It’s too bad that the obviously-flawed Western Michigan study targeting KIPP received so much media attention.  Author Gary Miron (Fellow at NEPC) was covered in Education Week, the New York Times, and numerous other lower-profile outlets throughout cyberspace. It was even covered here in our Democrat Gazette on April 1 (“Study assails charter school network’s feats; KIPP calls data flawed”).  KIPP provided its official response here very quickly after the Miron report came out.

So, who should we believe?  Where should we turn for the truth? KIPP – of course, it seems clear that KIPP has an interest in presenting a positive picture.  As for Miron –  it is at least the case that Miron’s past work has been critical of charters with potentially shaky methodology and that he belongs to groups that are typically antagonistic to charters and choice-based reform (Fellow at NEPC). Given all of that, let’s skip past the criticisms of Miron and the responses of KIPP and look for answers elsewhere, by somebody with no dog in this hunt.

Fortunately, just this past week, I was at AERA (American Educational Research Association) in New Orleans and attended two presentations at which researchers from Mathematica Policy Research , or MPR, (a well respected third party research firm) presented results from its multi-year evaluation of KIPP schools across the country.  Here are the key findings, taken verbatim from report:

KIPP Schools Get a Thumbs-Up from Mathematica!

***

In the first report from that evaluation, “Student Characteristics and Achievement in 22 KIPP Middle Schools” (Tuttle et al. 2010a), we presented preliminary findings from a matched, longitudinal analysis designed to estimate KIPP’s effect on student achievement in a nationwide sample, the first study of its kind. Students entering these 22 KIPP middle schools typically had prior achievement levels that were lower than the average for the local school districts. Still, for most of the KIPP schools studied, quasi-experimental impacts on students’ state assessment scores in mathematics (18 of 22) and reading (15 of 22) were positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial.

***

AND, regarding alleged high rates of attrition:

***

Second, the report examined rates of attrition from KIPP schools relative to attrition from nearby traditional public schools. The data in that report showed that students do not leave KIPP middle schools before completion (finishing eighth grade) at higher rates than do students in local district schools. The cumulative attrition rate (defined below) in KIPP was 34 percent, compared to 33 or 35 percent, depending on how one defines the comparison group of “local district schools.”

***

Mathematica will report next year on a random assignment study of KIPP schools to further investigate the academic impacts of KIPP.  But as of now, it looks like KIPP is doing well by its students.  And these good results are not due to smoke, mirrors, or attrition; it looks like these results stem from strong leadership, great teaching, and hard work!

Congratulations KIPPsters!

Each spring, there are a few certainties across the US.  Many of us will procrastinate and hide from our tax forms.  Others will get out in the nice weather to ride bikes, run, or otherwise attempt to get in physical shape while enjoying the Spring air.  At the same time, our public schools will be testing our students’ mental fitness with annual state standardized tests (in Arkansas, we have our benchmark exams). And the information provided by these exams is useful and important for students, parents, educators, and the general public. Contrary to claims of critics, the results don’t tell us whether our children “test well”; they tell us if our students have learned what we hoped they would learn.

Unfortunately, the Spring air is also filled with cries of the critics bemoaning the “oppressive” standardized testing imposed upon our young students and claim (with NO evidence) that it is ruining our once-great system of public schools.  But don’t worry … these claims are either exaggerated or just plain wrong.

First, critics will claim that our children have to sit for weeks of mind-numbing standardized exams. In fact, when we last counted up the actual examination hours, here’s what we found:

“In fact, even the students in our most heavily tested grades (5 and 7) participate in standardized assessments for only 12 hours of the approximately 900 instructional hours availed to the students each year.  This represents only about 1% of total instructional time. As a point of comparison, state law mandates that 5th grade students spend 36 hours each year in physical education classes.”

OK, you might say, but what about all of that “teaching to the test” stuff I hear so much about? In a recent essay, Stuart Buck and I considered the concept of “teaching to the test” in Arkansas.  When considering this idea, it is important to understand two key points:

1. Arkansas  tests have been specifically designed to test those skills and subjects that are outlined in the Arkansas Curricular  Frameworks, AND
2. These frameworks have been developed by Arkansas policymakers (along with committees of educators and other members of the  community) to outline what our educators and citizens think children ought to be  learning in each grade (some version of this happens in every state);

It seems reasonable that the job of teachers is to teach a broad range of academic content (much of which will end up on the test) outlined in the Curricular Frameworks.  Ideally, the tests should require no additional preparation beyond what the teachers and students do each day.  Indeed, as many good teachers have shared with us in interviews, they should not do ANYTHING different because of the existence of exams.  Good teachers will teach to the curricular standards, whether or not there are state exams.

