@LisaLeslie joins the chorus during #afcpolicysummit: parents are the key to making changes in #schoolchoice. #edreform #edchat #education2 hours agoReplyRetweet
@LisaLeslie at #afcpolicysummit on having more celebrities on #schoolchoice bandwagon: they get it. Biggest challenge getting involved: time2 hours agoReplyRetweet
@LisaLeslie at #afcpolicysummit: left her newly-built home and moved 45 minutes away for better school #schoolchoice #edreform2 hours agoReplyRetweet
@LisaLeslie at #afcpolicysummit: I know what it's like to be under served and be stuck in that zip code #schoolchoice #edreform2 hours agoReplyRetweet
@LisaLeslie talks about being underserved in education at #afcpolicysummit. Was on the honor roll, but didn't score well on the SAT.2 hours agoReplyRetweet
@kevinpchavous at #afcpolicysummit: we need each and every option for our children. One size does not fit all. #schoolchoice #edreform3 hours agoReplyRetweet
Sandeep Thomas got his H.S. degree online. He's speaking today at the #afcpolicysummit, talking about #schoolchoice and opportunities3 hours agoReplyRetweet
RT @PEFNC: Doug Tuthill, Step Up pres: lowest performing students using scholarships, keep up with students across country3 hours agoReplyRetweet

New evidence in the field of cherry-picking

In a Florida House committee last week, a dutiful Democratic representative objected to a bill expanding Tax Credit Scholarships by raising a common objection. “I could run a successful school as well if I could cherry-pick my students, ’’ said Rep. Scott Randolph, “unlike the public schools who take everyone, both low-performing and high-performing.”

Leave aside the fact that the scholarship to which he referred is available only to students whose household income qualifies for free or reduced-price lunch and that the actual average income this year is only 12 percent above poverty. Randolph’s question persists in the national debate, and a new, as-yet-unpublished academic study gives us one of the most complete answers to date about which students choose these private options and why.

The short answer is this: In Florida, the students who choose these scholarships are struggling academically and come from school districts that don’t give them many other options.

The research is titled “Selection in means-tested school voucher program” and was conducted by University of California-Davis education professor Cassandra Hart with help from respected Northwestern University researcher David Figlio. It takes the measure of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship, which is now 10 years old and has 38,000 students in nearly 1,200 private schools. Figlio has previously determined, with four straight years of consistent data, that students choosing the scholarship are among the lowest performers at the public schools they leave behind. This report goes further in providing context.

The students who choose the scholarship:

  • Were more likely to be black and were poorer than other students on free or reduced-price lunch in public schools.
  • Had lower standardized test scores than other students on free or reduced-price lunch in public schools before entering the program.
  • Were previously in public schools with low aggregate academic performance.
  • Were previously in public schools with higher rates of violent incidents and out-of-school suspensions.
  • Were previously in public schools in which principals were more likely to report that student disruptions interfered with learning.
  • Were previously in public schools in which teachers were more likely to report they spent too much time on discipline and too little time working with low-performing students.
  • Were more likely to live near a wide variety of private schools.
  • Were less likely to have public school options beyond their assigned neighborhood school.

“From a policy perspective,” Dr. Hart wrote, “examining public school contexts is important because these policies are often justified as a way to help students exit underperforming, unsafe schools. Knowing that these policies do in fact attract applicants in poor schools is useful in gauging the success of the voucher policies in opening up choices to families in low-quality schools.”

Just as important, the research suggests that, at least in Florida, there is no skimming the educational cream. These are students who are among the lowest academic performers and their parents go through an extensive application process to verify their income and usually pay hundreds of dollars out of pocket to make up the difference between the $4,011 scholarship and actual tuition and fees. As Hart noted, “These time and financial costs suggest that parents are unlikely to apply on a whim. Rather, some specific factors are likely impelling them to apply.”

