess that people who work in charter schools answer “Strongly Agree” to all of these.

TFA, like other reformers, has been pretty quiet the past few months.  Waiting, I guess, to see which way the wind is blowing and how they will maintain their ‘seat at the table’ not to mention their federal grants and all that.

Recruitment has nosedived over the past three years.  I see the retweets by TFA of the new recruits who are finishing their applications or have heard that they have been accepted and I see things like “So excited to be starting the next adventure in my life teaching in Chicago!.”  I have to wonder, as Seinfeld used to say, “Who are these people?

Still, I’m an alum and some of my best friends are too and some of them are still involved in education and they are great, so I’ll keep doing my part, filling out the survey, going to the reunions every five years, and being a basic annoyance to them from time to time, trying to keep them honest.

Posted in Uncategorized | 3 Comments

The Detroit Lyin’s

When asked about the low test scores of Detroit’s charter schools during her confirmation hearing, Betsy DeVos said that she “looks forward to correcting some of the record regarding Detroit.”

While it is common knowledge that Michigan’s NAEP rankings have gone from the middle of the pack down to the bottom 10 in the time that DeVos has supported her style of education reform there, there are still people out there writing about a Detroit miracle.

On January 12th, James Goenner wrote an Op-Ed in the Detroit News about the miraculous Muskegon Heights School District.  Goenner was a consultant to the Muskegon Heights ‘transformation’ so anything he says should be, at least, fact checked.

According to Goenner, Muskegon Heights was broken beyond repair until the district became an all charter district where parents have choice about which school their children go to.  As a result:

Fast-forward to today and you’ll find that the Muskegon Heights Public School Academy has strong leadership, balanced books, and improving academics. It is on a glide path to pay off its old debt. All of its nearly 1,000 students attend by choice. No one is assigned. Like all Michigan charter schools, it’s prohibited by law from levying taxes. Because charters receive less money than districts, it provides taxpayers with a bigger bang for their buck.

And this solution is replicable. It’s a strategy that could be deployed with struggling districts throughout the nation to create a fresh start for kids in a taxpayer-friendly way.

All of this was accomplished by people who cared enough to persist and had the stamina to overcome the numerous obstacles that were thrown in their way. Betsy DeVos was one of them, and so was I. Without her quiet support, leadership, and encouragement, I doubt we would have ever been able to turn this innovative idea into a real solution.

So I went to the Michigan Dashboard & Accountability Scorecard website, and here’s what I learned about Muskegon Heights School District.

While there were once five schools in this district, now there are just two, Dr. Martin Luther King Academy and Muskegon Heights Academy.  The other three schools are now listed as ‘closed.’


So it seems like there isn’t much of a choice there anymore with so few schools.  But Goenner says that the schools there have ‘improving academics’ so I though I’d check those two schools out.


So one school is in the bottom 2% of all schools and the other is in the bottom 0%.  Unless the second school once had a ranking with negative numbers, there is no way that being in the 0% can be an improvement over anything.

So this is yet another example of a lie to support the narrative that charter schools are superior to public schools.  If this turnaround was supported by Betsy DeVos and it is any indication of her ability to devise real solutions to complex issues, I’m feeling pretty pessimistic about the direction education will take if and when she is confirmed as Secretary of Education.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

KIPPie Does Dallas

Dallas is the childhood home of Wendy Kopp.  And Wendy Kopp begat TFA, and TFA begat Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg, and Dave Levin and Mike Feinberg begat KIPP, and KIPP begat KIPP Destiny Elementary School in Dallas-Fort Worth.  So you’d figure that KIPP Destiny Elementary School had better be pretty good since it is like Wendy’s gift back to the city that nurtured her in her youth.

Texas is adopting a new A-F rating system for all the schools there.  Recently they did a ‘test run’ to show schools what their ratings would be under the new system.  Each school is rated from A-F on four different domains.  Out of 9,000 schools, about 75 of them got 4 Fs.  Then another 175 or so got 3 Fs and a D.

One of those 3 F’s and a D school was, of course, KIPP Destiny Elementary School in Dallas.