Unfortunately, some educators might choose to “teach to the test” in harmful ways. Critics of testing will share stories of teachers who put their students to sleep with repetitious drilling of one test item after another; we hear of schools in which students might be encouraged to “stay home” on test day; and we even hear of outright cheating on the state assessments so that school results can appear better than they might have been.  Of course, these practices are unhelpful for our students and even unethical. Nevertheless, the gamesmanship and cheating reported each year are isolated examples — we have no evidence that these problems are widespread. In any case, the problem here is the bad pedagogy, not the exams.

How strong can an argument be if it is based on a small minority of teachers who adopt poor practices in an effort to “beat the tests”? These teachers — and the chorus of testing critics — are missing the point.

The best way to “beat the test” is to spend the academic year ensuring that our students have the skills and content-knowledge they need to score well on them.  And that isn’t called gamesmanship, cheating, or even “teaching to the test” …. that’s just called teaching, and good teachers do it every day!

The defenders of the status quo in the heated debate over school reform have increasingly adopted a new strategy. Many of these folks — who incidentally criticize the “reformer” crowd for attacking teachers —  have decided that it is a good idea to attack KIPP schools. What would a critic say, you might ask, about the network of KIPP schools that spring up in the poorest of areas to serve the most disadvantaged of students and instill in them realistic dreams of success and college graduation??

Well, the argument goes, KIPP educators and students are succeeding because KIPP only takes on the best students (in these extremely disadvantaged areas).  That is,  KIPP’s success is due to high attrition and the fact that the “weakest” students leave.   This is not only silly, as has been shown by credible academic work, but it is also surprising and borders on mean-spirited.

Why would a researcher, who could choose to study anything, spend his or her time looking to poke holes in the good work done at KIPP? Many of us presumably got into this field of K12 education because we care about kids. Perhaps we worked in schools with disadvantaged students and thought we might make a more important positive impact for kids by attempting to influence policy for the better (my story). And, I imagine I am not the only one who sometimes feels far removed from the students who spurred me to enter this field … all of that to say, it is more than inspiring to marvel at the great work of dedicated educators working 12-hour days so that poor students can have access to post-secondary education (the same access that researchers like me take for granted for our own children… and likely so do you if you are the type of person who does research or reads a blog for fun!).

Motivation aside, if you haven’t heard, the recent KIPP-critique was published by Gary Miron of Western Michigan University and colleagues; it is entitled:  ”What Makes KIPP Work? A Study of Student Characteristics, Attrition and School Finance“.  Miron claims that KIPP succeeds because of abnormally high attrition and abnormally high levels of school funding.  Sadly, KIPP officials had to be spend some time last week rebutting some of this silliness and did so coherently and concisely — and graciously — on their own web site.   The holes in Miron’s argument are obvious and easy to expose. He claims that KIPP suffers from high attrition by comparing the attrition rate at KIPP SCHOOLS to the same rate at the nearby school DISTRICTS.  Obviously, the appropriate comparison would be between schools and schools; Miron’s analysis ignores any mobility BETWEEN traditional public schools within a district and thus significantly understates the attrition rates within traditional public schools.

Miron may or may not be aware of this obvious flaw in research design – he previously published a report called “Schools Without Diversity ...” in which he criticized various charter schools for being far too racially segregated based on comparisons between charter SCHOOLS and traditional public school DISTRICTS.  Here, again, this analytic strategy neglects to consider the obvious racial segregation within individual traditional public schools.

Back to KIPP ….. it is one thing to have an intellectual debate on the various benefits and costs of charters in general.  However, it seems another thing altogether for those in our field, ostensibly working so that kids have better life opportunities, to put so much effort into explaining away the obviously good work of those smart and hard-working educators who serve KIPPsters across the country each and every day.  We academics and policy geeks can and should continue to argue about the details of school reform, but let’s not spend our time denigrating teachers and leaders who are doing each day what the rest of us are not — improving the lives of poor students.