The people who administer the program in Florida and work with the parents who apply for scholarships typically describe them as desperate. Their children are on a downward path academically, and they’re just looking for an option that might work. In other words, these are not students that most educators would associate with the words “cherry pick.”

Read full story · Comments { 4 }

The exception that disproves the rule

Public educators sometimes criticize private school choice options by contrasting them with district-run public schools they say must accept all applicants. While that take-all-comers assertion is certainly true for school districts, a Miami Herald story from last week reminds us it is not necessarily true for individual district schools. As Herald reporter Cara Fitzpatrick put it, “Securing a spot in Broward County’s most selective public schools isn’t a task for the faint of heart.”

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The breadth of Florida’s choices for parents

The latest Alliance For School Choice yearbook once again does a remarkable job of cataloging the progress of private learning options across the nation, and Florida again sits at the top. But the vouchers and tax credit scholarships are only part of what distinguishes the transformation of public education in the Sunshine State. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in Miami-Dade, the nation’s fourth largest school district.

At a meeting of the School Board last week, superintendent Alberto Carvalho laid out a slate of 18 new magnet programs that include such offerings as a conservatory of arts, an iTech focusing on video gaming development and a technology-intensive program at a museum of science. “Parents will shop based on what they believe is the best fit, the best option for their kids,” he told the board.

Miami-Dade, with 70 percent of its 347,000 students on free or reduced-price lunch and 90 percent of them Hispanic or black, takes parental choice to a different level. It opened its first lab school more than a half-century ago and its first magnet schools nearly three decades ago, and reports that four of every 10 students attend a school of their choosing.

The district has 340 magnet programs in more than 100 elementary, middle and high schools with enrollment that exceeded 43,000 students last year. It has 25,000 students who choose schools through open enrollment practices and another 22,000 in career and professional academies. Nearly 10,000 low-income students choose Tax Credit Scholarships and 4,000 disabled students choose McKay Scholarships to private schools. Its charter school enrollment alone, roughly 39,000 students, is large enough to rank among the top 150 school districts in the nation.

Miami-Dade is, to a significant degree, the new definition of public education. Parents there are given legitimate options, whether their children are Ivy League material or struggling to keep on grade level, and the administrative team embrace a culture of choice. As Perla Tabares Hantman, the Havana-born board chairwoman put it: “This is about choice and giving the parents the opportunity to decide what is best for their children.”

That’s one reason Florida continues to be a place to watch.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

Ranking reform, embracing audacity

When the Wall Street Journal blessed 2011 as the Year of School Choice, few advocates for public and private school options passed up the chance to celebrate the benediction. But the American Legislative Exchange Council knows that rhapsody will take the education reformer only so far. ALEC’s latest annual report card on American K-12 education, released this week, doubles as guidebook for the reformer who prefers “broad, rather than incremental, reform,” as authors Matthew Ladner and Dan Lips write. It’s a brazen assignment, but the Journal was right. It’s been a brazen year.

Moves to enhance tenure reform, merit pay, and transparency in public school performance all receive praise from ALEC, but it’s the “roaring comeback of parental choice” that signals the promise for academic gains. When Ladner and Lips note that low-income students in Washington, D.C., have made outsized leaps on the fourth- and eighth-grade NAEP reading and math exams, they point to an expanded public and private school market, combined with an audacious array of policy changes that recognized district teachers by their merit and eliminated administrative blockades to innovation. “Hall of Shame members ought to rethink their improvement strategies,” the authors conclude, referring to the bottom-dwelling states that have stumbled in their NAEP gains and, which incidentally, have done little to enhance choice, tenure reform and transparency.

Indiana has joined Florida as ALEC’s gold-standard state, adopting an A-through-F school-grading system, limiting collective bargaining among teachers and establishing what will ultimately be the most expansive school voucher program in the nation. Indiana’s comprehensive reforms now constitute ALEC’s model omnibus bill. And, Ladner and Lips assert, “reformers should study that model bill carefully.” But they don’t note that the state’s testing regimen will capture both public and publicly financed private school students, a standard of transparency that proponents and skeptics alike will scrutinize heavily and a standard that continues to be divisive in the choice movement.