So this KIPP school is rated in the bottom 250 schools out of 9,000 schools in Texas which is around the bottom 3%.  There’s a reformer mantra, “Zip code is not destiny.”  I guess in the case of KIPP Destiny, zip code is, in fact, destiny.

There are two other rated KIPPs in Dallas and those have done much better.  But for the KIPPs in Texas, I’ve written already about how about 25% of them got an F in ‘growth.’

I’ve argued in other blog posts that these types of A-F report cards are not really statistically valid and have been used to unfairly label a school as ‘failing.’  I still feel this way.  But I report things like this because I’m so curious how ‘reformers’ respond when they learn that they have to choose between their prized charter chain or their prized weapon for shutting down schools.  Generally, though, they avoid any discussion about dilemmas like this.

Posted in Uncategorized | 6 Comments

TFA CEO’s Husband Heads One Of The 73 Lowest Rated Schools In Texas

YES Prep is a charter school network of sixteen schools in Houston.  Founded by a TFA alum and staffed by many TFA teachers, it has been hailed as a TFA success story.  Fueled by being the school to invent the invented ‘100% college acceptance rate’*, they received $1 million from Oprah in 2010.

In Wendy Kopp’s book ‘A Chance To Make History,’ she wrote (page 41)

When its fifty campus begins graduating seniors in 2014, YES Prep will be sending roughly the same number of low-income students to college as all of HISD’s other thirty-four high schools combined, unless HISD improves its outcomes (which, as I’ll describe later, it is working hard to do).  In fact, Chris (Barbic) told me that if the YES network can maintain the quality and progress it has demonstrated so far, it will operate thirteen schools and produce nine hundred college graduates each year by 2020 — double the number of low-income college graduates currently generated by all of HISD each year.

Considering that they currently graduate something like 500 seniors a year and that HISD graduates 10,000, these numbers are pretty outrageous.

Elisa Villanueva Beard is the current CEO of Teach For America.  Her husband, Jeremy Beard, is the ‘Head of Schools’ for YES Prep.  I first became aware of Jeremy at the TFA 20 year alumni summit in 2011 when he brought the house down with a speech.  I actually tracked him down to tell him what a great job he did afterwards.  At that time he was working for Houston Independent School District running a program called Apollo 20, eventually a failed program to use charter methods to improve public schools.  The next time I encountered him was last February at the 25 year alumni summit in 2016.  This time he was moderating an extremely one sided panel discussion called “What Should We Do When The Whole School Fails?”

There is a new rating system in Texas using A-F scores in four categories.  They recently released a ‘test run’ showing what all schools in Texas have under the new system.  Out of about 9000 schools only 73 of them, or one tenth of one percent of them, got Fs in all four categories.  Any reformer worth his or her mettle would be crying for these 73 schools to be shut down, their teachers fired, and to be turned over to a high performing charter network like YES prep.  But the ironic thing is that one of those 73 schools is one of the sixteen YES prep schools.


If you can’t scale up 16 schools without having one that is in the bottom one tenth of a percent, something’s wrong.

Reformers would say that the difference between this failing YES prep school and the other ones that are not failing is that the teachers at Yes prep Southside don’t have high expectations, don’t care about the kids, and really need to find new jobs.  So why doesn’t YES prep, which has fewer restrictions on what demands they make of their teachers, just transfer some of their better teachers to Southside and some of their deadweight at Southside either out of the classroom altogether or into some of their other schools?

The CEO of YES, Mark DiBella, wrote a response to the release of the new ratings on the YES website.  In it he wrote:

In this early assessment, YES Prep Public Schools well outperformed the state average in Closing the Achievement Gap and College Readiness with As in both of those categories. By comparison, most schools across the state earned Cs or lower for Closing the Achievement Gap (67%) and for College Readiness (66%). At the same time, we recognize YES Prep Public Schools’ C rating for Academic Achievement and D rating for Progress, though in line with the state averages, highlight important areas for improvement.

But when you follow the link he refers to, it clearly says that for student progress, arguably the most important measure of all,

12 percent got As, 21 percent got Bs, 34 percent got Cs and 33 percent got Ds and Fs in student progress.

So it would not be accurate to say that a D in student progress is ‘in line with state averages’ since it clearly puts them in the bottom third.  Also, as reformers are always about giving parents as much information as possible about these accountability scores so they can make the most informed ‘choice,’ why no mention of the clunker YES Prep ‘quadruple F’ Southside school?

