Many high, low achieving charters
Charter Association releases research
California has an abundance of charter schools at polar opposites – those exceeding and those underperforming expectations, according to an extensive performance analysis by the California Charter Schools Association. The most successful charters predominately serve low-income, minority children, and this segment of charter schools is growing, while a sizable number of the lowest achieving charters appear to be smaller, independent study, non-classroom based schools.
With the report, A Portrait of the Movement, the Association fulfills a commitment to “hold up a mirror” and “embolden schools to look unblinkingly at their record of performance.” A number of previous studies of charter schools have found that on average they don’t outperform district schools. The Association’s two-year research revealed a more complex, “U shaped” picture, with more charters outperforming and underperforming district schools with similar student demographics.
“By lumping all charter schools together, so much of the research did not show the fundamental truths in the movement,” said Association President Jed Wallace. “With far fewer traditional schools exceeding expectations, the question is why can’t we create conditions to bring high-performing charters to scale to make as big an impact as possible?”
Consistent with its position that bad charters should be shut down, the Association created an accountability framework that singled out 30 schools out of 83 in the bottom 5 percent that it says should be reviewed for closure. The Association will not support these schools when their charters come up for renewal, and it plans to introduce legislation that would replace a weak accountability law that the Association says districts often ignore. Using a different rubric, it identified 77 schools, out of 115 in the top 5 percent of high-performing schools, that it said should be rewarded with a longer charter and automatic renewal. They include eight KIPP middle and high schools and 10 Aspire Public Schools in Los Angeles and the Bay Area. Centrally organized, charter management organizations like Aspire comprise 20 percent of California’s charter schools but fully half of the highest performing schools – evidence that philanthropic dollars behind them are bearing results.
Along with the report, the Association has created a web site that includes a map that locates every district and charter school, along with their ratings and API scores, that parents should find useful. An alphabetical list can be found here.
Measuring each school’s impact
The Association evaluated schools using a tool, called a Similar Schools Measure, that predicts every school’s score on the state Academic Performance Index (API) for three consecutive years, based on student demographics. It factors in not only income and race but also the percentage of English learners and special education students; this is important since charter schools have been criticized for educating proportionally fewer of these students. The Association excluded alternative schools that primarily serve dropouts and at-risk students with high mobility, for which API scores are misleading.
In ranking every school by its Percent Predicted API – an estimate of the value that each school adds – the Association found that low-income students in particular are benefiting from charters. Among the results:
- 16 percent of charters (115 of 720 schools) were in the top 5 percent of total public schools based on their predicted API, compared with only 3.9 percent of district schools (293 of 7,454); 22 percent (157 charters) were in the top 10 percent compared with 8.9 percent of district schools;
- At the other end, 11.5 percent of charters (83 of 720) were in the bottom 5 percent, compared with only 4.4 percent of district schools (325 of 7,454); 19.2 percent (138 charters) were in the bottom 10 percent, compared with 9.1 percent (679 schools) of district schools;
- Because the lowest-performing schools tended to be smaller, 15.5 percent of charter school students attended the top 5 percent of charter schools, compared with only 6.5 percent of students in the bottom 5 percent of charter schools;
- Low-income students were more likely to attend highly performing charter schools. Of low-income students attending charter schools, 36.8 percent attended the top 5 percent of charters; that’s more than twice the percentage (16.3 percent) of low-income students attending the lowest performing 5 percent of charter schools.
The Association combined the Similar Schools Measure of predicted API scores with two other factors – a school’s actual API score, on a scale of 200 to 1,000, and the growth in API over three years – to create an accountability framework for identifying the lowest and highest performers. Schools that score less than 700 on the API, show growth of fewer than 30 points over three years, and underperform on the Similar Schools Measure would be scrutinized for possible closure when their charter comes up for renewal. They would have to show achievement using other data. Thirty schools fell under these criteria – about 4 percent of charter schools. They include 11 schools that are non-classroom charters, probably independent study based charters. (The Academy for Recording Arts, a high school in Hawthorne, and the California Virtual Academy at Kern are among these.)
At the opposite end are the 77 high achievers: those with 800 or higher API, a student body that is at least 50 percent proficient on standardized math and English language arts tests, and those that outperform on the Similar Schools Measure. The Association would encourage their replication, with access to capital needed for expansion, and advocate that their charter renewals be expedited.***
Limitations and praise
The Association’s accountability measures improve on the current weak law that many districts ignore, but the Association acknowledges its limitations. API is a flawed measure for high-stakes accountability, because it does not measure individual students’ academic growth. It compares one year’s students scores with the next year’s. Until CALPADS, the state’s troubled longitudinal data system, is up and running, the state won’t be able to track individual students. The second problem is that the average API scores are higher for elementary schools than for middle and high schools. So more high schools will fall in the watch list for having an under 700 API.
I would add another caution. Once there are arbitrary criteria, like under 700 API for flunking, charters schools may feel more pressure to focus on test scores than their mission. Though the evidence is scarce, critics of charters have alleged for years that some charters push out low-performing students to improve their test scores. At the same time, there are charter high schools that seek out low-performing middle school students who are two or three grades behind academically, then work hard to get them into college. They too deserve credit even if they don’t achieve an 800 API.
For now, charters must live with the state’s accountability system. One expert who praised the Association’s three-prong accountability framework is Doug McRae, a retired test publisher, occasional TOP-Ed contributor, and frequent critic of the criteria that the Department of Education has used to identify lowest performing schools. He wrote me, “The CCSA folks have done a great job cobbling together all three things into one accountability application that just plain makes common sense. It should be the way California uses assessment and accountability data for virtually all intervention applications.”
The Association said that it consulted 20 outside experts during the two years it has taken to create its methodology and assemble the report. Five individuals, including McRae, signed their names as peer reviewers for the Similar Schools Measure. Two of them, Lance Izumi and Vicky Murray, are with the pro-voucher, pro-charter Pacific Research Institute; the others are Eric Crane, senior research associate with the respected research organization WestEd, and Meredith Phillips, associate professor of Public Policy and Sociology at UCLA. Only Crane, Izumi, and McRae were peer reviewers of the full report.