The authors, too, are largely silent on the development of common core standards and assessments, now adopted by nearly every state in the wake of the Race to the Top strategies that embraced many of the reforms lauded in the ALEC report. That silence is not surprising, considering ALEC is one of the most vocal opponents to the common core model. But the gold-standard states of Florida and Indiana are among those that have adopted that model, and former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, a revered figure in the report card, implored ALEC last summer to view the standards “as a floor from which states can build a framework of high-quality and rigorous coursework that equips all students with the knowledge and skills for success in life.”

The authors conclude the report by looking ahead to the promise of digital learning, which they argue is “a potentially game-changing reform that should appeal to a broad and diverse coalition of parents and constituents.” They’re right to call it game-changing, but the coalition won’t be as easy to build as they claim. Just ask The New York Times. But it might just be true, as they assert, that we’re at the “end of the beginning in the battle for K-12 reform.” Such a coalition is more conceivable now than ever.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

The trouble with California’s test scores

Public school test scores are almost always suspect. The tests are rarely secure, and the actual questions are often known to teachers in advance. Excluding low-performing students is easy, and large numbers of the weakest students never get tested because they have dropped out.

On November 7, 2011, Los Angeles Times lead education writer Howard Blume wrote a front-page story about teacher cheating, with one anonymous teacher quote after another admitting that “everyone” cheated. As a result, California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) test scores have gone up every year for the last nine years, at a time when objective and secure national measurements such as the National Assessment of Educational Progress and the SAT have remained flat.

This next summer our organization, California Parents for Educational Choice, which is closely allied with the American Center for School Choice, will do a publicity campaign timed to coincide with the release of the STAR test scores dramatizing the profound disconnect of the STAR with the NAEP and SAT, and also publicizing statewide the findings on rampant cheating of the Los Angeles Times.

That test score disconnect is present as well in almost all other states. Such a publicity campaign would be easy for activists in other states as well.

In previous blogs posts, I have pointed out that per-student spending numbers in public schools are deceptively low, and that published high school dropout rates are untruthfully low. Taken together, of course this means that the financial resources going into our public schools are understated, while the two main measurements of outputs, test scores and graduation rates, are deceptively high.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

What history can teach our school choice debates today

It’s hard to miss Dick Morris. The former presidential aide and Fox News contributor has raised the volume on his rhetoric during the last couple of days to promote National School Choice Week, and Education Sector’s Kevin Carey was right to note that Morris does more harm to his cause when he harangues the interests and performance of public schools so viciously. But in an otherwise enjoyable essay for The Atlantic, Carey misses an opportunity to further explore how the choice movement evolved to become, as he says, so ideologically “ghettoized.” Along the way, he succeeds in guiding us only to familiar territory.

As many do, Carey traces the movement’s roots to Milton Friedman’s 1955 essay, “The Role of Government in Education,” but he dispatches the left turn that school choice made in the 1970s as if it was a political afterthought. In reality, the means-tested policies that facilitate public and private school choice today more closely resemble the proposals from the political left and center that surfaced between the Johnson and Reagan administrations than anything that Milton Friedman sought to test. Greater awareness of that history might not transform the debate, but it could help to lift it from isolation.

Lost to history are the rich Chicago radio debates that took place between Milton Friedman and Jack Coons, who was to champion the cause for equity in the financing of public education and emerged as one of the most stalwart liberal advocates for school choice. To Coons, the poor would show us the right way to develop a proper test for parental choice that extended to private and religious schools, under regulated conditions. He and colleague Stephen Sugarman developed their centrist theory and constitutional framework in their 1978 book, Education by Choice, which drew the attention of a Democratic congressman from California, Leo Ryan. Ryan urged Coons to draft an initiative, saying he would raise the money and organize the campaign. This all happened, of course, before Ryan left to investigate reports of human rights abuses at the Peoples Temple in Jonestown, where he was murdered. Coons and Sugarman began the campaign anyway, confident the money would somehow appear. “Both libertarians and teachers unions laid their curse, and the thing died,” Coons would later write.

