Sunday Music: The Jazz Messengers

I have been derelict in my duties. I started a Sunday Music series and then abandoned it after a few weeks. Unacceptable.

Let's get back on track, shall we? All you youngsters who are all into Kids On the Slope, here is the real deal:



Bobby Timmons, another unsung hero of American music. Around 8:40 or so, look at Blakey's reaction to the pianist. He knew.

OK, I need to keep doing this. Hold me to it, OK?

Reality Leaves Newark and Invades Rick Hess's Happy, Shiny World

As all New Jersey edunerds know by now, Newark's State Superintendent, Cami Anderson, was scheduled to appear at the right-wing "think" tank AEI to discuss her tenure this past week. She turned tail and ran, however, when a group of Newark students showed up at the event, threatening to make their voices heard.

Via Mike Klonsky, we now learn that AEI's Rick Hess has come down with the vapors at the thought of these "rabble-rousers" (yes, those are Hess's exact words for a group of Newark students) daring to invade his corporatist sanctum:

Ironically, the event came about because I'd raised some questions about Newark school reform. I wrote an Ed Week op-ed back during the summer that suggested Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg's $100 million gift to Newark was in many ways a cautionary tale of the mistakes that philanthropists make. In the course of that piece, I was indirectly critical of some of what Newark has been doing. Anderson, a friend who has been superintendent of New Jersey's largest school system since 2011, argued that my depiction of Newark was unfair and inaccurate. We discussed all of this and agreed that the school district hadn't done a great job of sharing some of what she was telling me. So, I invited her to come down to AEI, offer her perspective and some of the results from Newark, and talk about the lessons being learned. [emphasis mine]

Golly, whatever could have made anyone think that Hess wouldn't ask tough, pointed questions of his "friend"?

Mike, as we would expect, deals with Hess's outrage perfectly:

A real policy debate would have taken place BEFORE the schools were closed and privatized, not after the fact. Parents and community were excluded from the debate then and they were excluded (not invited) to the debate by AEI. Instead they made their voices heard the best way they could. They were heard again last May, in the city's mayoral election when they elected Mayor Baraka, a militant opponent of Anderson's and of "One Newark". And yet the program remains.

Hess should know that people still have the right to protest against oppressive government policies, while those bureaucrats enforcing those policies still have the right to run and hide from the community.

It's a free country.

Amen. But let me take this a bit further:

Rather than waste an opportunity to allow her to justify herself to the world, Hess brought Anderson into a closed room at AEI and let her tape a hour-long infomercial extolling her virtues.



Because your Jazzman loves you and wants you to be happy, I watched the entire thing so you don't have to (ain't I swell?). Hess, naturally, goes very easy on his "friend," allowing her every opportunity to sell both her One Newark plan and her own "fierce"* commitment to reform.

But here are a few things that Hess and Anderson didn't bother to discuss:

- Repeatedly, Anderson contends that her critics are quite small in number, and that there are many more people who support her and One Newark than reality might suggest.

Let's take a moment, then, to review who is in this "small group" that doesn't support Anderson or her "reforms":

• Mayor Ras Baraka, who was elected in a race that became largely a referendum on Anderson.
• His opponent, Shavar Jeffries, who lost because, even though he criticized Anderson, didn't go as far as Baraka by calling for her removal.
• The Newark City Council, which called for a moratorium on all of Anderson's initiatives.
• The Newark School Board, which, though powerless to remove her (we'll get to that in a minute), voted "no confidence" in Anderson's leadership and has tried to freeze her pay.
• The students of Newark's schools, who have walked out repeatedly to protest her actions.
• Parents who have filed a civil rights lawsuit, alleging One Newark is "de facto racial segregation." (It is.)
• The teachers union, which claims Anderson has repeatedly refused to follow through on the provisions of the contract she negotiated.
• 77 of Newark's religious leaders, who have said One Newark could be "catastrophic" and must not be implemented.

I wish I could force Hess to read the statement from these pastors:

There are many well-educated, reasonable minded, and rational
individuals, parents, educators and citizens in general in the City of Newark.
They all share an intense passion for excellence in education; they have
come to feel that their input and voice have been repeatedly ignored. It is
unfair to characterize Newarkers opposing the current approach to change asirrational and resistant to change in any case. Many voices of reason have
been largely denied meaningful input into the decision-making process. [emphasis mine]

The notion that Anderson's critics are a small group of "rabble rousers" is both offensive and incorrect. That she continues to insist the opposite is a sign of either denial or contempt. That Hess accepted her at her word is a sign of intellectual torpor.

- Anderson tries hard to get Hess to believe that she really does meet with the community: she has coffees with them, dontcha know! And conversations in the grocery store (does Anderson live in Newark?)! Parents hug her!

What she didn't bother to mention -- and what Hess forgot to ask about -- is the fact that Anderson has stopped attending school board meetings, an action that, while perhaps not technically in violation of the state takeover law, is certainly in violation of its spirit.

Anderson has also repeatedly refused to answer the summons of the Joint Committee on the Public Schools of the NJ Legislature, a slap in the face of the state's taxpayers if there ever was one. Her boss, Chris Christie, has refused to hold one of his taxpayer-financed propaganda festivals "town halls" in Newark, denying citizens there the opportunity to question him about Anderson's leadership.

Citizens from Newark had to travel to Washington, D.C. to question Anderson because she refuses to meet with their elected representatives in their own hometown.

Maybe if Anderson would show up every now and then at a board meeting, the "rabble rousers" wouldn't have felt the need to invade Rick Hess's happy, shiny, libertarian world.