The Association has posted all of the data and variables in the Similar Schools Measure and accountability framework in a technical appendix. Almost every research study of charter schools has provoked debate over methodology; a small change in variables in a formula like the Similar Schools Measure can often yield different results. The research community’s response to “A Portrait of the Movement” bears watching in coming months.
*** Gov. Brown’s budget would increase late payments to schools. See a column in TOP-Ed today about why deferrals especially harm charter schools.
40 Comments
Trackbacks
- Tweets that mention Lots of high and low achieving charters | Thoughts on Public Education -- Topsy.com
- Sunset Newport Beach California William Bamish www.realestate-network.net 9-15-2010 | Newport Beach
Critics of charters ironically, don’t want these bad performing charter shut down. Districts are in the same boat. Districts, as authorizers, have the ability to not renew charters and even shut them down for not living up to the terms of their charters. They choose not to, because they know that by keeping the high performing charters only, the charter movement will thrive. If there are no negative examples to counteract the great things many charter are doing in terms of student achievement, arguments will be weakened. I applaud CCSA for this candid look at charters and policing their own, since the authorizers have too much as stake to do it themselves.
As the former principal of a high performing charter in LAUSD, I can tell you that LAUSD staff used to harass us with oversight and documentation while they ignored lower performing charter schools that could have really used help. I’d ask colleagues at conferences how often someone from the charter school office at LAUSD would be at their school and there was a negative correlation – the higher performing the school, the more visits and monitoring from LAUSD.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Robert, that’s not accurate.
As a charter critic and public school advocate for many years now (since the conflicts over the formerly hailed, now-fizzled for-profit Edison Schools Inc. in 2000-2001), I’ve participated in some and observed many more situations in which charter critics have advocated for holding problem charter schools accountable, while the charter lobbyists and advocates have fought any accountability tooth and nail.
The notion that charter schools should be held accountable is a new position for the California Charter Schools Association and other charter advocates — a complete reversal of the previous position and behavior.
One example was the lobbying to keep San Francisco Unified from closing the Urban Pioneer charter in 2003, when the school had these problems:
– 2 students had died on an unsupervised school wilderness outing.
– The school was in financial shambles, with teachers going unpaid.
– The school was committing open academic fraud, “graduating” students with far fewer than the required credits and short of the requirements.
– The test scores were consistently rock-bottom, 1-1 APIs.
The precursor of the California Charter Schools Assn., CANEC, spoke out (Peter Thorp, specifically) to argue AGAINST holding Urban Pioneer accountable or closing the school. Also, Urban Pioneer — despite its financial crisis — hired a high-priced damage control consultant (David Hyams of Solem & Associates) to manage the “message.” I don’t know but would speculate that that was funded by CANEC.
Sorry, but the notion that charter advocates want accountability and charter critics don’t falls apart under even the tiniest dose of reality.
As a general comment, by the way, I’d be curious to know how many of the >800 charters have these characteristics:
– Admissions processes that inherently self-select for motivated students with motivated families
– Overt blocking of problem students who try to enroll
– High attrition of problem students and non-replacement of the students who leave
– Substantial private funding from outside the school’s parent community
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“Once there are arbitrary criteria, like under 700 API for flunking, charters schools may feel more pressure to focus on test scores than their mission. Though the evidence is scarce, critics of charters have alleged for years that some charters push out low-performing students to improve their test scores. At the same time, there are charter high schools that seek out low-performing middle school students who are two or three grades behind academically, then work hard to get them into college. They too deserve credit even if they don’t achieve an 800 API.”
Imagine the impact on non-charter schools if they could do something other than focus on test scores, or get some credit for bringing an 7th grader reading at a 5th grade level up to 8th grade by 8th grade. Teachers at public schools have the skills to do it, but they are hindered by this “arbitrary” testing criteria.
Also imagine the impact on student at those regular public schools if they were still allowed enrichment activities such as music and art, integrated into their other subjects, giving them other ways to participate in class, develop confidence, work through stress, become better students and –GASP– maybe even develop a healthier attitude and stamina for the subjects that are hard for them.
Why is it that students and teachers in regular schools should expect punishment year after year for not achieving perfection, but charters should get a free pass? If achievement on standardized testing IS THE CRITERIA for all schools in the state of California, then charter schools should have to succeed under the same conditions.
It’s also really important our most vulnerable students aren’t treated like guinea pigs, and if a charter school can’t muster 700 API when they can push out students for poor behavior and don’t take students with IEPs, we might well be throwing our most vulnerable children over a cliff.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
I have witnessed this all first hand. While I know that CCSA has more recently (two years ago with the addition of Jed Wallace as CEO) become interested in policing their own, it is, in reality the responsibility of the authorizers who do want the proliferation of poor charters and the closing down of great ones to harm the movement. You can find entire districts with the same issues and worse as what went on at Urban Pioneer. Do we close those down?
As for your general comments, I am curious as to why you feel motivated parents should not have the choice to place their children in a school other than their home school. Haven’t you done that for your own kids within the traditional public school system and by virtue of where you choose to own a home? Not all parents have that luxury. Can’t you substitute the word “magnet” for “charter” and make the same arguments? Is it fair that affluent parents significantly contribute financially to affluent school districts, further exacerbating the opportunity gap for students of color? Shouldn’t schools be able to receive outside funding to help close that gap?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Robert, reality is reality. Charter school critics have long called for oversight and accountability for problem charter schools, and the charter school industry and supporters have long fought oversight and accountability for problem charter schools. I’ve seen it in real life and so have all of us — I can pull up news stories for you if you want. Your notion that it’s the opposite is simply not valid or true. (I really doubt if we can find entire districts that are unable to pay their teachers and/or are letting kids die on unsupervised wilderness trips, actually, and that are then fighting to keep operating in the same manner, as was the case with Urban Pioneer and the charter industry forces that attacked our school district for moving to exercise oversight and shut it down.)