Around that time, a newly elected Democratic senator named Daniel Patrick Moynihan crafted a measure with Republican Senator Bob Packwood that would have awarded up to $500 in tax credits to families paying private or parochial school tuition. At one point, 24 Democrats and 26 Republicans in the Senate ranging from Sen. George McGovern to Sen. Barry Goldwater signed on as co-sponsors. Moynihan would write that, when the bill was heard, there was a palpable strength felt in the chamber “of the views pressed upon us that this was a measure middle-class Americans felt they had coming to them.” Even soon-to-be elected President Jimmy Carter promised, in a campaign message to Catholic school administrators, that he was “committed to finding constitutionally acceptable methods of providing aid to parents whose children attend parochial schools.” That was before Carter received the first-ever endorsement from the National Education Association. After he took office, the Moynihan-Packwood measure eventually fizzled.

And this flirtation with history cannot forget the forgettable experiment at Alum Rock, California, home to the nation’s first test of school vouchers. Although the experiment took place under the auspices of the Nixon administration, the project began with a team led by the liberal Harvard social scientist Christopher Jencks. “Today’s public school has a captive clientele,” Jencks would write in Kappan. “As a result, it in turn becomes the captive of a political process designed to protect the interests of its clientele.” It was that political process that eventually doomed Alum Rock to a compromise that agreed only to choice within public schools and guaranteed employment for the instructional staff. Just six of the district’s 24 schools volunteered to be the educational guinea pig. The experiment lasted just five years.

This isn’t just a trip down memory lane. What links these initiatives is a call for equity, and that has precedence in today’s targeted voucher and tax credit scholarship laws in Milwaukee, Florida and most other states that have initiated private school options for the poor and disabled, and it has precedence in the positioning of our more innovative educational experiments in the inner city. I wish the organizers for National School Choice Week would do more to point to this Democratic heritage when they highlight the areas where we see growing bipartisan support for choice today, and I wish commentators like Kevin Carey would stop dismissing these points in history as if they had no relevance to our dialogue today. That job might be easier if people like Dick Morris stepped out of the spotlight for a moment.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

On virtual education, some districts are learning to adapt

Four school districts on Florida’s east coast are joining with Indian River State College and Houghton Mifflin Harcourt, the world’s largest publisher of educational materials, to form a regional virtual school to compete with the Florida Virtual School (FLVS).  Florida recently passed a law requiring every student to pass an online course to graduate and Florida districts are worried they’ll lose revenue if students meet this requirement by taking FLVS courses.  We want “to keep the resources within the region,” said St. Lucie Schools Superintendent Michael Lannon.

After years of trying to protect their market share by denying parents choices, Florida school districts are increasingly acknowledging that parental choice is the new normal and they’ll need to improve their programs if they’re going to keep parents in district schools.  Hopefully this greater emphasis on customer satisfaction will benefit students, educators, taxpayers and parents.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }

A salute to the new school choice czar

The word is out. This blog’s talented editor and creator, Adam Emerson, is headed off to the respected Fordham Institute to become its first-ever “School Choice Czar.” This is good news for the cause that is at the heart of redefinED, even if it makes me wince.

We asked Adam more than a year ago to create a blog that was thought-provoking yet civil; to create an alternative to some of the more hyperbolic and polarizing discourse that consumes much of the school choice debate.

Obviously, Adam has delivered. His most recent move, to form a partnership with the American Center for School Choice, has brought to redefinED some distinguished voices who represent a bipartisan, centrist, social justice approach to choice. Given the considerable increase in traffic over the past few months, readers seem to be as impressed as we are.