- In his post, Hess references an earlier piece where he claims he is "indirectly critical of some of what Newark has been doing." Actually, he spends most of that piece doing what Rick Hess does best: arguing that spending more money on urban school districts is a waste.

I guess current research on school finances gets into AEI about as often as students from Newark. Because the truth is that, quoting Bruce Baker: "There exists an increasing body of evidence that substantive and sustained state school finance reforms matter for improving both the level and distribution of short-term and long-run student outcomes."

I know it's hard for Rick to let go of his Hanushekian fantasies about "efficiencies," but the truth is that Newark has had to scratch and claw for every penny it gets for its schools, and it's still not enough.

Even Anderson admits her district is having a rough time of it fiscally. But did Hess bother to raise the issue of whether Newark gets adequate funding from the state?

Please.

- Finally: maybe Hess should have thought a bit about how people who are disenfranchised act before trying to blame them for attempting to make their voices heard:

The whole point of public debate in a free nation is that reasonable people routinely disagree with one another. They're going to have different concerns, know different things, and look at facts in different ways. That's why I seek to provide a forum where leaders and thinkers can make their case, whether I agree with them or not. Over the years, I've hosted "reformers" including the likes of Arne Duncan, Rod Paige, Joel Klein, Kaya Henderson, Michelle Rhee, John Deasy, Jim Shelton, John White, Deb Gist, Howard Fuller, and Campbell Brown. I've hosted those who come at things very differently, such as Randi Weingarten, Diane Ravitch, Dennis van Roekel, Lily Eskelsen Garcia, Debbie Meier, Carol Burris, Kevin Welner, and Larry Cuban. In my mind, this is part of what think tanks are for. In all of that time, through a slew of controversial personalities, we have never encountered a group so dead-set on trying to stop someone from simply being heard as this coterie from Newark.

So why might that be, Rick? Why would Newarkers feel so put out about Cami Anderson when your list of reformy all-stars here all showed up at AEI with nary a peep from the "rabble rousers"? What could possibly account for this unseemly outburst of free speech?

Say what you will about Michelle Rhee: at least when Mayor Adrian Fenty got the boot from DC's voters, she went out the door along with him. When Bill de Blasio became mayor of NYC, he knew he'd better not appoint another Joel Klein to run the schools there, or he'd anger his base. John Deasy was accountable to an elected board of the LAUSD, which is why the elections are so intense (and expensive).

In all of these cases, the citizens of these school districts could use their vote to express their approval or disapproval of the current management of their schools. But there's no way any taxpayer in Newark can affect the continuing tenure of Cami Anderson through his or her vote.

The good people of Newark, NJ, have no say in how their schools are run; is it any wonder, then, that they must raise their voices to be heard?

Newark has been under state control for two decades. The voters of Newark roundly rejected Chris Christie twice, and yet he and he alone gets to decide who manages NPS. There is no plan in place to move the district back to democratic, local control; no one in the state has been held accountable for the failure to return the schools to the people of Newark.

You think it's bad having a few students come into your offices and blow some whistles, Rick? Imagine what it's like, then, having to pay taxes to support a school system where you have no ability to shape policy or determine personnel through the exercise of your democratic rights.

As a "conservative," you of all people, Rick, should be infuriated by the clearly racist policy of denying people of color control over their local education system. You of all people should be standing up and demanding the state immediately develop and execute a plan to return the rights of self-determination enjoyed by nearly every other community in New Jersey to the people of Newark.

I'm sorry that "rabble rousers" bringing a dose of reality down I-95 from Newark is so perturbing to you, Rick. But when you deny people their rights, things tend to get a little messy. Something to think about next time AEI wants to deny a few students a chance to be heard by their unelected school leader.

"Rabble rousers"?! Here?!

* If you're in a mood for a drinking game, try this: one shot for every time Anderson uses the word "fierce." You'll be passed out by the time the vid is over, guaranteed.

ADDING: Looks like Peter Greene and I once again wrote the same thing:

When people with money and power feel they aren't being heard, they also raise the volume. But because they have money and power, they can raise the volume by spending $12 million to set up slick websites, or establishing "advocacy groups" to push their agenda out through their connections, or having polite luncheon dates. If Bill Gates thinks people aren't really hearing what he has to say about education, he gets out his checkbook or makes some phone calls.

Ordinary folks like the citizens of Newark don't have that option. They can't drop a few million dollars on an ad campaign or make some quick calls to highly-placed people of power and influence. When people without money, power or status want to raise the volume to be heard, they don't have any options except literally raising the volume and getting loud and unruly and even obnoxious. And then we can cue the complaints about their tone and rudeness and general misbehavior. Why they can't just be quiet and polite and unheard? Goodness!

The fact is, civil discourse is great-- if you have money and power and connections to back it up. Wouldn't it be interesting to go back in time to, say, that meeting between David Coleman and Gene Wilhoit and Bill Gates, and to say, "Gentlemen, you may pursue your dreams of an educational overhaul of this nation. But you must do it on a budget of $1.95, and you can't call any of your powerful friends to help you out. All you can use is a free blog and talking to people you can convince to listen to you."

"Let's all calm down and try to speak nicely," are the words of the people with power. "Listen to me RIGHT NOW DAMMIT," are the words of the powerless, unheard, and frustrated. 

 Yep.

New NJ Spotlight Column: Reactions to Our Charter School Report

My latest column for NJ Spotlight is out; the subject this time is the reaction from the NJ charter sector to my new report:

So why the fuss? I can only guess, but I think our report is highlighting a problem with charter school expansion as a strategy for broader reform of urban education -- a problem even the most ardent charter supporters have acknowledged.