And make no mistake about it — KIPP schools are doing just that.  If you like hard evidence with real numbers and scientifically rigorous comparisons, check out the recent study done by Mathematica  Policy Research.  The only knock against Mathematica is that their impartial research designs are so conservative that they almost never find positive results. But, here is what Mathematica found when applying a rigorous research design to KIPP:

“ For the vast majority of KIPP schools studied, impacts on students’ state assessment scores in mathematics and reading are positive, statistically significant, and educationally substantial. ”

And if you’re not into numbers and data, check out these journalistic accounts of the good work being done by KIPP … produced by typical news organizations, by no means school reformers or so-called enemies of public schools.  Try this story on PBS, or this one on MSNBC, or the video below by NBC.  Or, if you like more music, check out this KIPP Welcome Video.

‎

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Over at the OEP blog, Gary Ritter does a little fact-checking on a recent report about charter schools making the rounds here in Arkansas, written by the Arkansas Public Policy Panel (and co-sponsored by the Arkansas Education Association and Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families).  Here’s an excerpt:

“In short, the report (co-sponsored with AEA and our friends at AACF) is based on analyses and data that are quite simply ….. well .. bad.  In my comments in the Dem Gaz article, I provided a few of my concerns with the report.  However, with the extra space provided here in cyber-land, I will elaborate a bit on my concerns and organize them within two primary categories.  First of all, the data used and analyses conducted are inappropriate. Secondly, and perhaps more importantly, the conclusions drawn by the authors are not supported by evidence.

Faulty Comparisons Using Bad Data

The regression analyses are based on grade levels (instead of individual students), use only one year of data with no attempt to measure student growth (and that year is not even the most recent year available), and include very strange choices for comparison schools.

Among the examples of inappropriate comparisons are the use of Farmington as a comparison district for Haas Hall (which has been located in Fayetteville for several years) and the use of Little Rock SD as a comparison for the Arkansas Virtual Academy (which has students from all across the state).

Moreover, the report erroneously suggests that Haas Hall and the Virtual Academy serve NO low-income children.  This is because neither school has a cafeteria and thus neither serves any free lunches.  This does NOT mean that there are 0% low-income children in these schools (school leaders at these schools claim to serve about 50% poor students).

Conclusions Are Unrelated to Any Evidence

The report concludes that charters cause a problem for students left in “under-resourced” traditional public schools.  I am not exactly sure what under-resourced means here.  For example, in 2009-10, traditional public schools in Arkansas spent $11,717 per student, while charters spent $9,417 (data gathered from ADE Annual Statistical Reports).

Finally - and this is especially relevant this week – the authors conclude (without any connection to the data they used) that the state needs more accountability to close failing charters. It should be clear to any observer of education in Arkansas that charter schools actually face more and stricter accountability.  First of all, they receive no funding if no students make the active choice to enroll there.  Charters must also go before the State Board for renewal regularly.  And, of course, the State Board on Monday voted to shut down a Little Rock charter school — immediately — due to financial problems (click here for more on the reaction of UCPC students and parents).  How much stricter should our state’s charter policies be?

Throughout, the report is also laden with internal inconsistencies … on page 1, the authors cite a Stanford study from 2009 showing that AR charters outperformed traditional public schools.  Based on this, the authors give credit to the state board’s careful screening process for charters.  Nonetheless, the authors then conclude that the evidence suggests that the state needs more criteria and accountability for charter schools. Which is it — do charters perform well or not?  Do we have a good screening process or not?

It is good that this group tried to assess student performance; it is not so good that the conclusions were entirely unrelated to the data and were likely drawn up well before any statistical analyses were conducted!

In fact, the authors’ interpretation of the student performance data (despite the flawed analyses)  ended up being pretty reasonable and in line with what others have found.  Charters likely perform just a little bit better than their traditional public school peers. Some do great work (e.g. KIPP), and some do a lousy job.  This is also the case with traditional public schools — most are pretty good, some are great, but some are not very good.  The difference is that the State Board generally allows under-performing traditional public schools to stay open and the students in these schools do not have the option to go elsewhere.