As for the general issues you raise in the second paragraph, I agree that low-income students shouldn’t be getting the short end of the stick — let’s look at the education reformer-run district in Detroit, now planning to close half its schools and allow class sizes of 60, as a bad example. I believe that the current climate allows charter schools vast extra privileges in a manner that harms all other schools and does not solve problems in the big picture. We need to solve problems in a way that does not harm other schools to benefit a select few.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
“I believe that the current climate allows charter schools vast extra privileges in a manner that harms all other schools”
Can you be specific about what vast extra privileges charter schools have and how those privileges harm other schools?
Additionally, can you comment on the privileges districts have afforded magnet schools and how those privileges harm other schools?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
It is true that any selective school has a negative effect in one way or another on the non-selective schools by drawing the “selected” students away from the non-selective school. I make the distinction that district magnet schools are openly selective, so the process is on the up and up.
So when charter schools are covertly selective, or are selective simply by imposing an application process that constitutes a high hurdle and self-screens for the highly motivated (we’ve all seen both), to me that’s over the line.
Charter schools that — for whatever reason — experience high attrition of their less successful students, such as many (if not all) KIPP schools dump their less successful students back into the public schools. Then, of course, they proclaim themselves and are hailed as superior to the public schools, and are rewarded with financial donations, media support and so on, at the expense of the public schools that have accepted their rejects and dumpees.
The freedom to engage in those practices — and a mass willingness by opinion leaders, the press et al. to look the other way, if not hotly dispute what is actually the truth — are significant privileges enjoyed by charter schools. So that’s an example.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
The high API scores of charters don’t necessarily translate into high SAT scores, but the high APIs of public schools generally do.
The “top” charter high school in Oakland is the American Indian Public HS (charter): 2009 API = 946; 2010 API = 976; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1596 (83% tested)
These are area public schools w/comparable APIs
- Lowell HS (public): 2009 API = 949; 2010 API = 954; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1816 (96% tested)
- Miramontel HS: 2009 API = 928; 2010 API = 930; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1872 (92% tested)
- Gunn HS: 2009 API = 915; 2010 API = 917; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1924 (82% tested)
- Piedmont HS: 2009 API = 903; 2010 API = 903; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1905 (75% tested)
Even if the high SAT school kids took SAT prep courses, it wouldn’t account for a 220 to 328 point difference. A 2009 study by the National Association of College Admission Counseling showed that SAT prep courses only raised critical reading scores by about 10 points and math scores by about 20 points.
http://www.nacacnet.org/PublicationsResources/Research/Documents/TestPrepDiscussionPaper.pdf
And Aspire’s Lionel Wilson College Prep should really think about changing its name to “Wilson STAR-Testing Prep”: 2009 API = 791; 2010 API = 797; 2009 Total SAT Score = 1179 (98% tested, 374+415+390)
At any rate, parents with kids at these “college prep” charter schools might want to think about switching them out to one of the traditional comprehensives, along with seeing to it that their kids get placed in the more advanced classes, and then help them keep on track.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I’m not sure what you mean by openly selective vs. covertly selective.
Lowell High School in San Francisco (a magnet school) for example bases admission to the school on a combination of middle school grades and a student’s performance on either the 7th grade STAR test results or for those who aren’t in a public school, the Lowell Admissions test.
All California charter schools are bound by law to admit anyone wanting to attend the school. And, if there are more students than spaces, charter schools are required by law to hold a random public drawing.
47605
(2) (A) A charter school shall admit all pupils who wish to attend
the school.
(B) However, if the number of pupils who wish to attend the
charter school exceeds the school’s capacity, attendance, except for
existing pupils of the charter school, shall be determined by a
public random drawing. Preference shall be extended to pupils
currently attending the charter school and pupils who reside in the
district except as provided for in Section 47614.5. Other preferences
may be permitted by the chartering authority on an individual school
basis and only if consistent with the law.
I question the factual basis of your assertion that, “Charter schools that — for whatever reason — experience high attrition of their less successful students, such as many (if not all) KIPP schools dump their less successful students back into the public schools.” California (unfortunately) does not yet have a student data tracking system that provides data on individual student performance and school attendance. Therefore, it is impossible to track the students who leave KIPP schools and to determine if indeed they are the less successful students. What data are you using to support your statement?
At Lowell (a magnet program) when students don’t meet academic criteria, they are “dumped” back into the other district schools. And yet, Lowell proclaims itself as a superior school and enjoys a great deal of media support, and certainly the fundraising efforts tout this top performer as a reason for giving. Does Lowell enjoy significant privileges that other public schools do not? And if so, why does the SF School District allow and encourage it?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Lowell is open and transparent about its selective admissions process, which is part of the school’s design.
California charter schools, however, are perfectly free to create long, demanding admissions applications even if they select by blind lottery. Take a look at the application for Gateway High School in San Francisco, easy to find online – 13 pages for general ed students, 16 pages for students with IEPs.
I did research several years ago on attrition at California’s KIPP schools, which is easy to do using year-by-year data in the California Department of Education’s Dataquest database. I followed a single grade cohort – that is, grade 5 in 04-05, grade 6 in 05-06, grade 7 in 06-07 and grade 8 in 07-08 – to determine attrition from each grade.
The organization SRI International did a study with roughly the same result, on the Bay Area KIPP schools, showing that 60% of the students who start at the KIPP schools don’t finish, and they are not replaced (unlike public middle schools, which do replace students who leave). SRI International had access to data showing that the students who left are consistently the lowest performers. Just Google KIPP attrition and you’ll get plenty of material confirming this information.
Certainly some students leave Lowell, but it does not have a record of nor a reputation for dumping students, unlike the KIPP schools, and other charters that are hailed as successful in other communities. Another day, when it’s not past midnight, I’ll go find you the data on the Chicago charter school that is constantly hailed in the press for sending 100% of its graduates to college, yet that actually sheds more than half its students along the way, before graduation.
Lowell makes no pretense. While it is far and away the highest-performing SFUSD high school, and one of the state’s top schools, this is openly because of its selective admissions. Also, Lowell’s fundraising focuses on its own community and alumni. The charters that are hailed as successful are showered with money from the likes of Broad, Gates, Walton etc. There’s no comparison.