Adam has set the bar high, where it should be, and we’re committed to building on what he has started. But for now, we take a moment to offer a salute.

In his new position as Fordham’s director of parental choice, Adam will “coordinate the Institute’s school choice-related research projects, policy analyses and commentaries on issues including vouchers, charter schools, homeschooling, and digital learning.” He’ll also keep his voice alive through a new blog, Choice Words, at Fordham. We encourage you to keep plugged in to what he has to say, because Adam is a rising star whose voice is helping redefine the contours of public education.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

From charters to vouchers — the next evolution for liberal Democrats

About two million American children now attend more than 5,000 charter schools nationwide. Although it is likely to take some time for charter schools to be the educators of even 10 percent of our children, they are heading in that direction and appear to have become an entrenched feature of our public education system with charter schools now operating in more than 40 states and the District of Columbia.

Attractive charter school regimes have these fundamental features:

  1. Charter schools receive enough money to offer a good quality program. (In fact, many charter schools are now unfairly financially starved — especially if they have to pay for their school buildings from a funding package that envisions payment only for current operating expenses.)
  2. Charter schools may not select among applicants, but rather must admit all who apply, accepting their pupils by lottery if there are too many applicants for the available slots.
  3. Charter schools may not charge families tuition (which would price out low-income families), but must rather live on the per-pupil allocation they receive from government plus any additional moneys they, like other public schools, are able to obtain from charitable or foundation fund raising.
  4. Applicants can obtain a charter fairly easily, so long as they present a plan that is sensible, both educationally and financially. (Unfortunately, many charter-hostile local school districts reject deserving charter applicants, so appeal processes are vital.
  5. Charter school operators are given great autonomy in setting the mission, pedagogy, teacher hiring policies, and curriculum of their schools, even if their pupils are required to take the standardized tests required of traditional public school pupils, with the school-wide scores disclosed as in other public schools. (In some states excessive regulation makes the charter school law largely a sham.)

This embrace of public school choice seems widely supported across the political spectrum. Indeed, beginning with President Clinton, three successive administrations have strongly supported charter schools, and charter schools are one of the linchpins for President Obama’s education reform efforts. A significant number of liberals have recognized the importance of providing lower income families with access to desirable schools beyond the traditional public schools. Moreover, along with charter schools has come the widespread adoption of broader public school choice plans that in many communities now permit families to select from among several regular public schools as well as charter schools. Before this embrace of school choice within the public sector, families who were not financially able to pay for private schools exercised choice primarily by moving to where they thought the schools best suited their children, an option frequently unavailable to low-income families.

It’s time for the next evolution in our liberal thinking. The many liberal Democrats who support public school choice including charter schools should cease their opposition to progressive school voucher and tax credit scholarship plans targeted on the poor. Progressive plans precisely resemble the quality charter school programs described above and also provide access to more school choices for low-income families. Opposing these plans deliberately disrespects the values of those low-income families with strong desires for their children to attend faith-based schools, the one type of school that charter schools cannot be. Moreover, usually these faith-based schools have been fixtures with deep roots serving low-income communities for decades. Yet the changing economics are rapidly diminishing this ability to serve the poor and failing to act has already significantly reduced the numbers of these schools.

My wife and I have a number of friends who are liberal  Democrats like us and who pay or have paid to send their children to religious  schools. Many of our national leaders, including presidents, pay or have paid to send their children to faith-based schools. Although some low-income families struggle mightily and manage to do the same or who luckily receive financial aid to make this possible for their children, households of modest means are generally and increasingly priced out of this option. Progressive private school choice plans could change that.

Clearly these private school choice plans that include faith-based school options are constitutional, as the U.S. Supreme Court has now upheld both the Cleveland school voucher plan and the Arizona tax-credit scholarship program.  This is legally a “free exercise” issue, not an “establishment of religion” issue that so many liberals seem to miscast it as. To be sure, there may still be some state constitutional barriers to certain types of private school choice plans that include faith-based schools as an option, but there are no such barriers in many states.

