Diane Ravitch has it out for Texas in her latest post at Ed Week:

I am sure you recall that when No Child Left Behind was under discussion, there was a great deal of publicity about “the Texas Miracle.” I remember newspaper accounts of the wonders that had been accomplished by the simple strategy of testing and accountability.

Soon after the election of George W. Bush as president, we learned that he was the architect of this miracle in Texas. The miracle occurred because of this strategy: the state tested every child every year in grades 3-8; disaggregated their scores by race, ethnicity, and other characteristics; published the scores; and then honored the schools where scores went up and shamed the schools where they did not. Mirabile dictu, it worked! Or so a credulous press told us. Test scores went up, graduation rates went up, and the achievement gap began to close.

. . .

But what we now know is that there never was a Texas miracle. At best, it was wishful thinking. At worst, it was a lie.

On the National Assessment of Educational Progress of reading, 8th grade students in Texas had exactly the same score in 2009 as they had in 1998. No progress, period.

By coincidence, Ravitch managed to pick the one NAEP score in which Texas students didn’t show improvement over the past decade or so. Look at how Texas students improved on NAEP in 4th grade reading, 4th grade math, and 8th grade math:

8th grade math: In 1996 (no data for 1998, Ravitch’s starting point), 41% of Texan eighth graders were below basic, and 21% were proficient or advanced. In 2009, only 22% were below basic and 36% were proficient or advanced. In other words, the number of kids below basic was cut almost in half, while the number who were proficient or advanced went up by 15 percentage points.

4th grade math: In 1996, 31% were below basic; only 25% were proficient or advanced. In 2009, 15% were below basic; 38% were proficient or advanced.

4th grade reading: In 1998, 42% were below basic; 28% were proficient or advanced. In 2009, 34% were below basic; 32% were proficient or advanced.

Now, as social scientists know, you can’t tell much of anything from trends in NAEP scores, without adjusting or controlling for anything. So Ravitch’s attempt at analysis is bogus in the first place. But if she had applied her analysis fairly — rather than by cherry-picking a single item — she would have to say that the huge gains in 4th and 8th grade math, and smaller gains in 4th grade reading, prove that Texas’s accountability system worked.

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.”

Last week Rep. Denny Altes (R-Fort Smith) introduced a Bill (House Bill 1032) that would allow the State Board of Ed to develop standards for Bible studies to be offered in public schools.  At face value, the Bill seems reasonable enough.  The Bible is an enormously influential book, and it certainly shouldn’t be off-limits to acknowledge it in schools.  Here’s some of the very reasonable language that is written into the Bill:

“The State Board of Education shall allow for an elective academic study of the Bible course or courses that consist of a nonsectarian, nonreligious academic study of the Bible and its influence on literature, art, music, culture, and politics to be offered to students in public school districts…”

That sounds perfectly reasonable.  Here’s more:

“An academic study of the Bible course offered by a public school district shall:

(1) Be taught in an objective and nondevotional manner with no attempt made to indoctrinate students as to either the truth or falsity of the biblical materials or texts from other religious or cultural traditions.”

“It should be taught. The Bible is the oldest, most accurate, most popular history book on the face of the Earth. So why can’t we teach that in school?”

It’s statements like that, Denny.  That’s why.

It’s probably only a matter of days before we hear that John Pelphrey will no longer be Arkansas’ basketball coach.  I think the only thing that can save him at this point would be four wins in four days, and let’s face it, that isn’t going to happen.

Seth Gunderson, over at the Fayetteville Flyer, has an interesting post filled with facts and figures if you’re interested.  But, if you’ve been to Bud Walton this year and seen all the empty seats, then you’re already aware of the only facts and figures that really matter.

And, as if things weren’t already bad enough for Pel, now UALR is going to the NCAA tournament.  Let me repeat that: Yes, UALR is going to the Big Dance.

Then, news broke this morning that Pelphrey has violated NCAA rules and there will be an investigation.  Ruh-roh.

Personally, I wanted Pel gone last year (see earlier posts here and here).  In a nutshell, he can’t seem to keep players and he can’t develop the few that do stick around. 

You may say I’m a dreamer, but I’m not the only one.  Speculation about Mike Anderson coming here is widespread, though thus far Mike isn’t talking.  Friends of mine from Missouri say there is no chance Mike will leave them.  I hope they’re wrong.

There were a couple of pieces over the weekend that make a great followup to the conversation MPetty and I were having in the comments section the other day. We were discussing the increasing income inequality in the US, and I attributed the increase mainly to the increasing skills premium. Low skilled workers are facing very serious wage pressure, from both machines and foreigners, in the globalized economy, and thus their wages have not grown as quickly as high skilled workers. On the other side, the demand for high skilled workers worldwide has gown more quickly than the supply, and thus their wages have grown more quickly than those of low skilled workers. My solution to the problem was to better educate our children to compete in the global labor market.