I am becoming more convinced that this whole debate is counter-productive in our state.  In my view, it would be far more productive if those of us in the education establishment would spend less time trying to limit the growth of charters and spend more time trying to improve the education we deliver to the 95% of students who attend traditional public schools.  Every minute that we spend lobbying policymakers to fight charter schools is a minute we’re NOT trying to help our teachers come up with even better strategies to serve all students across Arkansas.”

So, I was reading the paper last Friday and I came across an article in the NWA Times about Rep. Justin Harris and his disdain for immigrant children. Arkansas Super Nanny Sue Madison was leading the charge against Harris and the other “they took our jobs” folks. What really got my attention was a quote from Ms. Madison. The paper quotes her as saying, “I just don’t think we should try to legislate everything.”

Ha, you just cant make this stuff up. Up to this point I thought Ms. Madison’s mantra was “No Issue Too Small,” but apparently I was wrong. Maybe she just wants to be the only nanny on the block. Let’s hope she remembers this quote and heeds her own advice when considering legislative proposals of her own in the future.

As the title suggests, it seems no issue is too small for Sue Madison to use the coercive power of the state to force people to do what she thinks is “fair”. We’ve written about her nanny tendencies in dealing with liquor licensing here and here. One could have dismissed these earlier incidents off as simply being a product of the Springdale Liquor Association’s influence on Ms. Madison, but unfortunately it looks like her paternalistic desire runs a little deeper.

In the ongoing legislative session she has introduced SB99 (you can find it here). This bill would force state-supported institutions of higher education to pay for employee parking if it exceeds $10 annually. I’m not sure why Ms. Madison cares how parking is allocated on campuses across the state, but I do know that this bill subsidizes driving for a group of people who, on average, earn more than the average Arkansan. Madison’s bill would result in higher cost for students, (marginally) more faculty and staff driving to campus, and in turn, less walking. I think the takeaway is that Ms. Madison is anti-student, anti-environment, and pro-obesity.

If anyone still believes that it is a good idea for the legislature to take greater control of higher ed, I hope that bills like this do something to shake that belief. Micro managing nannies like Ms. Madison would quickly erode any academic reputation these institutions have.

Three of our Republican members of congress have signed on to the “birthright citizenship act.”  Steve Womack is actually a co-sponsor. 

A recent editorial in the Dem-Gaz nailed these guys better than I can.  It’s actually one of the best pieces I’ve ever seen on their editorial pages, and I wish I knew exactly who wrote it.  If you have a subscription, you can read the entire article here.  Here’s a lengthy excerpt:

Another ugly reaction

How to disown the newest Americans

By The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette

Wednesday, February 16, 2011

“LITTLE ROCK — ONE OF THE uncounted, indeed oft intangible, ways in which the United States of America is an exceptional country is that here citizenship is not a matter of race, creed, color or national descent. Nor of blood-and-iron or whatever barriers other nations may erect to protect their kultur or further their mission civilisatrice. Ours is a different, more open and embracing bond, to wit: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”-Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Got any questions?

Rick Crawford, Tim Griffin and Steve Womack do. All three Republican congressmen from this state are backing a constitutionally dubious proposal to restrict American citizenship to children of American citizens. They’ve signed on to the proposition that after all these years Americans are to ignore the plain meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, or at least the meaning generations of Americans have held to.The Fourteenth is the centerpiece of the three post-Civil War amendments, the one that holds them together like a bridge over troubled waters.

***

The hateful spirit of the Dred Scott decision, which solemnly declared that not all Americans are created equal after all, rises up once again from its turgid legal depths, like some monstrous bottom-feeder that has been waiting for just such an opportunity to rear up and rip us apart. And make some of us only second-class Americans, or maybe not Americans at all. And it would affect not just the children of illegal immigrants but their children’s children and their children’s children and so forever on. Till we become one nation divisible.

***

To some, these newborns go by just as ugly names: “anchor babies,’’ or products of “birth tourism.” To us, they have a shorter, simpler name: Americans. And they acquire it as soon as they are born on American soil. We are not about to disown a single one of them, black or white or brown or any other color, able or disabled, whether squawling in their cribs or, soon enough, bright-eyed and hopeful and headed for school. Each of them becomes part of the American body and soul, of the American history yet to be made. And they’ll be part of it from before birth to after death.