In 2011, NJ Spotlight sponsored a roundtable on charter schools. Former Education Commissioner Chris Cerf, one of the nation’s foremost champions of charters, acknowledged their limitations:

“Nobody thinks charter schools are THE solution, or that we should ignore throwing all of our effort into doing what we can to reform and improve other public schools,” said Cerf.

In other words: charter schools were never designed to fully supplant public district schools. Charter school supporters believe, instead, that charters should be part of a “portfolio” of school choices that include district schools. Many regularly express their desire to work with hosting school districts, as in Newark and Camden, to share best practices and develop universal enrollment systems. 

Those are laudable goals, but they don’t address the fundamental issue with school “choice”: families are likely to “choose” to send their children to schools that enroll other children like their own.

Read the whole thing, and check out the charter report for yourself here. Try not to come down with the vapors...

Data?! Mercy!

Newark Deserves An Experienced, Well-Trained School Leader

This has got to stop:

Cami Anderson, hand-picked by Gov. Christie to oversee the privatizing of Newark public schools was scheduled to speak today at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington D.C..  

According to AEI's website, that event, which would have been concluding right now, was abruptly canceled. 

According to reports appearing now on social media, Newarkers from Newark Students Union, and NJ Communities United traveled down to D.C. for her speech at AEI. When Anderson and her right-hand man Brad Haggerty spotted them in the audience, they were pointed out to security and escorted from the room. As Bob Braun correctly points out, she won't talk to the children and parents of Newark in Newark, so the children and parents of Newark went to Washington to talk to her.  

AEI calls that a "security breach" and just abruptly canceled her panel. Newark students:

Immediately after we were told to leave, we took control of the stage and told the audience Newark's story from the student's perspective. At this point we were treated with blatant hostility and forced to leave the private property. You could run, but you can't hide! #ournewark [emphasis mine]

That's from Rosi Efthim at Blue Jersey; Rosi followed up with another post linking to video from the event. These Newark students traveled all the way to Washington to finally have a chance to make their voices heard to the leader of their school district.

Too bad they didn't realize before they made their long trek that AEI exists primarily to give libertarian, corporate-loving fantasists a safe place to convince each other that their right-wing ideology is beloved by the masses. The only way that works, of course, is to keep the masses from walking through the door and speaking their minds.

But that begs the question: what was Anderson doing at a right-wing think-tank anyway? Because the State Superintendent is too busy, apparently, to show up in front of a committee of the NJ Legislature and explain herself to the elected representatives of the taxpayers of this state. And she's also too busy to go to her district's school board meetings and explain herself to the elected representatives of the parents of Newark.

So how did she manage to find the time to talk to Rick Hess at AEI over a plate of cobb salad?

I'm sure it hasn't escaped even Anderson's notice that her district could surely use some leadership right about now. The invaluable Bob Braun is the primary source for news about the implosion of NPS -- but things have gotten so bad that even the Star-Ledger's Tom Moran has heard about it.

According to one of Bob's latest posts, the NJDOE is suppressing a report that excoriates Anderson for her failed leadership of NPS. The disaster unfolding at Barringer High School alone is enough evidence for anyone to question Anderson's management skills. But when you add in the stories of Anderson's open flaunting of the state's teacher tenure law, the recent tragedies that have occurred on Newark school grounds, the almost comical waste and squander, the relentless spin that even Anderson's nominal supporters are growing weary of, the internal revolt of her own staff...

Well, you'd think Anderson would be putting in a little more time at the office and a little less time out of the city.

Bob makes the case that a superintendent as universally reviled as Anderson would never be tolerated in the affluent New Jersey suburbs. He's right, of course, but I'd like to step back a little further and make a larger point:

Cami Anderson never would have had the chance to be fired in a suburban district, because none of those districts would have ever hired her in the first place.

Let me restate what I wrote earlier this year:

The reporting on this has been spotty, but by all appearances Anderson only has two years of K-12 public school teaching experience, all through Teach For America. When you haven't been in the classroom for long, you won't understand how a school becomes part of a community; it becomes, therefore, far easier for you to conceive of closing schools than it should be.

When you haven't invested yourself into a teaching career, you can't understand how disheartening it is to have superintendents change policies and curricula like they are the flavors-of-the-month. You won't understand how demoralizing it is to be subject to an arbitrary merit pay plan. You won't see the discriminatory racial patterns that emerge in employment practices that are ostensibly race-neutral.

After her short teaching stint, Cami Anderson went into the education "advocacy" sector, rather than continue to teach and work her way up the administrative ladder. She eventually landed a job in the labyrinth that is the NYCDOE -- but serving as a bureaucrat in a huge city system, while admittedly important work, is of limited value when it comes to training to take over your own district. That's especially true of New York City, where mayoral control under Mike Bloomberg ensured that school administrators had to answer to no one but the mayor's office.

The plain truth is that Cami Anderson's resume would head directly for the circular file if she ever applied for a job out in Hunterdon or Sussex or Ocean or Morris counties.

She never got a degree in educational administration, so she's ever been properly trained in school law or finance or personnel supervision or curricular development. She never ran a school, so she doesn't really know how they work. She worked in the bowels of the NYC system, so she never had to learn to gain consensus from her staff, her constituents, her school board, her parents, or her students.