I’m happy to have had this chance to inform you and open your eyes. In half an hour of Internet research you can confirm everything I’ve said here.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
Thank you for bringing up Lowell High School – all that is wrong with the magnet school system. In SFUSD about 24,000 out of the 56,000 students are Latino or Black (43%). 11% of students are white and 40% Asian. At Lowell, 9% of students are Latino or Black, 15% are white, and 65% Asian. About 35% of students qualify for free and reduced lunch at Lowell while almost 60% qualify in SFUSD (done in four minutes of internet research). You’re right – there is no comparison. Affluent white and Asian parents should have school choice options at subsidized schools, but poor Latino and Black parents should not.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline, I think students spending a lot more time on learning is a huge part of KIPP’s strategy. I don’t see them trying to keep that a secret. If students give KIPP a try and then decide that they don’t want to put in the effort, who is doing the selecting? Would it be any surprise that students who decide to not put in the effort don’t do as well, no. Of course we can always argue about who’s getting more money to provide the supports for the extended learning time.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
The research you did on Data Quest will only provide you information on the number of students enrolled in a KIPP school. Thus, your conclusions about the student’s being the lowest performers must have been drawn from the 2008 study conducted by SRI. SRI had individual student data and was able to do a deep analysis of the KIPP schools because KIPP fully participated in the study. KIPP, like the California Charter Schools Association with its Portrait of the Movement, willingly engaged in a comprehensive and public review of its results and progress to date. Both organizations have and continue to take a very hard look at what they are doing well, and what needs to be improved, and then they get to work to make those improvements. They are dynamic organizations seeking continuous improvement. Isn’t that what we want from our public schools? How else will we get from where we are today (by all accounts not adequately serving a large number of our students) to where we want and need to be as a state and country?
I encourage readers to take a look at the SRI report and not simply a single data point widely used in anti charter rhetoric. http://www.hewlett.org/newsroom/closing-the-education-gap . A summary of the findings:
“The independent, three-year study, which was based on the Bay Area schools and included Heartwood, rejected charges from some educational quarters that KIPP’s success results from “creaming” the best students from the neighborhoods, and affirmed that the schools significantly outperform surrounding public schools on standardized tests. This is the first major study to scrutinize the praise and criticisms associated with KIPP, as well as key challenges facing Bay Area KIPP schools today.”
Interestingly, the study was paid for and published by the Hewlett Foundation, one of the many foundations that support KIPP. Perhaps these foundations choose to support charter schools like KIPP not because they have had the proverbial wool pulled over their eyes and think the schools are perfect. Just maybe it is because they believe dynamic organizations that are willing to take a hard look at their strengths and weakness, and then aggressively pursue improvement have the best chance to serve all public school students well.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Paul, I wasn’t referring to KIPP’s longer time in school. I was referring to the high number of students who transfer out of KIPP.
Diane, you’re correct. My research revealed the shockingly high attrition at KIPP schools, but of course I had no access to information on the achievement of students who left; I had access only to publicly available data. It was the SRI International study that provided the information that it was overwhelmingly the low achievers who leave KIPP schools, because SRI had access to additional data, provided by KIPP.
The facts that KIPP willingly provided the information and is open to being studied are admirable, but they have nothing to do with SRI’s findings or my findings, and don’t discredit or mitigate them.
Yes, Hewlett’s summary of the study did quite clearly attempt to downplay the attrition findings, but the facts are valid and significant all the same. And yes, the attrition may well have been downplayed because, as you say, Hewlett is “one of the many foundations that support KIPP.”
You can interpret the responses to the findings as you choose, but the fact is, the SRI study and my research both showed that KIPP schools have astoundingly high attrition and don’t replace the students who leave; and the SRI study showed that it’s the low achievers who leave.
Obviously KIPP schools are not positioned “to serve all public school students well” if the majority of the students – the lower achievers – leave the schools.
Robert, that “race card” post doesn’t seem relevant to this dicussion. The achievement gap shouldn’t be news to anyone savvy enough about education to be reading this site.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
And Paul, if a KIPP practice results in the less-motivated students’ leaving, the point is that KIPP practices self-select for the more-motivated students.
In addition, KIPP’s enrollment process also self-selects for more-motivated students. For example, KIPP gives applicants a test. These kids are grades 5 and up, old enough to refuse to sit still for a test if they’re oppositional or unmotivated or just hate tests, so that’s a potent self-selection mechanism too. (In researching KIPP, I started the application process for my own daughter, so I confirmed the test requirement.)
As a charter school observer and skeptic, I’ve had this discussion many times. It goes like this.
Me: Charter schools self-select for more-motivated, higher-functioning students.
Charter school defender. They do not!
Me: *Explain how charter schools self-select for more-motivated, higher-functioning students.*
Charter school defender: What’s wrong with self-selecting for more-motivated, higher-functioning students?
Well, there’s nothing inherently wrong with it, but there is something wrong with dishonesty about it. When charter schools self-select for more-motivated, higher-functioning students; dump the less-motivated, lower-functioning students on the public school down the street; proclaim themselves superior to the public school down the street that enrolled their rejects and dumpees; and are showered with acclaim, support and private philanthropy based on all that, that’s wrong. It harms public schools and shows why charter schools aren’t a solution for the challenges facing public education.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
You can’t selectively choose findings from a study that support your position, and then disregard findings from the same study that don’t support your position. The SRI study of KIPP unequivacably found that the students who attend the KIPP schools and stay there are by all public school standards not “high achievers” or students who are thriving in traditional public schools. In fact, KIPP’s aclaim comes largely from the fact that they are taking by all measures a traditionally low performing student population found in local public schools and helping them to realize their potential well beyond their peers not attending the KIPP schools. This is not a matter of interpretation. This is simply a fact based upon the data researched and anlayzed by SRI. The very same data that you are referencing to try and make your criticism. No one, including KIPP, is denying that they need to work on attrition, and in fact that is exactly what they have been doing. On the other hand, I certainly don’t hear you acknowledging what KIPP is accomplishing every single day with a large number of students. I suspect the parents and students of KIPP would disagree that their charter school isn’t the answer for the challenges of public education they were facing.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline, sure it takes both sides. One to set the strategy and another to want to give it a try. But I think they are very open about the effort required. Magnet schools can afford to be selective up front because they are drawing from children who have a history of being high achievers. KIPP is drawing from students from children who don’t have a history of being high achievers, so they have to be more optimistic up front and let time tell who is really going to make the effort required.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Diane, you yourself denied that there was an issue with KIPP attrition and disputed that I could back it up, after I originally mentioned it. Now that I back it up, you claim that I’m “selectively choos(ing) findings” to support my point. What the heck? You asked me to support my point and I supported my point with the relevant data, and now you’re complaining because I didn’t also mention data that are irrelevant to that particular point.