Let no one doubt that any of those who now lie buried under those standard U.S. grave markers in military cemeteries abroad, from Normandy to some Pacific Island, whatever their surnames or provenance, are Americans in every way. They don’t need any papers now. They are Americans by courage. Those politicians scurrying to deny a new generation of Americans their birthright would do better to show some courage of their own.”

Fayetteville’s new tv-spot, a 5 minute ad on the infomercial “Today In America” hosted by Terry Bradshaw, has finally been unveiled to the public.  You may recall that I had a good time complaining about this waste of ~$20,000 in a couple of previous posts.  To me, the most entertaining aspect of the city’s involvement with the show was how city officials tried to sell the paid infomercial as a legitimate t.v. show with a legitimate interest in Fayetteville.  You can read those earlier posts here and here.  In those posts, I discuss how Today in America is simply an infomercial.  You pay them a fee, and you get airtime.  There’s nothing wrong with that, per se.  What’s not so endearing, though, is that they reportedly have salespeople cold-calling potential clients and pretending to have a genuine interest in featuring them on their “show.” Then, when they have the mark right where they want, the “fee” is introduced.

A fun thing about wordpress, the software that this blog runs on, is that I can look at various stats.  One of the stats I can see are what search engine terms bring people here.  Since writing those earlier posts about Today in America, we’ve had hundreds of visitors that key-word searched “Today in America scam” or “Terry Bradshaw Today in America scam” and such.  Apparently, there’s quite a few people out there trying to research Today in America who are also using the word “scam” as one of their search terms.

I’ve also pointed out, as have others, that the money would have been better spent locally.  There’s plenty of good video producers in our area.  And they already know our town.

Anyway, the infomercial is here now. I personally think it’s goofy as hell and the production value is sub-par. They don’t even mention the Razorbacks. Check it out for yourself.

According to the Fayetteville Flyer, it is going to run on Fox Business this Saturday Feb. 26 at 3 p.m.  In case you don’t know, that’s a terrible time.  For one, nobody watches Fox Business on the weekends.  It’s primarily a weekday network.  Well, I guess some people watch it, but you can be the judge as to whether you think, as city officials have claimed, such an airing will “put us on the map.”

Let’s see if we can piece together the demographic profile of who we’re going to be advertising for.  According to the Fox Business website, Saturday begins with Mr. Nappy Head himself, Don Imus, from 6-9 a.m.  Then there’s an hour of Freedom Watch with Judge Napolitano.  Think tea-party constitution loving 9-11 conspiracy theorist.  Then, from 10 a.m. until 5 p.m., there is 7 hours of paid programming, with Fayetteville’s spot scheduled for 3 p.m., presumably book-ended by Shake-weight, Bow-flex, and Sham-wow types of shows.  Then, at 5 p.m., it’s on to the Cavuto show.  Think typical Fox news hack with a larger than average head.

Yep.  Fayetteville’s going to get some exposure allright.  If all goes as planned, a plethora of tea-party activists, armed with Shake-weights and Sham-wows will soon descend upon us like locusts.

I bet things are going to start happening to us NOW!

The nannies are on the move.  In yesterday’s Dem-Gaz, it was reported that House Bill 1282 was approved by a 92-3 vote in the Arkansas House, and is now primed for a vote in the State Senate. The bill was sponsored by right-wing nanny Robert Dale  (R-Dover), who said that the bill was written at the request of the Arkansas Beverage Retailers Association (ABRA).

On the surface, the spirit of the bill appears to be that it will eliminate the franchising of liquor stores in Arkansas.  As such, it looks like simply another attempt for nannies to control adult behavior.   Specifically, however, it looks like the bill is actually just the latest attempt by competitors of Macadoodles to use the law for their own benefit.

We’ve seen this fight before.   The last time Macadoodles was targeted by ABRA, people were quick to accuse the Springdale Liquor Association of using ABRA to manipulate public policy in such a way as to eliminate their competition.

The Springdale Liquor Association owns seven stores in Springdale and is exempt from the anti-franchise rules.