Newark is the largest school system in New Jersey, serving a student population that is overwhelmingly disadvantaged. Running that system is one of the toughest school leadership jobs in America. But Chris Christie and Chris Cerf thought it was just fine to leave that job to a person who would never be hired to run even the smallest, most affluent district in the state.

I see a parallel here with the obsession reformy types (like David Boies) have with Teach For America. They actually seem to believe that educators with elite backgrounds don't need experience or training or connections to the communities in which they work; if you're the "right" sort of person, your "talent" will carry you through.

It's enough then, by this logic, that Cami Anderson went to Stanford and fought for more funds for her women's crew team; that's the sort of trial-by-fire these people think qualifies Anderson, bereft of meaningful training or experience, to run a school district like Newark.

You'll excuse me for pointing out the obvious: if Cami Anderson's elite background isn't good enough to qualify her to run suburban schools, why is it good enough to qualify her to run Newark's district?

Some of you will be surprised to hear this, but a part of me feels sorry for Anderson. Clearly, she is out of her depth, and she doesn't have the capacity for introspection needed to lead her to that conclusion. Someone took advantage of that; someone set her up to fail.

It's a real pity, because Anderson is articulate and resourceful, and I'm more than prepared to take her at her word when she says she cares about Newark's children. Had she been more humble and accepted the fact that she wasn't ready to lead a district like Newark, she might have taken the time to develop into a real school leader. She could have spent a few more years in a classroom, then gone on to get her certification and lead a school. In time, she may have even gained the necessary experience to run an entire system.

But ambitious people like Anderson don't see the value in taking the long and winding road; they climb too high too fast. It's a shame for her.

But it's far more tragic for the beautiful, deserving children of Newark. We can only pray that one day, after Chris Christie finally moves on, those children will get a school leader -- with appropriate experience and training -- worthy of them.

This is the best we can do for Newark's kids...

ADDING: Lyndsey Layton at the Washington Post has more about today's field trip:

“For us, what’s going on in Newark is not a triumph, it’s a tragedy,” said Sharon Smith, who has three children in that city’s public schools and was among about 40 parents and students who filled the 12th floor conference room at the American Enterprise Institute. “Our children are facing this disruption, and we don’t have a voice.”

The Newark protesters, several of whom registered in advance for the event, ate a hot buffet lunch and waited for Anderson to appear, surprising organizers and sending them scurrying. 

“We’ve had 150 of these events since I’ve been here — people like Michelle Rhee after she closed schools in D.C. and (former New York City Schools Chancellor) Joel Klein when he was very controversial,” said Rick Hess, director of education policy for the conservative think tank. “Never before had such a disruption threatened in such a way.”

After some delay, a staffer announced that Anderson would deliver her talk in a room two floors below without an audience, news that was met with howls of protest. [emphasis mine]

Yes, heaven forbid anyone be around when Anderson gives her little spiel about how awesome things are going in Newark...

This is what happens when you subvert democracy and keep people from having a voice. Golly, I wonder why Newark's citizens aren't allowed to have a say in how their schools are run?

Oh, yeah, that...

ADDING MORE: Bob weighs in:

Turnamian warned the nervous biddies who run the AEI of the dangerous “security breach” and tried to have some of them evicted. Meanwhile, the 11:30 a.m. program was delayed. The AEI folks then said Anderson’s talk would be given elsewhere, perhaps in a lavatory or slop closet somewhere in the building–then finally gave up and canceled Anderson’s antic road show. The Washington Post, however, reported Anderson may have given the speech “without an audience.”

Making us wonder: If Cami gave a speech and no one was there to hear it, would it still be a pack of lies?

Yes, folks, AEI sponsored Anderson in a speech that nobody attended. I'm sure the crowd loved it...

NJDOE Can't Get Its Story Straight on Standardized Tests

What is the purpose of standardized testing?

Why is it so important for every one of New Jersey’s (and the rest of the nation's) students in Grades 3 through 8 — and a whole host of high school students taking the new end-of-course assessments — to devote an enormous amount of their instructional time to taking standardized tests? Why should their teachers rewrite their curricula to align with these tests? Why should taxpayers spend a boatload of money on these tests, rather than put the funds into our children’s classrooms?

And why shouldn’t parents have the option to opt their children out of these tests if they don’t believe they are in the best interests of their children?

On the day before Halloween, NJDOE Commissioner David Hespe released a memo that spelled out his reasoning for why it is so very important that New Jersey’s students take the new PARCC (Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers) tests coming out this year. To paraphrase Hespe, the primary reason that kids should take these tests is because it’s the law. His references to both federal and state regulations are, to my reading, little better than thinly-veiled threats against schools and parents: get your kids in front of their screens on testing day – or else.

But in an effort to give an educational reason for this massive testing regime, Hespe also tries to put a happy face on the PARCC:

In speaking with parents and students, it is perhaps most important to outline the positive reasons that individual students should participate in the PARCC examinations. Throughout a student’s educational career, the PARCC assessments will provide parents with important information about their child’s progress toward meeting the goal of being college or career ready. The PARCC assessments will, for the first time, provide detailed diagnostic information about each individual student’s performance that educators, parents and students can utilize to enhance foundational knowledge and student achievement. PARCC assessments will include item analysis which will clarify a student’s level of knowledge and understanding of a particular subject or area of a subject. The data derived from the assessment will be utilized by teachers and administrators to pinpoint areas of difficulty and customize instruction accordingly. Such data can be accessed and utilized as a student progresses to successive school levels. [emphasis mine]

All you parents and teachers and taxpayers and students who are complaining about the PARCC just don't understand: this is for your own good! The tests are “diagnostic"! They are going to be used to “customize instruction”! Everyone agrees about this!