The fact that 60% of KIPP students don’t succeed at KIPP schools and leave conclusively shows that it’s not the answer for public education. How can you possible claim otherwise? What IS the answer for those 60% of kids who can’t cut it at KIPP if you claim KIPP is the answer? Just toss them aside and forget about them?
Talking to charter supporters is really out of Alice in Wonderland sometimes.
Paul, no, KIPP is NOT open about it. KIPP and supporters routinely deny the attrition (as we just saw Diane do). They routinely deny that there’s any selectivity at work and routinely claim that they work with the poorest of the poor, attempting to portray themselves as accepting the very same wide range of challenged students that public schools accept. Those claims are not true.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I looked at the CDE data for Heartwood and the middle school with the lowest API score in our district. The data on Heartwood was 333 total students, 211 english learners (63%), 282 socioeconomically disadvantaged (85%). The API for the english learners was 903 and the socioeconomically disadvantaged students averaged 911. For our district school there were 736 students, 350 english learners (48%), 278 socioeconomically disadvantaged (63%). The API for the english learners was 706 and the socioeconomically disadvantaged students averaged 734. So for a more challenged group of students Heartwood’s tests scores are much higher. I compared the parent education levels to see if that would show anything interesting. Heartwood’s reporting of parental education levels was substantially less, only a 58% response vs. an 88% response for our district school. The schools with lower API scores in our district tend to have lower parent reporting levels so that probably accounts for part of the difference, but the numbers are different enough to make me curious. Most of the schools in our district had parent response levels around 95%. Heartwood had a high percentage of parents reporting no high school and some college (+5-10%) but less parents reporting just a high school education (-10%). The percentage of parents reporting college or graduate education was slightly higher for our district school (-1-5% for Heartwood). One difference that between these schools that sticks out is that KIPP has fewer students. But I happen to know the district middle schools has been operating a small school within a school for the last two academic years. I believe the intent is to focus on those students who are likely to transition from a basic score to a proficient score. Perhaps the averages are hiding some weeding out of more challenged students over time, but I don’t see any data on the CDE website that is going to help me determine that. I don’t know what you mean by poorest of the poor, but I’d say both of these schools are working with students whose backgrounds present significant challenges.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Heartwood has consistently been a particularly impressive KIPP school in terms of performance.
OK, what I mean is that there are high-functioning, more-motivated families with compliant kids — and there are the opposite — in EVERY demographic. The impoverished, high-need, at-risk kids coming from troubled and unstable families in troubled and unstable communities are the primary challenge facing urban public schools. Impoverished, high-need kids from higher-functioning, more-motivated families need attention and resources to have their needs met, but they don’t pose the same challenge.
In Elijah Anderson’s book “Code of the Street,” he addresses this by using the vernacular — “street” vs. “decent.” (Anderson is an African-American Yale sociology professor who writes fearlessly about these complex social/cultural issues.) If this still isn’t clear and you’re sufficiently interested, PLEASE pick up the book and read it.
The issue that is raised by the KIPP attrition pattern is this. To what extent does simply excluding/getting rid of the less-motivated, lower-functioning, less-compliant students (through two processes — the self-selective admissions process and the sky-high attrition) in and of itself contribute to the high achievement of the remaining students? I believe there’s a public middle school c0-located at the KIPP Heartwood site. If that school also employed those two very potent self-selection processes to winnow out the lower-functioning, less-successful students, would that on its own raise the achievement of the remaining select few to the same extent? How much do KIPP’s other distinctive practices — and the massive funding provided by private philanthropy to KIPP – contribute to that success?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
A thoughtful discussion needs to be based upon facts, and not personal attack. Please recheck the posts. I have not disputed KIPPs attrition. I did question your ability to make statements about KIPPs attrition of its lowest performing students based upon a review of CDE data. You have confirmed the SRI report to be the source of this data, and not your research.
Let’s use the SRI report that you cite in support of your position that KIPP and charter schools are not the “answer” to public education to look at a different perspective. The very same report demonstrates without question that KIPP students consistently outperform their peers in local public schools, and that their performance is not based upon personal or intrinsic qualities that would enable them to achieve these levels of performance no matter the school they attend. You made the following statement:
“OK, what I mean is that there are high-functioning, more-motivated families with compliant kids — and there are the opposite — in EVERY demographic. The impoverished, high-need, at-risk kids coming from troubled and unstable families in troubled and unstable communities are the primary challenge facing urban public schools. Impoverished, high-need kids from higher-functioning, more-motivated families need attention and resources to have their needs met, but they don’t pose the same challenge.”
Your statement is simply not supported by fact or data in the SRI report or anywhere for that matter. This is indeed the creaming argument without the word creaming, and is debunked by the SRI report.
The idea that there exists an out of the box “answer” to all that ails public education is unrealistic, and the search for one distracts from the necessary work of rapidly evolving our public education system to consistently achieve student outcomes acceptable for individuals and our society.
I believe that necessary work consists of implementing innovations based upon research and best practice, followed by a critical analysis of data and outcomes which lead to refinement and more innovation. KIPP and the California Charter Schools Association are both engaged in this work which is the original subject of this post. Your immediate reaction was an attempt to question and undermine CCSA’s findings about top performing charters in an attempt to discredit them. I wonder how this approach will ever lead to an improved education system.
