Group items matching

in title, tags, annotations or url

"Ed schools seem to make an easy target in public policy debates over the quality of American public schooling and the American teacher workforce."

"Pundits love to make cross-state comparisons and rank states on a variety of indicators (I'm guilty too). A favorite activity is comparing NAEP test scores across subjects, including comparing which states have the biggest test score gaps between children who qualify for subsidized lunch and children who don't. The simple conclusion - States with big gaps are bad - inequitable - and states with smaller gaps must being doing something right! It is generally assumed by those who report these gaps and rank states on achievement gaps that these gaps are appropriately measured - comparably measured - across states. That a low-income child in one state is similar to a low-income child in another. That the average low-income child or the average of low-income children in one state is comparable to the average of low-income children in another, and that the average of non-low income children in one state is comparable to the average of non-low income children in another. LITTLE COULD BE FURTHER FROM THE TRUTH."

"Here's a quick data driven post on Governor's state aid cuts - or aid changes. So far, I've been able to compile data from a few states which make it relatively easy to access and download data on district by district runs of state aid (and one state that does not, but I have good sources of assistance). Here, I compare changes in state aid to K-12 public school districts in Ohio, Pennsylvania and New York."

"...the study asked whether financial incentives could change the behavior of those already in the system, but not whether the existence of performance incentives would change those who choose to be in the system."

In my view, the hypocrisy lies in what those who choose elite private schools for their own argue are the best solutions for public education for the children of others.  If the preferences are the same, there is no hypocrisy. The problem is when those preferences are vastly different - completely at odds - as they tend to be in the present "ed reform" and "new normal" debate.

There's no mystery or proprietary secret among academics or statisticians and data geeks as to how to construct simple comparisons of school demographics using available data.  It's really not that hard. It doesn't require bold assumptions, nor does it require complex statistical models. Sometimes, all that's needed to shed light on a situation is a simple descriptive summary of the relevant data.  Below is a "how to" (albeit sketchy) with links to data for doing your own exploring of charter and traditional public school demographics, by grade level and location.

In my previous post, I explained that the new push to rate schools of education by the student outcome gains of teachers who graduated from certain education schools is a problematic endeavor… one unlikely to yield particularly useful information, and one that may potentially create the wrong incentives for education schools.  To reiterate, I laid out 3 reasons (and there are likely many more) why this approach is so problematic. Here, I divide them out a bit more - 4 ways.

Okay. You all know that I like to call out dumb graphs. And I've addressed a few on this blog previously. Here are a few from the past: http://schoolfinance101.wordpress.com/2011/04/08/dumbest-real-reformy-graphs/ Now, each of the graphs in this previous post and numerous others I've addressed, like this one (From RiShawn Biddle) had something over the graph I'm going to address in this post. Each of the graphs I've addressed previously at the very least used some "real" data. They all used it badly. Some used it in ways that should be considered illegal. Others… well… just dumb. But this new graph, sent to me from a colleague who had to suffer through this presentation, really takes the cake. This new graph comes to us from Marguerite Roza, from a presentation to the New York Board of Regents in September. And this one rises above all of these previous graphs because IT IS ENTIRELY FABRICATED. IT IS BASED ON NOTHING.

This report describes a symposium conducted by New York State Education Department on September 13, 2011 in the Huxley Museum Theater at the Cultural Education Center in Albany.  It includes a paper prepared by the State Education Department on fiscal challenges facing school districts, presentations by education researchers Marguerite Roza and Stephen Frank about rethinking education resource use for greater student achievement and a summary of the session.  

Our family gets a close-up look of how big money has taken over politics -- even at the local level

I did a piece a short while back on TEAM Academy, a Charter school which I thus far admire in Newark, NJ. I admire the school because, while the data I've been able to gather from official sources still indicates that TEAM is far from a statistical match with its surroundings, and appears to have greater cohort attrition than I might like to see, I am, at this point, comfortable stating that TEAM Academy is more comparable than others to its surroundings than other Newark Charters.

In my last post, I ranted about this absurd graph presented by Marguerite Roza to a symposium of the New York Regents on September 13, 2011. Since that presentation (but before my post), that graph was also presented by the New York State Commissioner of Education to Superintendents of NY State School Districts (Sept. 26). The graph and the accompanying materials are now part of a statewide push in New York to promote an apparent policy agenda, though I lack some clarity on the specifics of that agenda at this point in time. Because this graph is now part of an ongoing agenda in New York and because critiques by other credible, leading scholars similar to my own but less ranting in style, which were submitted to state officials following the symposium have seemingly been ignored (shelved, shredded, or whatever) I feel the need to take a little more time to explain my previous rant. Why is this graph so problematic? And who cares? How could such a silly graph really cause any problems anyway? Let's start back in with the graph itself.

"As the new year begins, I've been pondering what I might recommend as guiding principles for the path forward for education policy in New York City under its new Mayor, Bill de Blasio, who is often referred to on Twitter as BDB. So here are my thoughts for the way forward, from one BDB (Bruce D. Baker) to another. Note that I had drafted much of this content last spring when convening with a group of scholars to discuss the path forward for NYC education policies. Not being as well versed in the specifics of NYC education policies, but having at least written academically about some, I kept my ideas broad, and applicable to many educational settings across the U.S."

"In this post, I address two examples of what I consider statistical smoke and mirrors (in one case coupled with false imagery) used in recent years to re-frame debates over economic and educational "equality" - toward a "post-urban" and "post-racial" domestic policy agenda."

"In this brief, I present preliminary findings that are part of a larger, national analysis of newly released federal data, a primary objective of which is to evaluate the extent to which those data yield findings consistent with findings arrived at using state level data sources. In this brief, I specifically explore variations in student characteristics and resources across schools in Newark, NJ."

"This post is a follow up to my previous post in which I discussed the misguided arguments for maintaining a system of annual standardize testing of all students. In my post, I skipped over one argument that seems to be pretty common among the beltway pundits. I skipped this argument largely because the point is moot if we plan on using testing data appropriately to begin with. My point in the previous post was about tests, testing data and how to use it appropriately. But just as the beltway pundit crowd so dreadfully misunderstands tests and testing data, they also dreadfully misunderstanding demography and geography and the intersection of the two. A related example of the complete lack of demographic "data sense" in the current policy discourse is addressed in my recent post on "suburban poverty.""

"So, where should that finger of blame point here?  Or is this just how things work these days - slash the funding of the highest need districts - call them failing - close their schools - give their property and their teacher's jobs to someone else - and claim victory - leaving others, years down the line to clean up your mess? Angry Andy - this is your mess. Now do the right thing and fix it!"

"As with the Vergara case in California, a central claim of the New York City Parents Union is that the presence of statutory tenure protections in New York State leads to a persistent and systematic deprivation of a sound basic education which falls disproportionately on the state's low income and minority children. Let's review again the basic structure of this argument."

"Families for Excellent Schools of New York - the Don't Steal Possible folks - has just released an impossibly stupid analysis in which they claim that New York City is simply throwing money at failure. Spending double on failing schools what they do on totally awesome ones (if they really have any awesome ones)."