Everyone, that is, except Hepse’s own Assistant Commissioner and Chief Performance Officer, Bari Erlichson:

CHRIS TIENKEN, ASST. PROF. OF EDUCATION ADMINISTRATION, SETON HALL UNIVERSITY: So I think it's important to note that, based on the psychometric literature on testing and how you use tests, for a test to be diagnostic -- that means, truly helpful to a teacher, truly able to tell you where a student is with a specific skill -- there needs to be at least 25 items for that specific skill to reach a reliability where you can make a decision about what an individual student knows. 

Now I haven't been lucky enough to see the PARCC. So I guess I'm going to ask the question: are there 25 questions per specific skill on the PARCC test, so teachers and parents really have an understanding of what kids know at the specific skill level? 

MODERATOR: You can answer that if you wanted to real quickly. 

BARI ERLICHSON, ASST. COMMISSIONER CHIEF PERFORMANCE OFFICER, NJDOE: So, the word "skill" here is hard to sort of parse and try to understand... 

TIENKEN: OK, inferential comprehension. Let's take that. Are there 25 questions on inferential comprehension? 

ERLICHSON: In terms of testing the full breadth and depth of the standards in every grade level, yes, these are going to be tests that in fact are reliable and valid at multiple cluster scores, which is not true today in our NJASK. But there’s absolutely a… the word "diagnostic" here is also very important. As Jean sort of spoke to earlier: these are not intended to be the kind of through-course — what we’re talking about here, the PARCC end-of-year/end-of-course assessments — are not intended to be sort of the through-course diagnostic form of assessments, the benchmark assessments, that most of us are used to, that would diagnose and be able to inform instruction in the middle of the year.

These are in fact summative test scores that have a different purpose than the one that we’re talking about here in terms of diagnosis.

TIENKEN: So they’re not diagnostic at the individual level, and so it’s going to be difficult for teachers to look at these scores, especially when they get them back in September and October from kids who are no longer in their class, to get fine-grained information about specific skills or standards or sub-clusters — whatever we want to call them — there’s just not enough questions on the test to do that. Thank you.

Oh, dear…

Bravo to Chris Tienken for getting right to the heart of the matter; maybe now we can all drop the spin and talk honestly. Government-mandated standardized tests are not and were not ever supposed to be used to “diagnose” students and "inform instruction.” The only purpose of standardized tests is to impose accountability measures on teachers and schools.

Since the passage of No Child Left Behind, no child takes a standardized test as a diagnostic tool, intended to help her teachers differentiate her instruction. The stated reason for these tests is so those in positions of authority can use the scores to justify any number of consequences for schools that are "in need of improvement,” including closure, restructuring, and charter conversion (all measures, incidentally, that have little to no research to support them). Since Race To The Top, the tests are also used in ways that are innumerate and inappropriate to assess teacher effectiveness.

These are the only reasons for these tests. Bari Erlichson is smart enough and honest enough to admit it; too bad her boss doesn’t understand what she does.

Of course, since there is no diagnostic value to the PARCC or any other standardized test, there’s no reason for every child in so many grades and courses to have to take them. We would be much better off using sampling methodologies: it would be far more appropriate, far less intrusive, and far less costly.

I know I’m rough on NJDOE, but this time I am going to give Bari Erlichson her due for speaking the truth in contradiction to the company line. She is absolutely right: there is no diagnostic value in the PARCC. It is not intended to inform instruction; it is not useful for a child’s teachers. Which begs a question:

If the PARCC isn’t going to help students, why should they spend so much time taking it, and why should so much of their instruction revolve around it?

We're doing it all for you, kid...

UPDATE: I did the transcription in a noisy airport. Back home, I made a few very small corrections.

Newark's Superintendent Faces the Facts About Charter Schools

We just had a truly pivotal moment here in New Jersey regarding the debate about charter schools. Cami Anderson, State Superintendent of Newark and a huge backer of charters, just admitted publicly that the sector is not serving the same children as the public schools:

Board member Arcelio Aponte, a Newark native, gave Anderson praise for the gains she presented in the high schools, where test scores and graduation rates have risen in her three years and dropout rates fallen. 

But then he turned to her elementary schools, where student test scores actually showed a four-point drop in both language arts and math in the four years since Anderson took the job, to 36 percent and 46 percent passing, respectively. 

“I’m puzzled to see how those are trending downward,” Aponte said. 

Anderson’s answer proved a complicated one, saying there was a mix of factors involved. She said there had been ups and downs in those scores in the ensuing years.

But maybe in her most provocative answer -- and one to surely fuel further debate in her city -- she pointed to the growing charter school presence in the district as a contributing factor, saying the alternative schools were drawing students from her schools.

“We’re losing the higher-performing students to charters, and the needs [in district schools] have gotten larger,” Anderson said. 

At another point, Anderson specifically cited some of the district’s highest performing charter schools as clearly serving a different set of students than in some of her toughest schools, “where there are 35 percent if students with special needs.” 

“I’m not saying they are out there intentionally skimming, but all of these things are leading to a higher concentration of the neediest kids in fewer [district] schools,” she said. [emphasis mine]

That is a remarkable admission. It is also, as we pointed out in our new report on New Jersey's charter schools, completely accurate, and true across the entire state.

Fewer free-lunch eligible students, way fewer Limited English Proficiency students, and fewer Hispanic students.

Far fewer students with special education needs.