Those who are sincerely committed to improved outcomes for all students, rather than defending long held positions, will take a deep and intellectually honest look at this report and its findings with an eye to leveraging it to continuously increase the number of students who like those in the KIPP schools are thriving.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I understood your initial disagreement with one of my comments to be disputing BOTH the (true and valid) point I made about KIPP’s high attrition and the (true and valid) point I made about research showing that it’s the low-performing students who leave. So I apologize for misinterpreting that.
I’m surprised that someone who is clearly invested in following and supporting KIPP schools and methods is unaware of the SRI study. I would say that it’s easy to have deep faith when you have little information, and that the more you learn, the more you will learn that skepticism and questioning are warranted. I’ve been following charter schools and corporate education reform closely for more than 10 years, since for-profit Edison Schools was being hailed as the miracle that would save public education. Watching the last miracle nostrum(s) fizzle tends to make one a bit skeptical about the next miracle nostrum.
I don’t see how an informed observer could fail to recognize that the SRI study confirms, rather than the opposite, that KIPP vigorously creams for higher-functioning students. So does my own personal research starting the application process for my daughter, for that matter. Any application process that requires hurdles (such as the test and the counseling session that KIPP also requires) inherently creams. The attrition of lower-performing students constitutes further creaming. I think that maybe you’re misunderstanding the definition and concept of “creaming.”
And actually, my initial comment on this thread was not “an attempt to question and undermine CCSA’s findings about top performing charters in an attempt to discredit them.” It was in response to an invalid and baseless claim that the charter world wants accountability and that charter critics oppose it, which is also in direct contrast to the truth.
One thing that won’t lead to an improved education system is promoting miracle fads with hype, propaganda and denial of reality.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Sorry if I was a bit harsh in that previous post. The stout insistence that the SRI study showed the exact opposite of what it actually shows provoked an extra-firm response.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Caroline,
Again, personal attacks have no place in thoughtful discourse. Whether overt, “Talking to charter supporters is really out of Alice in Wonderland sometimes,” or more nuanced, “I don’t see how an informed observer could fail to recognize that the SRI study confirms, rather than the opposite, that KIPP vigorously creams for higher-functioning students”; they simply don’t belong, and at some point become bullying.
Excerpted from the executive summary of the SRI study
Bay Area KIPP schools do not appear to attract higher scoring students.
Because students choose to attend KIPP, high levels of performance could simply mean that higher
scoring students choose KIPP. On the basis of models developed to predict attendance at the three schools for which we could conduct more detailed analyses, however, we found the opposite to be true: Students with lower prior ELA and mathematics achievement on the CST were more likely to choose KIPP than higher performing students from the same neighborhood. Across all five schools, in 2006-07, average entering fifth-grade test scores ranged from the 9th to the 60th national percentile in reading and mathematics on the SAT10; the schools do not appear to have attracted higher scoring students over time.
Your statement that, “Any application process that requires hurdles (such as the test and the counseling session that KIPP also requires) inherently creams,” is simply not supported by the SRI report as demonstrated by the above direct quote from the report.
We may agree on one thing.
From your prior post: “One thing that won’t lead to an improved education system is promoting miracle fads with hype, propaganda and denial of reality.”
From my prior post: “The idea that there exists an out of the box “answer” to all that ails public education is unrealistic, and the search for one distracts from the necessary work of rapidly evolving our public education system to consistently achieve student outcomes acceptable for individuals and our society.”
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
We have a different definition of creaming. Yes, kids who are doing worse in their previous schools are more likely to attend KIPP than kids who are doing fine in their previous schools. That makes sense, as they are looking for something different, presumably for a reason.
But the kids who are from the really low-functioning, unmotivated families, and the kids who are non-compliant and oppositional, are not going to KIPP. KIPP creams for the students who are higher-functioning, motivated and compliant and are from families who care about and support education.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I believe this is the section from the SRI report that Caroline referenced. Although as the report suggests the attrition rate is substantially affected by general student mobility. Probably the most significant challenge in California schools.
Student attrition rates are high, and those who leave Bay Area KIPP schools start out lower performing and benefit less from their time at the schools than those who stay.
Student enrollment in the Bay Area KIPP schools declines after the sixth grade; of the students who entered fifth grade at the four Bay Area KIPP schools operating in 2003-04, 60 percent left before the end of eighth grade. At least two of KIPP’s host districts also experienced substantial student attrition over the same period—22 percent and 50 percent, respectively. On average, those who leave KIPP before completing eighth grade have lower test scores on entering KIPP and demonstrate smaller fifth-grade effects than those who stay.
We could not estimate longitudinal impacts because of student attrition and in-grade retention. Because of both the number of students who left and the fact that those who left are systematically different from those who stayed, longitudinal comparisons would be biased.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Can you clarify for me?
“…kids who are doing worse in their previous schools are more likely to attend KIPP than kids who are doing fine in their previous schools.”
“But the kids who are from the really low-functioning, unmotivated families, and the kids who are non-compliant and oppositional, are not going to KIPP.”
Are these different students? And exactly how can you make that determination? Is there publicly available data or evidence that supports your opinion?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Fascinating discussion, Diane, Paul and Caroline. A few gratuitous mischaracterizations but otherwise on target. I hope readers are getting insights into the SRI report and allegations that KIPP pushes out low-performing students. I hear the charge all the time, which author Diane Ravitch repeats incessantly and now Caroline, too, that charter schools attract “motivated” families; therefore, you can discount the success of many charter schools.
TOP-Ed commenter Diane gets at this in the previous comment. KIPP draws students, as line with its mission, who are doing worse in their previous schools. Clearly, whatever “motivated” means hasn’t led to academic success in district schools. My sense, from talking with charter principals and teachers, is that “motivated” parents most often want a “safe school” for this children, and they have a vague notion that their children should go to college — basically the same aspirations that most parents have for their children. It’s not a clear distinguishing trait and by itself means little. However, successful charters may be better at capitalizing on parents’ hopes and aspirations, because of intense efforts to draw low-income working parents into the life of the schools and because of advantages that come with being a small. Charters should be credited for this; engaging parents takes work and energy, and it doesn’t happen often enough at large comprehensive high schools, where equally “motivated” parents can find themselves frustrated and despairing.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John, straw men are no fair. I’m not saying that you can “discount the success of many charter schools,” and I think it’s safe to say that Ravitch isn’t either.
However, an admissions process that imposes hurdles, as KIPP’s does, and a set of rigorous rules inherently screen out anyone who can’t/won’t jump the hurdles and comply with the rules. That’s a big asterisk on the success. It doesn’t mean you discount the success, but if you are truly trying to understand what leads to success, you have to recognize and acknowledge that reality.
If you talk about San Francisco Lowell High School, it’s really the same thing — wow, the test scores are high! But, of course, Lowell admits based on academic achievement. The first sentence doesn’t give complete information without the second sentence. It doesn’t “discount the success” of Lowell to add that second sentence; it’s simply necessary to get the full, clear picture. Same with my kids’ high school, the Ruth Asawa San Francisco School of the Arts (SOTA). Wow, those kids are all so artistically talented and motivated! Well, yes, and they all went through an audition process to ensure that that was the case. SOTA didn’t take a cross section of random kids and turn them into talented filmmakers and altos and trombonists. That doesn’t discount the talent of the kids at SOTA, but it gives the full, true, clear picture.
Well, the same thing applies — except it isn’t about academic achievement but about families with the motivation to jump the KIPP hurdles and kids who are willing to cooperate with the KIPP admission process and the rules and practices once they arrive at the school.
I haven’t actually said that KIPP “pushes out” low-performing students. The numbers indisputably show that the majority of students in the studied KIPP schools leave before finishing and are not replaced; and the SRI study tells us that the students who leave are the low-performing ones. That information doesn’t tell us whether the departing students choose to leave, are ordered to leave, or are in some fuzzy area in between.
If Ravitch is “incessant,” it’s because the promotion of KIPP and the array of other favored education reform practices is incessant, and she is trying to respond effectively. She’s in her 70s and is devoting an incredible amount of energy to what she feels is a desperate effort to save public education from a misguided (or malevolent) series of assaults that genuinely threaten its future. I’m in my 50s and couldn’t possibly muster the energy she has. I would hope that even someone who disagrees with her would respect and possibly even admire that.
Diane (the presumably non-Ravitch Diane): I am trying to be respectful here.
I don’t know how to say this more kindly and gently. It’s common sense and evident — just based on living in the world and interacting with other people in life — that there are kids (and adults) who are unmotivated, low-functioning, and/or non-compliant; and there are kids who are not as successful as they or their parents might like in school; and that those are two separate categories with some overlap (and fuzzy boundaries, of course).
I don’t know that one can quantify every personal characteristic with evidence or data.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Here’s an update on Diane Ravitch, with background on why she changed her views and became a critic of No Child Left Behind, Race to the Top and the rest of the current corporate-education-reform agenda, which she believes threatens to destroy public education and is being promoted by forces to whom that’s a desirable goal:
http://blogs.edweek.org/teachers/living-in-dialogue/2011/02/an_unlikely_hero_for_teachers.html
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“Don’t confuse me with the facts, I have a closed mind.”
Caroline
There is a reason we conduct social science research, and don’t simply rely on conclusions drawn from individual observation and anecdote. It is clear at this point that you are unwilling to acknowledge valid research findings and evidence if they do not support your position. Rather, you will attempt to discredit them by inventing an ever evolving stream of new “data” perfectly crafted to support your opinion, and conveniently immeasurable. While that may be the stuff of blogs, it most certainly will not contribute to improving public schools. And so, I’m going to sign off to spend my time more productively.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
OK, it just seems to me to be self-evident that if you say “our school will admit only students who can swim the 100-yard freestyle in 1:30,” no one who can’t swim the 100-yard freestyle in 1:30 will get into the school. Some things are too self-evident to need additional data to support them.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Are these different students? And exactly how can you make that determination? Is there publicly available data or evidence that supports your opinion?
Obviously not. It’s just something that Caroline likes to say, because it makes her feel good.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
Wow – a long and involved discussion, with many fascinating digressions to parse the data. Given the primitive data tracking in most schools, and the coarseness of the test measures, I’m sure that these discussion on the “research” will provide continuing uncertainty and fruitful ground for many years of debate. But should the charter debate be framed solely in terms of how much a school moves the needle on state achievement tests or the students’ SAT scores? (I recall defenders of the status quo often telling us that “test scores don’t tell the whole story”, which I believe is true.)
Rather than expecting data to provide 100% conclusive policy answers, many parents have these simple questions for the participants in this debate: 1) Is School Choice for families at all important from a philosophical, as well as pragmatic perspective? In a society like ours, is there some OVERWHELMING argument why local school districts, without a particularly stellar track record, should be considered to be THE best party to make all of the decisions affecting one of the most important things to me — the education of my children? 2) If I’m a taxpayer, and ed funds are ostensibly appropriated for the education of children like mine, then to whom do these funds “belong”? Should they follow the child to the school that a family determines offers the best educational environment for their child? Or do the funds “belong” to the historic monopoly district where the child happens to reside — regardless of that district’s track record? 3) If a new delivery model — a KIPP charter or whatever — can be proven to reflect some sort of non-statutory selection bias in its student population — through non-overt or overt “creaming”, attrition of some students, or whatever – then NOBODY gets to choose that model? Then EVERYBODY has to stay in his or her failing school? Is that conclusion really good for the most disadvantaged students, let alone for the achievement of the general student population and our future as a productive society?
I would urge visitors to reread this thread, and ask, “Supposing Caroline is completely right in all of her observations and assertions, what are the implications?” Do we wait until there is some ideal government regime for approving, overseeing, and closing charter schools, before we let any family choose them for their child? Do we think that this ideal ”expert-driven” educrat oversight mechanism, if and when it is created, will be THAT much better than the oversight that parents can provide now in choosing a school? How long will all of this take? What happens, in the meantime, to the millions of students who have endured years and years of utterly wasted ”school reforms” promulgated by many of these same educrat experts?