A few years ago, Elisa Villanueva Beard made an impassioned speech with the repeated refrain ‘Won’t Back Down’ reminiscent of the anti-teacher movie by the same name.  In it, she implies that low performing schools are the result of nay-sayers who have low expectations for kids.  I’m not sure if Villanueva Beard knows that her husband is the head of one of lowest rated schools in all of Texas.  If she learns it from this blog post, it’s going to make for some awkward dinner conversation.

Now I understand why Jeremy Beard moderated that panel ‘What Should We Do When The Whole School Fails?’  He was soliciting ideas for how to fix one of his own.

Posted in Uncategorized | 2 Comments

The Student Progress At KIPP Is Small And Dim (Clap Clap Clap Clap) Deep In The Heart Of Texas

Reformers love A-F school ratings.  They think that giving a school a single letter grade will inform parents to make the best ‘choice’ of where they should send their child.  The idea is that these ratings will improve schools in two ways:  1) When a school gets an F rating, the staff will stop being so lazy and negligent in the future so they can get their rating up to passing, and 2) Parents will ‘vote with their feet’ to ‘escape’ the ‘failing’ school which will cause that school to get closed down for under enrollment.

New York City used to have such a system and when the new mayor was elected I had a meeting with the accountability team at the NYC Department of Education to share my feelings about the A-F ratings.  I said that I did not like them because they were based on some very sketchy statistics and that these crude calculations could improperly label a school as failing which would then become a self-fulfilling prophecy as the most motivated families flee that school.  I was pleased to see, a year later, that New York City did abandon the A-F rating system.

But throughout the country, the A-F system is spreading.  In the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) states are required to identify the bottom 5% of schools.  It doesn’t demand an A-F system, but there definitely does have to be some sort of ranking to determine which schools are in the bottom 5%, which is like an F in the A-F rating.

In 2015 Texas passed something called HB 2804 which said that by 2018 all Texas schools and districts would get A-F ratings on several different categories and also a single letter grade overall.  They recently did a ‘test run’ to show what all the schools and districts in Texas would get right now under this system.

Each school and district were graded on four domains, all based on standardized tests:  The first domain is ‘Student Achievement’ which is basically percent proficient on the state tests.  Reformers always talk about how the most important measure of a school is not so much the test scores as much as the ‘growth.’  So the second domain is called ‘Student Progress’ and this is the mythical one that tries to isolate the school’s impact on the students.  I think that this isn’t a bad idea to try to find a way to calculate this accurately.  I’m not convinced, though, that they have found a reliable way to do this.  Still, reformers often say that though these measures are not perfect, we shouldn’t let the perfect be the enemy of the good, or something like that, and they have been using these metrics to shut down schools and fire teachers with abandon.

Reformers always talk about expanding ‘high quality’ charters.  And one of the most famous examples of such a high quality charter chain are the KIPP network of schools.  There are about 200 KIPP schools around the country and surely there will be many more now that a very charter friendly president has been elected.  KIPP schools are staffed by a large number of Teach For America teachers and alumni and was founded by two TFA alumni.

When I saw that Texas released the trial run of their new A-F system, I checked to see how the KIPP schools did on them, particularly on the ‘Student Progress’ domain.  What I found, and you can double check this here, is that out of 37 KIPP schools in Texas that received a grade in this domain, 9 of them or 25%, received an ‘F’ in student progress.


I thought that maybe this was one of those things where a lot of schools got an F in this domain so I looked at the 280 Houston Independent School District schools and found that only 34, or about 12.5%, got an F in ‘Student Progress.’  So the percent of ‘failing’ KIPP schools is double the number of ‘failing’ schools in the biggest district in Texas.

I wonder what the reformers would think of this?  Would they say that the progress ratings are not accurate, thus disparaging the most powerful tool they have for closing schools and firing teachers?  Or would they say that KIPP is not a ‘high quality’ option that deserves to be expanded?  Likely they will just ignore it.  Things like A-F ratings are good for labeling district schools as failures, not major charter networks.

Posted in Uncategorized | 5 Comments