Showing posts with label Diane Ravitch. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Diane Ravitch. Show all posts

Sunday, February 3, 2013

False Choice

The usual suspects are out stumping for expanding school choice and vouchers.

Instead Of Lifting Residency Requirement, Let's Expand School Choice

Walker Presses Case For Expanding School Choice
School choice includes voucher programs, in which the government helps pay for tuition at private schools, including religious schools.
Tough Decisions Lie Ahead For Wisconsin's School Voucher Program
Voucher advocates have long desired an increase to the $6,442 per-pupil allotment taxpayers spend on children in participating private schools; they want at least equal funding to public charter schools, which receive $7,775 per-pupil. MPS state aid is $7,723, but with local funding the per-pupil amount is closer to $10,000, according to MPS Chief Accountability and Efficiency Officer Bob DelGhingaro.
Bringing the voucher schools into an accountability system that systematically identifies and weeds out perennially low performers is something that has gotten more attention lately. The new state report card system for Wisconsin's public schools was not obligated to include the 112 private voucher schools, and the data systems those schools use (or in some cases, don't have) do not jibe with the systems used by public schools that report to the Department of Public Instruction.
If we actually look at the data, we find that there is little difference between voucher school students and Milwaukee Public School students. Researchers at the University of Arkansas found, "City property taxes go up for each student who uses a voucher, compared to what would be the case if that student went to MPS, while state income taxes go down, as do property taxes in most of the rest of the state."

Diane Ravitch, lead debunker of all things voucher-related, elaborated in The Myth of Charter Schools:
Known as the CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.Why did Davis Guggenheim pay no attention to the charter schools that are run by incompetent leaders or corporations mainly concerned to make money? Why propound to an unknowing public the myth that charter schools are the answer to our educational woes, when the filmmaker knows that there are twice as many failing charters as there are successful ones? Why not give an honest accounting?
According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers. Teachers can have a profound effect on students, but it would be foolish to believe that teachers alone can undo the damage caused by poverty and its associated burdens...
It bears mentioning that nations with high-performing school systems—whether Korea, Singapore, Finland, or Japan—have succeeded not by privatizing their schools or closing those with low scores, but by strengthening the education profession. They also have less poverty than we do. Fewer than 5 percent of children in Finland live in poverty, as compared to 20 percent in the United States. Those who insist that poverty doesn’t matter, that only teachers matter, prefer to ignore such contrasts.
Most recently, Ravitch wrote in the Journal Sentinel:
Milwaukee's choice program is a failure. There are now three separate systems - the public schools, with about 80,000 students; the voucher schools, with about 23,000 students, and the charter schools, with about 20,000 students. There is very little difference among the three sectors in terms of student achievement...
19% of the students in the Milwaukee Public Schools have disabilities, compared to somewhere between 7% and 14.5% in the voucher schools.
It is inefficient to run three separate school systems. Not only does it triplicate costs, but it divides civic energy. All the people of Milwaukee should work together to build a school system that meets the needs of all the children. 
Twenty years of experience with choice in Milwaukee demonstrates that it is not effective or efficient to run three school systems. It does not meet the needs of children.
For Further Reading:
Vouching For Delusion
The Myth of The Milwaukee Miracle
Charter School Riddles

Sunday, January 2, 2011

Vouching For Delusion

Although I've written about this before, thanks to a few more articles in the Journal Sentinel I find myself asking, why when the evidence shows they do not accomplish better results does the media continue to push charter schools as a viable alternative to the public school system?

The Journal is even upset that MPS won't sell their property to competing charter schools. It's not enough that public dollars are already siphoned to charter schools, now we should sell them MPS buildings, too.

The Journal previously highlighted a "study" of Milwaukee school performace by the Illinois Facilities Fund (IFF) - the study was funded by the Bradley Foundation. (I wonder why the Journal, as they always do with labor or Democratic entities, didn't label the Bradley Foundation "conservative," "business-friendly," or similar.) Basically, Milwaukee has some bad schools [insert leap of faith despite evidence here] so let's continue to funnel money to charter schools because the teacher union is mean and we'd rather the money be misappropriated by private-sector educational cranks.

A conservative newspaper spotlights a conservative foundation's study which specifies where the worst performing schools are in Milwaukee, according to their own methodolgy, and then uses this to implicitly push for more charter/voucher schools.

It's great that whatever you believe is correct, even when it's not.

Diane Ravitch - the number one debunker of the charter school boondoggle - has completely eviscerated any and all arguments regarding the performance of charter/voucher schools.

It is really unnerving that every half-wit, pea-brained scheme the right-wing comes up with is vigorously adhered to despite empirical evidence completely disproving its efficacy. This isn't, nor should it be, a political battle. This is education. It is the future of our country. If you're really a patriot and care about your country you wouldn't push for policies that waste money, which show no better results, and which harm the long-term competitiveness of the nation.

The best way to address educational shortcomings - address poverty. But this would involve higher taxes and "spreading the wealth around." And, we know the right-wing is against such altruism and long-term planning. Thus, ultimately, we know they are against improving education or helping those in poverty. Slick marketing and ineffectual privatization schemes are much easier.

Update:

I see Patrick McIlheran had to echo the conservative position on school choice. His main argument is that money spent for charter/voucher/choice schools is better than spending money on public schools.

But, the ultimate outcome of this game of moving chairs - taking public dollars from public schools and giving it to choice schools - is that students perform no better. He cites numbers to show that some public students cost $10,000 to $12,000 per year, while the choice student only costs roughly $6,400 per year. Sure it's great to save a few bucks, but the object here is actually to educate children. Let's assume the numbers are correct: so, we pay less, but the students perform no better.

I encourage everyone to read The Myth of Charter Schools by Diane Ravitch. (Much of the article dispels falsities from Waiting For Superman.) Here are just a few excerpts which completely demolish the nonsense being spewed by the choice crowd:

"Another highly praised school that is featured in the film is the SEED charter boarding school in Washington, D.C. SEED seems to deserve all the praise that it receives from Guggenheim, CBS’s 60 Minutes, and elsewhere. It has remarkable rates of graduation and college acceptance. But SEED spends $35,000 per student, as compared to average current spending for public schools of about one third that amount".

"Guggenheim complains that only one in 2,500 teachers loses his or her teaching certificate, but fails to mention that 50 percent of those who enter teaching leave within five years, mostly because of poor working conditions, lack of adequate resources, and the stress of dealing with difficult children and disrespectful parents."

"According to University of Washington economist Dan Goldhaber, about 60 percent of achievement is explained by nonschool factors, such as family income. So while teachers are the most important factor within schools, their effects pale in comparison with those of students’ backgrounds, families, and other factors beyond the control of schools and teachers."

"Known as the CREDO study, it evaluated student progress on math tests in half the nation’s five thousand charter schools and concluded that 17 percent were superior to a matched traditional public school; 37 percent were worse than the public school; and the remaining 46 percent had academic gains no different from that of a similar public school. The proportion of charters that get amazing results is far smaller than 17 percent.Why did Davis Guggenheim pay no attention to the charter schools that are run by incompetent leaders or corporations mainly concerned to make money?"

For Further Reading: