Should the Ed Reformers just quit?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:DC Prep is hardcore test-prep drill and kill instruction. No recess, no talking during lunch, etc. Yes, you get kids to pass tests, but at a super-high cost that doesn't lead to success in the college or world of work because it's so regimented.

Proof or it didn't happen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I don't like numbers" types.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Prep is hardcore test-prep drill and kill instruction. No recess, no talking during lunch, etc. Yes, you get kids to pass tests, but at a super-high cost that doesn't lead to success in the college or world of work because it's so regimented.

Proof?

DCPrep may not have had a cohort graduate from college yet. KIPP freely admits that most of their graduates who start college don't finish. One hypothesis is that they crash and burn because all of their motivation is external, and when they leave for college, there is no one watching them and they have no self regulation skills.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC Prep is hardcore test-prep drill and kill instruction. No recess, no talking during lunch, etc. Yes, you get kids to pass tests, but at a super-high cost that doesn't lead to success in the college or world of work because it's so regimented.

As opposed to the great successes that come out of Ballou and Aiton ES.

Exactly

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

Sort of. Charters have some level of self selection to begin with. ie. A parent actually gives a crap about their kids education and looks for another option, plays lottery etc. That kid will probably do ok at most schools. The scores just tell us what everyone already knows but doesn't say out loud. Money matters. Not the money paid to teachers, not the money wasted on new HS that are at 50% capacity but the money in each kids family. The correlation is so strong that its more like causation.

Actually, it's the mother's level of education. Obviously it's highly correlated to SES, but nonetheless distinct, and a stronger driver.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

In general, as in nationwide, that is true. It is not true in the District of Columbia, where there is substantial evidence that charters outperform district-based schools, particularly with respect to students of color and/or students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

In general, as in nationwide, that is true. It is not true in the District of Columbia, where there is substantial evidence that charters outperform district-based schools, particularly with respect to students of color and/or students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

All charters in the District are not the same nor do they take all the same types of children as neighborhood schools. As has been proven even at Kipp, when they were forced to take the same children in a pilot program they failed!!! They have never done it again, and won't!!

[Anonymous]

Isn't there more than one KIPP?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

In general, as in nationwide, that is true. It is not true in the District of Columbia, where there is substantial evidence that charters outperform district-based schools, particularly with respect to students of color and/or students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Not there. isn't. talk is cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the charter biz out spreading unsubstantiated info. Hopefully people on DCUM won't easily fall for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

I'd say that they purposely eschew research. They know it won't pan out for them and their supporters don't really care about improving education, they just want to make money from it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Sort of. Poor charter students tend to have slightly more able and motivated parents, or grandparents, than poor DCPS students. Mostly they simply have access to a better school their families get them to easily. The difference isn't enormous.

The difference is statistically significant. You should revisit your own education, unless you're one of those "I
don't like numbers" types.

NP here who also has a PhD in the social sciences. It is perfectly possible for population mean differences to be statistically significant, but quite small. That suggests that the differences aren't policy relevant. No one can look at the data here and conclude that the answer to the achievement gap is to put kids in charters. Nationwide, the preponderance of the research suggests that charters are on average no better than the neighborhood schools they replace. Certainly, some individual charter schools do quite well, but there are enough Options and Excel.Academies to prove that it isn't sufficient just to be a charter.

In general, the Ed Reform movement is plagued by a lack of rigorous research backing up any of the proposed reforms. Charters, TFA, etc. Gget little support from the data. The business people running the New Centuries and the Eli Broads don't know how to evaluate research. I went to college with one of the board members of Flamboyan, basically a guy who was a successful manufacturer. He came to our reunion and imlplied that their program was responsible for increases in test scores at the schools in which they worked, despite admitting that "other changes " were also taking place in the schools. They don't really understand the idea of controls.

Some policies that do work include universal pre school, targeted feedback for teachers, and evidenced based curricula. A good summary of the research, targeted at a lay audience, is here.

http://www.amazon.com/Restoring-Opportunity-Inequality-Challenge-Education/dp/1612506348

In general, as in nationwide, that is true. It is not true in the District of Columbia, where there is substantial evidence that charters outperform district-based schools, particularly with respect to students of color and/or students from socio-economically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Not there. isn't. talk is cheap. I wouldn't be surprised if you're in the charter biz out spreading unsubstantiated info. Hopefully people on DCUM won't easily fall for it.

The test results came in. For the nth year in a row, charters served poor children of color better than DCPS.

No, I'm not "in the biz" (is that really how you write?). Are you, in fact, a literate adult?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Assuming that this thread is riffing off of yesterday's PARCC scores, it seems that a couple schools e.g. KIPP and DC Prep - have figured out how to get their students to do nearly as well as white, affluent students.

I think that DCPS and the rest of the charters need to go spend some time in those schools and start replicating what they are doing.

Sort of. Charters have some level of self selection to begin with. ie. A parent actually gives a crap about their kids education and looks for another option, plays lottery etc. That kid will probably do ok at most schools. The scores just tell us what everyone already knows but doesn't say out loud. Money matters. Not the money paid to teachers, not the money wasted on new HS that are at 50% capacity but the money in each kids family. The correlation is so strong that its more like causation.

Except when you look at the performance of students at KIPP, DC Prep, and SEED it's clearly NOT TRUE.

KIPP explicitly teaches middle-class habits and norms, assigns lots of homework, and boasts a longer school day, week, and year. Another explanation considers the related issue of per pupil expenditures.

[Anonymous]

Studies have shown that families who are motivated enough to enter their children into the lotteries of successful charter schools but do not get in do not succeed in their local school at the same rates as their peers who did get in through the lottery.

The techniques that KIPP And DC Prep use to get the results they do are part of a well-thought out, consistent culture in the school that provides a lot of academic rigor and support, including extended school days. The teachers work their butts off, and the schools are able to adjust their methods and techniques as necessary to improve their performance.

These methods may not be for everyone, which is totally fine and is why DC is blessed with a diversity of school choices (though we could use a lot more!). The consistent superior results on the DC-CAS and the PARCC demonstrate, however, that they do work for a demographic who is traditionally underserved by the traditional public schools in the District, and that there is a lot to learn from them in order to improve the District's ability to meet the needs of the entire city, and not just those who live WOTP or are lucky enough to get into a high-performing charter.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Studies have shown that families who are motivated enough to enter their children into the lotteries of successful charter schools but do not get in do not succeed in their local school at the same rates as their peers who did get in through the lottery.

The techniques that KIPP And DC Prep use to get the results they do are part of a well-thought out, consistent culture in the school that provides a lot of academic rigor and support, including extended school days. The teachers work their butts off, and the schools are able to adjust their methods and techniques as necessary to improve their performance.

These methods may not be for everyone, which is totally fine and is why DC is blessed with a diversity of school choices (though we could use a lot more!). The consistent superior results on the DC-CAS and the PARCC demonstrate, however, that they do work for a demographic who is traditionally underserved by the traditional public schools in the District, and that there is a lot to learn from them in order to improve the District's ability to meet the needs of the entire city, and not just those who live WOTP or are lucky enough to get into a high-performing charter.

I agree with this. But the solution is not to force DCPS to become KIPP/DCPs but to have them available as an option. What you want is a groundswell of support and popularity for these types of schools, so that as many kids/families who want to challenge themselves with this kind of schooling, can.