I find this hostility towards religion in the school choice setting closely analogous to the position of those who say they respect a woman’s right to choose to have an abortion, but who then oppose the payment for abortion services by Medicaid.  After all, just as Roe v. Wade decided that women have a constitutional right to choose and abortion, Pierce v. Society of Sisters decided that families have a constitutional right to choose a faith-based school. But for the poor without public financial support, both of these rights can become a mirage. Something is wrong here.  Liberals clearly favor public funding of abortions if low-income women choose to have them. Why don’t more of them support public funding of faith-based education if low-income families wish their children to have that?  Most other wealthy nations do this.

Maybe there is room here for a deal. If liberals will reevaluate their stance on educational choice programs that empower low-income families to take responsibility and authority for their children, maybe religious opponents of the public funding of abortions will reevaluate theirs.

Read full story · Comments { 1 }

School choice, subsidiarity and the common good

Subsidiarity is an organizing principle rarely discussed outside the Catholic Church and the European Union, and it’s a shame so few academics and advocates of school choice in the United States talk about it. It is a principle that is skeptical about the ability of large bureaucracies to trump smaller units to function for the common good. At this past weekend’s inaugural international school choice conference in Fort Lauderdale, an Italian researcher introduced the concept to describe why a stubborn region in his country could not accept the government’s insistence that public education must be centrally administered. A sympathetic audience nodded in approval, but there was no obvious sign that the conference understood that its mission was just given political order.

If there was, it could have better informed the rhetorical jousting match that happened minutes later between Stanford University political scientist and union scourge Terry Moe and United Federation of Teachers vice president Leo Casey. For Moe, author of Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America’s Public Schools, the problem of public education is one of structure, organization. “Nobody has a coherent vision of the whole, and no one is organizing schools in the best interest of kids,” he said. Casey countered that Moe favors market-driven and top-down “punitive” reforms that diminish an institution of public education built from the ground up in a model of civil society.

Would that it were so. If we’re to take Casey at his word, then his union would favor the public support of an educational enterprise built in the American tradition of association and social charity with minimal interference from a higher order of government and bureaucracy, the kind of effort facilitated by charter school and school voucher policies. Moe was right to call out the union’s insincerity in promoting transformative reform and its role in maintaining a structure of public education that is largely unresponsive to the unique needs of schoolchildren. But, except for calling for an end to the collective bargaining of work rules among public school teachers, he stopped short of defining how we can reorganize our governance of public education.

If the principles of subsidiarity were more commonly dispatched in our nation’s school reform debates, it could inspire more competing ideologies to find common ground and it could expand our definition of what we consider “public.” We have wrung our hands over what could have stopped the closure and consolidation of 49 Catholic schools in Philadelphia, but we have failed to collectively acknowledge that the urban Catholic school meets the original definition of the “common school” better than many schools that today we call public. The Philadelphia families whose households have been upended by the news have ordered their lives around the social capital they’ve invested in these schools, and the school closings leave fewer stakeholders who share the common goal of reaching out to the city’s most disadvantaged.

Former assistant education secretary Bruno V. Manno once wrote that subsidiarity is not only a principle of justice, but one of empowerment . “The doctrine of subsidiarity values both individual liberty and community,” Manno said. “It is a way of formulating and pursuing true social order. Even though groups have varying interests, subsidiarity implies that common ends are not antithetical to the pursuit of particular interests.”

For states to grasp Moe’s plea to develop “a coherent vision of the whole,” they’ll have to see how traditional schools, parochial schools, charter schools and virtual schools can maximize their unique characteristics and organize around the common goal of a quality education for all. In many ways, that will force us to grasp political concepts foreign to our ears. But in other ways, it simply defines what we’ve been searching for all along.

Read full story · Comments { 0 }
-->