Tag Archives: Center on Reinventing Public Education

Test Score and School Governance “Miracles” Debunked in New Reports

Uncategorized, , , , , , , ,

March 29, 2016

Two key education reform strategies being implemented in the Minneapolis Public Schools withered a bit yesterday, after being exposed to some data-driven sunlight.

First came a policy brief published by the National Education Policy Center (NEPC), based at the University of Colorado-Boulder. The NEPC, which casts a welcome, skeptical eye on today’s “transformational” education reform ideas, zeroed in on the “portfolio” district model, which Minneapolis has been operating under since at least 2010. 

CRPE, purveyor of “portfolio” school reform strategies

The portfolio model is rooted in the principles of the stock market, where “underperforming” stocks–or schools–will be quickly shed in favor of different stocks, or schools, that promise to yield better results. The goal is profit, in the stock market, and “high performance” in the school district realm. Paradoxically, the education policy that accompanies this approach promises more freedom (“autonomy”), while insisting that schools adhere to standardized, pre-determined measures of success (test scores).

In Minneapolis, we are seeing this through the district’s promotion of “Community Partnership Schools,” heavily touted as a way to empower schools and encourage success–as long as the schools jump through someone else’s “accountability” hoops. But the NEPC brief does not simply swallow the portfolio rhetoric, even as it acknowledges that “given the struggles of urban school districts, no proposal should be easily dismissed.”

Instead, the NEPC encourages policy makers to look beyond the “spin and cherry-picked data” that has accompanied the portfolio district model (brought to Minneapolis by the national ed reform advocacy group, Center on Reinventing Public Education).

A significant problem, according to the NEPC, is that portfolio models have been sold as a way to “overcome problems of poverty and structural inequality and under-resourced schools” only through “changes to the school management structure.” A portfolio approach to school reform does not naturally confront the deep “societal inequities” that have created great concentrations of poverty in urban districts, and instead,  expects schools to close gaps without additional state funding or economic policy support.

And, it can cut out democratic decision-making, often by replacing or overriding elected school boards and state government, and putting schools in the hands of private operators or funders– mostly at the expense of poor communities of color (whose voting rights are also currently under attack in many states, as the NEPC policy brief points out).

We can see this happening before our eyes in Minneapolis, through the growing influence of MN Comeback–the privately funded, privately managed group that says it would like to completely “remake” Minneapolis’s public school system, primarily by funding the Community Partnership Schools/portfolio plan–minus public oversight.

MN Comeback is part of the billionaire-funded, Memphis-based group, Education Cities. On March 22, Education Cities published an “Education Equality Index,” designed to “measure and compare schools, cities, and states” according to student test scores. It seems the idea was to celebrate a handful of “gap-closing” miracle schools, where low-income kids are performing well on standardized tests–frequently in charter schools. This fits the narrative most likely to be supported by Education Cities’ funders, including the Walton Family Foundation, whose love for charter schools is legendary.

Sounds great, right? The problem is, Education Cities’s methodology–described as “junk” by Rutgers University professor Bruce Baker–was flawed, and has since been retracted through a contrite press release that went out on March 29. Behold the cumbersome backtracking:

Education Cities and GreatSchools have identified limitations in the interpretation of state-level Education Equality Index (EEI) scores. Our goal is to highlight states, cities and schools that are more successfully closing the achievement gap than others. We are confident that school-level and city-level EEI scores are highlighting success stories across the nation, but we have concluded that the state-level EEI scores are not the best way to compare states. Because states’ absolute EEI scores are highly correlated to the percentage of students in the state who qualify for free and reduced-price lunch, we have removed the rankings of states based on the EEI score and pace of change pending further review.

It turns out that ranking students according to test scores is not as easy as it sounds, especially when the goal is to compare kids in different states. All poor kids are not the same. All tests are not the same. Different states have different tests, with different cut scores, throwing into question who is really a “high performing” poor kid and who is not (the question is never whether or not we should have so many poor kids in the first place…). All of this makes turning kids into data points on a graph really tricky, which was quickly uncovered by consumers–and even presumed supporters–of Education Cities’ index. 

The embarrassing flaw in Education Cities’ report was that their use of data made it look like states with higher numbers of poor kids were “doing better” than states with fewer kids in poverty. That’s because poverty impacts test scores. A state with more kids in poverty is going to have a lower “achievement” gap, because it will have fewer high performing test takers, overall. 

This is why the NEPC policy report recommends states resist grasping for miraculous ed reform strategies, such as charter schools or portfolio district models. Instead, William Mathis and Kevin Wellner, who authored the report, argue that an “equity-focused” approach to boosting urban schools makes more sense, and should involve, first and foremost, adequately funding schools. 

Minnesota lawmakers are currently weighing how to spend a $900 million “surplus.” So far, it seems Governor Mark Dayton is the only one who wants to spend the bulk of this on education, with Republicans pushing for tax cuts and Democrats prioritizing transportation needs, meaning the “adequate funding” of Minneapolis’s schools might not be happening anytime soon.

Most importantly, however, all the evidence suggests that no governance approach will come close to mitigating the harms caused by policies generating concentrated poverty in our urban communities. In light of this core truth, does it make sense to privatize the management of urban schools?

—NEPC Portfolio Schools Policy Brief

No grant, no guru, no outside funding source. My work is entirely funded by my very kind and generous readers. Thank you to those who have already donated.

[Exq_ppd_form]

Creepy! CRPE “Study” Slams Minneapolis Public Schools, Falsely

Uncategorized, , , , ,

October 11, 2015

Forget data driven decision-making. Our real problem might be agenda driven data gathering, accompanied by press release journalism.