And far fewer students with the most costly special education needs. Charters do not serve the same types of students as public district schools. Yes, there is some variation; yes, some charters do better than others. But as a sector, charter schools just aren't pulling their weight. Further, as Bruce Baker recently showed, the results New Jersey's charters are getting as a sector aren't really that spectacular, even when using the state's own metrics to account for the differences in student populations.

Anderson, confronted with her own rather tepid outcomes at NPS, has decided to face this rather obvious truth. I'm encourage to see that; however, I'm also bothered that she won't change her strategy for serving the children of Newark in the face of this evidence:

Still, Anderson said that the district’s controversial universal enrollment system – where families go through a central process for both charter and district schools – was aimed to address the disparities. 

She said the One Newark system could help set what she called as a middle ground between districts that had fully embraced charters and those more resistant. “Let’s say there will be a third way, where we get the best of the innovation, and the best of what district has to offer,” she said.

But what, exactly, does she mean by "innovation"? Is it the segregation Anderson just admitted is taking place in Newark's charter sector? Where, in her own words, NPS is "losing the higher-performing students to charters"? How is that at all "innovative"?

Maybe Anderson thinks that "innovation" is paying young teachers more to work a longer school day, like they do at the "successful" Newark charters. But what's her plan for getting the money to do this? Her boss, Chris Christie, doesn't seem to be the sort of guy who wants to put more money into New Jersey's urban schools. How will she bring this "innovation" to the entire district?

Is she planning on waging a war against Newark's senior teachers, firing them after years of service, simply because they make more money than their younger colleagues? Is churning the teaching staff of NPS the "innovation" Anderson wants to take away from the charters? If so, she'll likely wind up with a staff that is less experienced:

That's certainly cheaper for the state, but is it good, particularly in the long-term, for Newark's children?

Maybe the "innovation" is attrition, where charters like North Star shed kids as they move through each grade.

It's certainly "innovative" to raise your graduation rates by losing students, but I'm guessing that's not quite the "innovation" Newark is looking for...

Give Cami Anderson credit for acknowledging some basic truths about her plan to turn Newark into a portfolio district: it is clear that charter schools, as a sector, do not serve the same children as district schools. If an individual charter wants to make the case that they are reflecting the overall NPS population, they are welcome to try -- but there's no debate that the charter population for the sector is completely different.

But Anderson -- and, for that matter, advocates for Newark's charter schools -- still needs to take the next step. There is no evidence that charter school "innovations" are replicable on a large scale.

Regular readers here have been reading my debates with spokespeople for TEAM Academy, the Newark branch of the nation charter management organization KIPP. Like their national colleagues, the TEAM folks get very put out when anyone suggests charters aren't serving the same types of children as their district hosts. They have a whole rationale for this, and I will grant you that some of it is valid: as charters go, TEAM does better in several ways than many others in their sector.

But, as Julian Vasquez Heilig reminds us in this 2013 interview with KIPP's Mike Feinberg, even the most ardent charter cheerleaders admit their "innovations" are destined to be limited:

Diane Ravitch once asked KIPP to take over an entire district. Do you want that to happen anytime soon?

We’re not crazy enough. We’re too smart. We differentiate between what we do for schools. We don’t turn around schools. We make good schools.

Reflection: ***This only applies under the KIPP name, he has a spinoff 501c3 called Philo that will handle this for KIPP. More later in the interview.

What about the critics that say KIPP does not serve Special Education students? Do you turn Special Education students away from KIPP?

[From the early days of KIPP] we now have a different situation with Special Education. Since starting with Pre-K, we had a whole bunch more Special Education kids. Two months later, we know why you child is running into walls, they are blind. At the middle school level we now have full spectrum autisms. Parents are looking for a specialized schools later in life so we didn’t used to see as many Special Education students.

When we had two middle schools, one parent whose child was blind who looked into whether KIPP would be a good spot. We were honest and said and certainly try to sign up and come. We don’t have any staff or any other blind students. The parent looked at Houston ISD and chose to go there. [After a pause, he said this last happened in 2001].

Reflection: For context, after my conversation about KIPP data and disagreement with Jonathan Alter on Melissa Harris-Perry, I received a letter from someone in Houston on KIPP and Special Education. See Another “Dirty Little Secret”?: KIPP, Charters, and Special Education

What about non-corporate community-based charters and Special Education students? 

It is very hard for a mom and pop charter with 300 kids to do that. It is fair to ask KIPP Houston to do all this. We don’t have a choice. Its open enrollment.

Reflection: Amy Williams, one of my doctoral students, has nearly completed her dissertation. It focuses on Special Education spending in charters of different types (Corporate, Community-Based and Intergovernmental). We will post a series on the findings about Special Education students and funding from this dissertation once she graduates.

That's very telling, on multiple levels:

- KIPP admits they can't do what they do for an entire school district. Feinberg himself gives an example of a student whose family thought about "choosing" KIPP, but didn't because her learning disability required special needs.

In a choice system, nobody should be surprised that families will "choose" to send their children to schools that serve students similar to their children. As Matt DiCarlo says:

In any case, charter advocates should (and did) condemn the practices in the Reuters article. However, it’s important to note that the school choice vision not only entails some degree of sorting and segregation of students based on needs, abilities and interests, but may actually require it in order to work. It makes little sense for supporters (or opponents) to imply otherwise. [emphasis mine]

DiCarlo goes on to make a point I've made many times: "choice" and student "segregation" have far more to do with between-district differences than anything that charters are doing. But what have to ask: are charters ameliorating these differences, or making them worse?