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
John asks: “If a new delivery model — a KIPP charter or whatever — can be proven to reflect some sort of non-statutory selection bias in its student population — through non-overt or overt “creaming”, attrition of some students, or whatever – then NOBODY gets to choose that model?”
No, that’s actually not my view; you’re extrapolating, but inaccurately.
My point is that assuming that KIPP schools’ generally high test scores demonstrate success (I agree that test scores aren’t the only measure, but on the other hand a high-scoring school certainly is doing something right): It seems to me to be essential to try to learn how KIPP schools achieve that success. Most observers acknowledge that successful charter schools aren’t ”scalable” — can’t be replicated in such quantity that they’ll replace public schools. So for that reason, don’t we need to know what KIPP is going right?
Given that the numbers indisputably show high attrition from KIPP schools, the SRI study shows us that the students who leave are the less-successful ones, and common sense tells us that “selection bias” exists — it seems to me that those factors need to be examined closely so it can be determined to what extent they contribute to KIPP’s success. Then if we learn that the “peer effect” of being in a group of more-success-oriented students benefits low-income, at-risk students, isn’t it then sensible to start thinking of further ways to create that kind of setting, replicating it widely, and not just in charter schools?
That still doesn’t solve the problem for the lower-functioning, less-motivated, non-compliant students and/or those without families that support their education. But improving the educational prospects for higher-functioning at-risk students is obviously valuable.
But we can’t even start thinking about this when KIPP obfuscates and downplays the selection bias and when KIPP supporters refuse to acknowledge it at all.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
“If we learn that the “peer effect” of being in a group of more-success-oriented students benefits low-income, at-risk students, isn’t it then sensible to start thinking of further ways to create that kind of setting, replicating it widely, and not just in charter schools?”
Is THAT what this is all about? You are wondering if having more success-oriented peers could benefit low-income, at-risk students? Is that notion seriously up for debate? Should we try putting kids in a non-success-oriented environment just to test the concept? (Newsflash: It’s already happening every day in traditional public schools all across CA.)
I don’t really care why KIPP thinks their students are more successful. It seems to me that they do a number of basic, non-rocket-science things that we could be doing in our traditional public school monopolies, but aren’t. You may think that once we know all the data, we just have to “replicate it” in our traditional public schools. Good luck with that.
While we ask for more transparency and candor from KIPP, I would like to see more candor from all of the School Choice opponents who pick apart every law and every report that might allow Choice to expand. Do you really want to see better charter charter options for all students? Do you really care whether parents have better choices outside the current geographic monopolies? If parents don’t get to have choices around their child’s education, then who does? We’re going to keep spending +/- 6% of GDP on public education. Who gets to make all of the choices around that expenditure of resources, if not the parents? The ed administrators who are doing such a bang-up job now?
Personally, I don’t believe that the struggle to expand Choice has ever been about the data. Although many educators want to see more options (for themselves, as well as for their students), too many people in the education establishment have taken a reflexive and reactionary position against Choice of any kind, although few will candidly admit it. I think that position is undermining their profession, as well as public support, in general, for public education. And that is a tragedy.
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
I have the opposite view, and I hold public education in reverence rather than in contempt. So we need to agree to disagree on that point.
Yes, I do think it’s valuable to determine to what extent the peer effect influences KIPP students’ success. Given that public education is currently under assault in a way that appears quite likely to destroy it entirely, it may be not be unthinkable to make some major changes. Is it worth considering whether public schools targeting low-income, at-risk students with a charter-school-like set of admissions hurdles would be feasible? How much influence on KIPP’s achievement do its other distinctive practices have?
You say the same thing, Jim, though obviously I don’t use the anti-public-education term “public school monopolies”: “It seems to me that they (KIPP) do a number of basic, non-rocket-science things that we could be doing in our traditional public school monopolies, but aren’t.” Then you switch and indicate that you think those things could never be done. But in any case, as even charter advocates acknowledge that charters aren’t scalable, don’t you think that needs to be considered?
But then the other point is that KIPP receives a huge amount of adulation and enormous sums in private philanthropy based on its shining image — and there seems to be a “zero sum” thing going, in which public schools get contempt and lose resources in proportion to the benefits awarded to KIPP. I do think that KIPP gets an artificially inflated image boost based on the false belief that it accepts a cross-section of all low-income students and turns them into achieving, compliant KIPPsters. That’s not true, and I think it’s harmful in the big picture that KIPP receives so much bounty at the expense of public schools and the children in them based on a false story.
So debunking that false story and pointing out the truth about KIPP selectivity is important to me for that reason too. Obviously, those who believe that public schools are a lost cause and should be shuttered won’t agree.
Because I’ve been targeted with a series of nasty personal cracks on this thread, I also want to respond. I’ve been following “education reform” for more than 10 years — actually I first started paying attention in 1997, when I did a freelance writing project for the Hoover Intitution. In early 2001 I started becoming an activist when for-profit Edison Schools became an issue in my school district. At the time my view was critical of for-profit charter schools like Edison, but I was open to not-for-profit charters and KIPP. My views have evolved as I’ve learned more and more, and as I’ve spent years as an urban public school parent myself. (And in 2009 my husband, a longtime newspaper journalist, became a teacher.)
Since I’ve been accused here of taking a “reflexive and reactionary position against Choice of any kind,” of having a closed mind, and more, I wanted to point out that those accusations are unfair and unfounded.
By the way, don’t miss Diane Ravitch being interviewed by Jon Stewart on the Daily Show this Thursday evening. And check out Jon Stewart on teachers:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-february-28-2011/crisis-in-dairyland—message-for-teachers
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity
+ generic cialis online no prescription
+ [url=http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#itoped.svefoundation.org] buy cialis online
[/url] http://buycialisonlinetoday.com/#2260 + generic cialis online no prescription
Report this comment for abusive language, hate speech and profanity