The latest episode of this comes from–where else–CRPE, or the Center on Reinventing Public Education. Through slick packaging, loads of cash, and the sheen of expertise, University of Washington-based CRPE has been able to pass themselves off as a neutral, “Washington-based education group,” in the words of Minneapolis StarTribune education reporter Alejandra Matos.

Matos wrote a “Class Act” blog post for the StarTribune on October 7. It carried this shock-inducing headline:

Study: Less than 50 percent of Minneapolis students graduate high school

The scare tactic “study” that garnered this headline was crafted by CRPE. CRPE has an agenda; let’s be clear about that.

In May, I wrote an article about CRPE for the Progressive magazine. called, “The Secret Group That Wants to Take Over Your School.” I’m not saying my article should be required reading or anything, but…it does provide a questioning, easily available look at the origins and motives of CRPE. (The Minneapolis Public Schools is one of CRPE’s “portfolio” school districts, as detailed in the article I wrote., and thus receives direction and policy guidance from CRPE.)

Here’s an excerpt from the article, in which I compare CRPE to its more well-known partner in anti-democratic crime, ALEC:

…CRPE operates in a manner that is strikingly similar to ALEC (the American Legislative Exchange Council), the secretive, powerful group funded by the Koch brothers and a large roster of corporations. Here’s a look at how the two organizations work: 

  1. Member networks: Both CRPE and ALEC have a “secret club” component, through their member networks. With ALEC, the members are state legislators. With CRPE, they are school districts from across the United States (there are currently thirty-nine of them).
  2. Network meetings: Both CRPE and ALEC host member network meetings or conferences, where a common philosophy (based on a distinct right-wing ideology) is honed, articulated, and shared.
  3. Model legislation: Both CRPE and ALEC create sample, model policies (CRPE) or “cookie-cutter bills” (ALEC) for the districts or legislators who are part of their member networks.
  4. Free-market funders: Like ALEC, CRPE is funded by very wealthy, free-market-focused special interests, including the Walton Foundation.

CRPE is a right-wing influenced group that promotes a pro-market-based education reform utopia, where islands of “high-performing,” test-driven schools will compete against one another for the best resources, teachers, students, and “results.”

To create a fertile ground for this utopian (or dystopian?) fantasy, CRPE needs to constantly dish up crisis-driven press releases, to show how shockingly failure-filled our public schools are. 

Exhibit A: Matos’ StarTribune blog post repeats–unchallenged–CRPE’s claim that “only 4 percent of all Minneapolis high school students took the ACT or SAT….”

Wait, what? Only 4 percent of Minneapolis high school students took the ACT or SAT? If ever a claim seemed ripe for a fact check, that would have to be it. 

And, a fact check, or at least a glimmer of one, did come, two days later, with a new blog post and a chastened headline:

Study of Minneapolis’ high school graduation rate is questioned

Good! But, the study probably should have been questioned–by somebody at the StarTribune–before it was passed off as news. I don’t necessarily blame the reporter, Matos, for this, because covering education today is a thankless, thorny job. And I’ve certainly made my share of mistakes. But…who is responsible for fact checking these beautifully packaged, crisis laden “studies”?

And, Matos’ writing shows growth from one CRPE blog post to the next. First, she described CRPE as nothing more than an “education group.” Upon further research and reflection, she included this description of them in her second post:

Minnesota education officials are raising questions about the methodology and the data used by the Center on Reinventing Public Education, which advocates for charter schools and opposes teacher tenure rules.

Here is a brief look at the critiques leveled against CRPE’s wishful thinking data mashup, from Matos’ post:

  • “…there are some serious questions about the way the data was analyzed, and if it was accurate,” said Josh Collins, the Minnesota Department of Education spokesman. “It’s unclear to me if there are meaningful conclusions that could be drawn from it.”
  • “…the organization’s numbers for students taking college-placement tests were far lower than the state’s estimates. CRPE used self-reported data kept by the Office of Civil Rights.”

  • “In addition to the unreliable data, state officials question the organization’s decision to compare the number of students taking the exam with a school’s entire population, instead of just juniors and seniors, who are most likely to be taking college entrance tests.”

In its own defense, CRPE acknowledged this: “There is no ‘one perfect system.'”

That may be the one reliable conclusion they give us. (A second “revised results” press release from CRPE admits no wrongdoing on their part, but “regrets the confusion,” and thanks the StarTribune and the Minneapolis Public Schools for alerting CRPE to their own errors.)

Want to get a look at CRPE’s agenda? Read their study for yourself, and watch for these words:

Scorecards, benchmarks, data, choice, options, autonomy, measurements, math and reading,  proficiency, lowest-performing, failing, radical redesign

And be sure to read CRPE’s recommendations:

We urge cities to:

• Double down on bold, evidence-based solutions. Cities must be open to any promising school—district or charter—if it opens up new possibilities. City leaders must address their weaknesses head on and search widely for new solutions.

• Recognize that the hard work ahead cannot be the work of schools alone. Cities like Memphis and New Orleans that are radically redesigning their schools and school systems are seeing results, but even these efforts need continued, coordinated support from teacher preparation programs and social and health services.

They also need city and state leaders to support them when they have to make hard decisions—new leadership, turnaround, etc.—about failing schools.

This is the language of a school reform model rooted in capitalism, competition, and a race to the “top” (of…?). This is the language of outsiders who want to take over school systems, and apply social engineering, radical overhauls, and speedy, “results-oriented” pressure–but at whose expense?  And whose benefit?

Scary headlines, slick press releases, and faulty data, sloppily delivered, will not boost graduation rates in Minneapolis.

Lesson learned? Beware CRPE groups that seek to “weaponize our emotions” around education, for their own end game.

Please consider donating to keep this blog rolling! Your support is crucial and much appreciated.

[Exq_ppd_form]