- Feinberg seems to think the only way to get equivalent special education populations in charter schools is to ramp up enrollments to a critical mass where the charter can actually provide services. I certainly agree it's unreasonable to ask a small charter to take on the task of educating children with the most costly disabilities. But why should anyone think these students will do better under a large, nationally-affiliated charter system run by non-state actors?

At this point, the case law is clear: charter schools are not public schools. Families don't have the same rights and expectations for transparency and accountability when they enroll in charter schools. We are entering new territory here when we entertain the notion of charter schools taking on larger numbers of students who have higher-cost special needs. Will parents have the ability to advocate for their children in the same way they currently do in public district schools? Will they be able to take their grievances to higher authorities, accountable to voters, as they currently can in district public schools?

I have my doubts. I just don't think charters -- even the large national chains -- are set up to educate these children. I don't think they have the experience, I don't think they have the facilities, I don't think they have the governance structure, and I don't think they will be able to recruit the personnel. But no matter what I think -- why would we take the chance?

The notion that there is any evidence a portfolio system will serve all children better than a well-funded district system is the stuff of libertarian fantasies, promulgated by reformy folks who clearly have little idea of the realities of schooling.

Anderson has been in the thralls of these people for far too long. I'm glad she's coming around to some of the realities of charter school expansion, but she hasn't gone nearly far enough. There is no evidence charter expansion will better serve all students, and plenty of evidence it will lead to greater segregation but race, class, and special education need. 

Again, individual charters may make their cases, but a frank look at the sector does not inspire confidence.

Don't tell us the facts about charters - turn around and tell him.

Charter Schools: Why Poverty Measures Matter

What I'm going to say in this post is important.

Yes, it's quanty and it has scary graphs and stuff, but I'm going to ask you to trust me and stay until the end. Because if you care about education policy, and if you care about the debate over school "choice," you must understand what I'm trying to say here.

All of the graphs are from my new report on New Jersey's charter schools. The data is publicly available and replicable.

People smarter about the numbers than I am have tried to make the same point I'm going to make here -- apparently without luck. I don't know if that's because certain reformy types can't understand what follows, or because they won't. From my perspective, anyone willing to think a little can get this, so there really is "no excuse" (heh) for not comprehending this critical point of policy.

Ready?

Let's suppose you live in Newark, NJ, one of the most economically disadvantaged communities in the nation. You're a single parent of three children. You're offered two jobs, each doing equal work. One pays $30,615 a year; one pays $43,568.

Which job will you take? Obviously, the higher paying one. Understand, you are still going to have a tough time of it: it is very, very hard to raise a family of four in the metro New York area on a little more than $40 thousand a year. But it's even harder to raise that same family on $30 thousand. In a city like Newark, where the majority of families are living in economic disadvantage, making $43,568 is a sign of relative advantage compared to the much of the rest of the city.

Certainly, you're not advantaged compared to the families in Millburn or Montclair, and any assistance you can get will be very helpful. But again: compared to much of the rest of Newark, you are doing relatively better.

Now, it turns out that we have a measure of economic disadvantage that distinguishes families living in relative levels of economic disadvantage. The National School Lunch Program is available to families based on their relative need. If your family is living at 130 percent or below the poverty line -- for a family of four, that's $30,615 a year -- your children qualify for free lunch. If your family is between 130 and 185 percent of the poverty line -- that's between $30,615 and $43,568 for that same family of four -- your children qualify for reduced-price lunch.

This is not a perfect measure of poverty, and there are only three levels: free lunch eligible (FL), reduced-price lunch eligible (RPL), and not eligible. But it's the best measure of student economic disadvantage we've got, and it's actually not nearly as bad as many people make it out to be.

Here's how we should think about these three levels:

FL < RPL < Not Eligible

Certainly, RPL is a worse state of economic disadvantage than Not Eligible. But it's not as bad FL. In a community where almost everyone qualifies for FL or RPL, RPL is a sign of relative economic advantage.

Anyone who thinks this statement is in any way controversial or denigrating is missing the point -- in my opinion, willingly missing the point, because it is such an easy concept to grasp. Yes, families who qualify for RPL are certainly struggling. But they aren't struggling nearly as much as families who qualify for FL. Can we all agree on this?

Good. Now let's look at Newark's schools -- charters and districts -- keeping all of the above in mind. The first graph will look at each school's population of children who qualify for either FL or RPL. District schools are blue, and charters are red:

You'll notice a few schools with relatively low concentrations of FL or RPL (together, FRPL) students. But the majority of schools in Newark have populations where at least 70 percent of the students qualify for FRPL; a sizable majority of schools have at least 80 percent FRPL. This is a community where many, many families live in economic disadvantage.

But, again, some families are struggling more than others. Here are the schools by FL percentage; again, that's 130% of the poverty line or below:

You'll notice a shift in how the red lines are distributed across the entire graph: even more than before are clustered in the bottom half, where FL rates are lower. Why is that?

It's because Newark's charters serve relatively more students who are eligible for reduced-price lunch.

See how the red lines are all clustered at the top end (notice, also, how the y-axis has changed; this is a relative difference in RPL concentrations). The charter sector in Newark serves more RPL students proportionately than the district schools. Again, I'm not saying these students aren't living in economic disadvantage -- they are. But relative to the rest of Newark, these students are better off.