Interestingly, some of my reading over the weekend has called into question how I would have previously categorized low and high skilled workers. Here is a NY Times piece that talks about how lawyers are becoming obsolete (can’t say I’m too disappointed). And here is a Paul Krugman piece that summarizes economist David Autor. The point of the piece can be summarized as follows:

…the crucial difference in terms of possible replacement of humans by machines was one of routine versus non-routine, rather than white-collar versus blue-collar, and that computerization was if anything likely to increase demand for some “low-skill” occupations and reduce demand for some traditionally well-paying white-collar jobs.

Those of you who still held out hope that Paul Krugman had not gone full tilt into political hackery FOX News style might want to check out one of his recent columns here and the subsequent takedown by blogger iowahawk here. And here is a little taste of iowahawk’s post:

Paul Krugman. The Times’ staff economics blowhard recently typed, re the state of education in Texas:

And in low-tax, low-spending Texas, the kids are not all right. The high school graduation rate, at just 61.3 percent, puts Texas 43rd out of 50 in state rankings. Nationally, the state ranks fifth in child poverty; it leads in the percentage of children without health insurance. And only 78 percent of Texas children are in excellent or very good health, significantly below the national average.

Similarly, The Economist passes on what appears to be the cut-’n'-paste lefty factoid du jour:

Only 5 states do not have collective bargaining for educators and have deemed it illegal. Those states and their ranking on ACT/SAT scores are as follows:

South Carolina – 50th
North Carolina – 49th
Georgia – 48th
Texas – 47th
Virginia – 44th

If you are wondering, Wisconsin, with its collective bargaining for teachers, is ranked 2nd in the country.

The point being, I suppose, is that unionized teachers stand as a thin chalk-stained line keeping Wisconsin from descending into the dystopian non-union educational hellscape of Texas. Interesting, if it wasn’t complete bullshit.

As a son of Iowa, I’m no stranger to bragging about my home state’s ranking on various standardized test. Like Wisconsin we Iowans usually rank near the top of the heap on average ACT/SAT scores. We are usually joined there by Minnesota, Nebraska, and the various Dakotas; Vermont, Maine, New Hampshire…

… beginning to see a pattern? Perhaps because a state’s “average ACT/SAT” is, for all intents and purposes, a proxy for the percent of white people who live there. In fact, the lion’s share of state-to-state variance in test scores is accounted for by differences in ethnic composition. Minority students – regardless of state residence – tend to score lower than white students on standardized test, and the higher the proportion of minority students in a state the lower its overall test scores tend to be.

Please note: this has nothing to do with innate ability or aptitude. Quite to the contrary, I believe the test gap between minority students and white students can be attributed to differences in socioeconomic status. And poverty. And yes, racism. And yes, family structure. Whatever combination of reasons, the gap exists, and it’s mathematical sophistry to compare the combined average test scores in a state like Wisconsin (4% black, 4% Hispanic) with a state like Texas (12% black, 30% Hispanic).

So how to compare educational achievement between two states with such dissimilar populations? In data analysis this is usually done by treating ethnicity as a “covariate.” A very simple way to do this is by comparing educational achievement between states within the same ethnic group. In other words, do black students perform better in Wisconsin than Texas? Do Hispanic students perform better in Wisconsin or Texas? White students? If Wisconsin’s kids consistently beat their Texas counterparts, after controlling for ethnicity, then there’s a strong case that maybe Texas schools ought to become a union shop.

HT: Matt Ladner over at jaypgreene.com

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.

My collegue and coauthor, Robert Costrell, has a great op-ed in the Wall St. Journal today discussing public employee benefits in Wisconsin. Here is a section from his piece:

The showdown in Wisconsin over fringe benefits for public employees boils down to one number: 74.2. That’s how many cents the public pays Milwaukee public-school teachers and other employees for retirement and health benefits for every dollar they receive in salary. The corresponding rate for employees of private firms is 24.3 cents.

Gov. Scott Walker’s proposal would bring public-employee benefits closer in line with those of workers in the private sector. And to prevent benefits from reaching sky-high levels in the future, he wants to restrict collective-bargaining rights.

The average Milwaukee public-school teacher salary is $56,500, but with benefits the total package is $100,005, according to the manager of financial planning for Milwaukee public schools.

So, what’s the point? While I do not agree with the way that Gov. Walker has handled the situation in Wisconsin (actually I think the Gov. is being kind of a jerk), I think it is important for the public to fully understand the compensation packages that public employees have secured through collective bargaining. Unlike others, I do not think that the collective bargaining is the real problem in Wisconsin. The biggest reason benefit rates are so high is the opaque  and deferred nature of of the cost. Politicians have an incentive to give public employees deferred compensation because it provides them with a political benefit at little to no cost to the current budget.

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.”