The president of Macadoodles, Roger Gildehaus, feels the bill is targeted specifically at his business.  From the Dem-Gaz:

“Gildehaus said the bill is an effort by the Springdale Liquor Association and its president, Jim Phillips, to prevent Macadoodles from expanding. A person who answered the association’s phone Friday said she could not comment on the legislation but would ask Phillips to contact the reporter by telephone or e-mail for comment. Phillips had not responded by Monday evening.”

Left-wing nanny, State Sen. Sue Madison, who has never seen a prohibition on alcohol that she doesn’t like, seems supportive of the bill.  Again, from the Dem-Gaz:

“State Sen. Sue Madison, D-Fayetteville, who is chairwoman of the state agencies committee, said Monday she had not studied the bill but is opposed to a proliferation of liquor stores in the state. Madison said she lived in Louisiana, where “you have drive-through martini bars.”

“Pretty soon we’re going to have liquor stores on every corner,” she said.”

It’s always been hard to tell if Sue Madison is in the pocket of the Springdale Liquor Association, if she just hates alcohol, or if she’s just a little bit loony.  Recall that the last time she opposed Macadoodles, she claimed that the Missouri location had “lured people across the state line to purchase alcohol,” and that they should be denied a license “until they have repaid Arkansas all the tax dollars we’ve lost.”  In all seriousness, who says things like that?

Either way, it would be a shame if the State Senate and Governor Beebe allowed this Bill to become law.

In other nanny-news, the Fayetteville Flyer is reporting that the Northwest Arkansas Tobacco-Free Coalition is targeting Fayetteville’s bars.  Never mind that there are already plenty of bars in Fayetteville that are smoke-free by choice.  Never mind that everyone in a bar is a legally consenting adult.  Never mind the rights of the property owners.  Never mind that Dickson St. is already hurting financially.

Of course they’ll claim it is all about health concerns, and they’ll claim they are simply looking out for the employees of the bars.   And I’m sure they’ll have a wealth of anti-smoking propaganda “studies” to make the case that a smoking ban is no different than a ban on poison.

The truth is they just hate smoking, and they don’t mind telling other adults how they should live.   If only they would admit as much, then at least the community could have an honest debate about the scope of government coercion with respect to individual liberty.

UPDATE: Bob Caudle had a great column in the NWA Times about the liquor store franchising issue. See it here.

Last month, just around the time we were celebrating the legacy of Martin Luther King — traditional public school districts in Wake County, North Carolina and in Akron, Ohio took actions to limit the choices of students and, essentially, IMPOSE racially segregated schools on the students. As Brian described earlier on on this site, an Ohio mom is in jail for registering her children at the grandfather’s address (a few miles down the road) to get them into a safer and presumably better school system. Here is CNN’s version of the story.

Down south in North Carolina, earlier in January, the school board successfully overturned the district’s longstanding intentional school integration policy (a policy viewed as successful by most accounts). According to the Washington Post, the policy is one of economic integration and is based on a goal that no school should have more than 40% of its students qualify for free and reduced school lunches. ”The district tried to strike this balance through student assignments and choice, establishing magnet programs in poor areas to draw middle-class kids. Although most students here ride buses to school, officials said fewer than 10 percent are bused to a school to maintain diversity, and most bus rides are less than five miles.”

However, if reading the paper seems like a lot of work … let’s instead learn about this policy shift from the ever-conservative news icon, Stephen Colbert:

Many education observers do not like the idea of segregating students by race, particularly when such segregation is imposed on the most marginal students. We certainly don’t. Some of the crowd who actively oppose racial segregation in schools are — inexplicably — spending their time talking about the levels of racial segregation in charter schools. We think this is silly for lots of reasons. Mostly, it’s because more than 95% of America’s public school students attend traditional public schools while a relative handful attend public charters. Also, segregation is NEVER IMPOSED on students in public charter schools as it can be in traditional public schools.  Yet, many who claim to speak for students and for their civil rights are unfortunately attacking public charter schools, which serve fewer than 5% of students nationwide and serve 0% of them against their will.

Perhaps these defenders of the status quo … excuse me, I mean defenders of students … should stop looking for ways to undermine charter schools (such as KIPP) and instead focus their criticism on the traditional public school leaders, such as those in Akron and Wake County, who are doing their best every day to separate their white wealthy students from their disadvantaged peers by promoting explicit segregation-friendly policies.