Now that we've established these facts, let's explore why they might matter. As everyone knows, student population characteristics affect test scores. When a school enrolls greater numbers of children who qualify for free or reduced-price lunch, they are very likely going to have lower test scores compared to a school that enrolls fewer of those children. Here's an example from Newark, using scores on the Grade 8 English Language Arts exam:

See how as the percentage of students who qualify for FRPL goes up, the average test score for the school goes down. Yes, there's some variation, but the pattern is fairly well established.

But let's look now at just the FL rate and test scores:

You'll notice the pattern remains the same, but the dots are "tighter" to the trend line in the middle of the graph. Statistically, half of the variation in test scores can be explained by FL rates. That's stronger than the correlation above, so right away, we have a clue: in a community with large numbers of students in economic disadvantage, FL explains more of the variation in test scores than FRPL.

But let's take it one step further. How does RPL affect test scores?

Whoa! When we looked at FL and FRPL, test scores when down when the rate went up. But look at this -- we've flipped the relationship! In a community like Newark, when RPL rates go up, test scores go up!

Keep in mind that this is a relationship we'll only see if we limit our sample size to a community like Newark. If we tried to do this across the state, we wouldn't see the same relationship: that's because, relative to the entire state, RPL is a measure of economic disadvantage.

But when we limit our framework to Newark only, the relationship changes. Why? Because in Newark, RPL is a sign of relative economic advantage, not disadvantage.

Again: the charter schools in Newark enroll more RPL students than the districts. This gives them an advantage on test scores, not a disadvantage, when compared to other schools in the city. And that's why, when comparing charter schools within the city, we shouldn't use a combination of FL and RPL to measure economic disadvantage. We're much better off using FL alone: it's a better predictor, because compared to FRPL, it's the measure with more variation.

Look, I understand this stuff makes some people's heads swim, but it's really important to get it right. You can't just ignore it by saying: "Well, the charters are serving lots of kids whose families are struggling!" No one is saying they aren't; what I'm saying is that, given the data we have, we should be looking at these measures appropriately. And conflating FL with FRPL isn't appropriate.

So let's stop the spin, please. We have an issue here and it needs to be addressed clearly and honestly. Can't we all agree on this? If so, I'll agree to drop the snark.

If not...

That's all I have to say on the blog about the charter report. There are two more parts to come; I'll pick up this conversation when they are released later this year.

NJ Charter Schools: English Language Learners Barely Seen

UPDATE: I didn't write this post very well. A friend who knows lots about this area points out that I come across like I'm saying LEP weighting is not used in NJ when assigning charter schools their funding. That's not true, although the process is, to me, far from transparent and not representative of actual differences in student population characteristics.

What I am trying to rebut here is an argument that I've heard before: "Charters should get equal funding!" Well, if they have equal student populations, sure. But they don't.

Sorry for being so confusing. More to come...


My new report on New Jersey's charter schools, coauthored with Julia Sass Rubin, came out last week, and holy cats, did I strike a nerve.

I really don't see what the problem is. Everyone has known for a good long while that the charter school sector does not serve the same populations of students as their hosting district schools. Sure, there's some variation, but in the aggregate, charters just don't serve the same kids as district schools.

It's bizarre to see charter cheerleaders twist themselves in knots as they attempt to deny this obvious fact. I've already replied to the strained arguments regarding special education classifications; let's turn now to English Language Learners.

I don't know how's it's possible to have a more striking contrast. The plain fact is that the charter schools in New Jersey just aren't educating very many students who are Limited English Proficient (LEP). One charter staff member mentioned on Twitter that Newark doesn't have many LEP students. I'd argue that 9 percent is a good chunk of population, even if it's less than many of the other "Big Seven" charter host districts. But look at the charter sector for the city: not even one percent of their students are LEP.

This is important for a couple of reasons. The first is fiscal: under the original proposal for the state's school funding formula, SFRA, districts were supposed to get one-and-a-half times the funding for an LEP student. But if payments to charter schools are not adjusted based on student population characteristics (even as the charter sector complains it is being short-changed), those charters are getting more money proportionately than they should.

Charter schools shouldn't get equal funding if they don't serve equivalent students. Yes, the "90 percent" rule is supposed to help address this, as is the removal of adjustment aid from the charter funding formula. But the plain truth is that this is an inaccurate way to address the issue. As Bruce Baker has pointed out repeatedly, the data and analysis just haven't been good enough to ascertain the effects of a skewed charter population on the finances of host districts. Those making education policy have got to demand a better evaluation.

Second: we have to ask ourselves if it's a good thing for LEP students, who are not being served by the "choice" system, to be more concentrated in district schools. I'll say it again: the effects of segregation have far more to do with between-district disparities than within-district disparities. But to the extent that districts can create policies to better serve their LEP students, I am concerned that those districts may be constrained when schools start popping up all over their catchments that aren't drawing equivalent populations of students.

ELL education is hard work. I've been very fortunate in my career to work with some outstanding educators in this field; their attention to detail and to individualized student instruction is nothing short of remarkable. Finding that sweet spot between instruction in native languages and English is tricky business. Does it help them when the LEP population is confined to fewer schools? Are they going to be able to find as many opportunities to mainstream their students appropriately when the concentration of LEP students in their schools increases?

For that matter, is it good for the students in charters to be removed from neighboring students who have a different language heritage? Yes, neighborhood schools reflect neighborhoods, and neighborhoods are often segregated. But shouldn't charter schools, supposedly unfettered by boundaries, help ameliorate this segregation, instead of making it worse?

These are serious questions that deserve serious answers. But we won't get to the discussion if we keep on denying the truth. And the truth is this: New Jersey's charter schools are barely serving those students who are English language learners.

More to come on New Jersey's charter schools this week.