'Race to Top' Said to Lack Key Science

[LWolf]

Scant Evidence for Policies, Researchers Tell Ed. Dept.
By Debra Viadero

This is a long article, offering multiple perspectives on this issue. I, of course, have <snipped> the pieces that support my own perspective. You can read the article for the rest. :D

<snip>

In particular, Ms. Ravitch, Mr. Corcoran, Mr. Roy, and scholars such as Duke University’s Helen F. Ladd oppose two priorities at the heart of the program that they say lack research evidence: evaluating teachers based on students’ standardized test scores and promoting the growth of charter schools.

“One theory of action seems to be that holding teachers more accountable for the gain in their students’ test scores will induce them to become better teachers,” writes Ms. Ladd, a professor of public-policy studies and economics. “At this point, I am not aware of any credible evidence in support of that proposition.”

<snip>

The evidence behind Race to the Top’s call for giving priority to states that don’t impose caps on the growth of charter schools, likewise, is far from definitive, various commenters said.

Recent studies in Boston and New York City have found that charter school students outperform regular public school peers who applied to charter schools but failed to win a seat. But a study of charters in 15 states and the District of Columbia by the Center for Research on Education Outcomes at Stanford University found that students in more than 80 percent of the charter schools performed the same as, or worse than, students in regular public schools on mathematics tests. Achievement from school to school was highly variable, the study found. ("N.Y.C. Study Finds Gains for Charters," Sept. 30, 2009.)

http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/10/07/06research_ep.h29.html?tkn=UPOF0gr3VyWzsRnnw33eZ7vcUVPTNDFp7Mqd

[joeycola]

1. thanks for the post

[Dinger]

2. Right Again, As Usual : )

:hi: :thumbsup:

[teacher gal]

3. Very skeptical of those Boston and NYC charter studies

A post on my blog provides a link to a study debunking the Boston study of charter "success" - apparently the Boston charter schools have far fewer special education students, ELL students, and very high student attrition rates. PRESTO...success!

And I gave a little history of Caroline Hoxby's past research practices. She is the author of the recent NYC charter school study. I think that for the most part, conservative think tanks like the Hoover Institute (where Hoxby is a fellow) have never conducted a research study that didn't support privatization. The results are pretty much pre-determined.

That has become that state of science and research. The Hoxby study wasn't even peer reviewed but went straight to the mainstream press where it was uncritically accepted as "irrefutable" proof of charter superiority.

http://aplacetorespond.blogspot.com/2009/09/caroline-hoxby-charter-school-study.html

A much better analysis of the Hoxby study can be found here: http://morethoughtful.blogspot.com/2009/09/what-is-gold-standard.html

And here's a link to researcher Gerald Bracey's comments on the Hoxby study at Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gerald-bracey/the-washington-post--unio_b_305238.html

[LWolf]

4. Great info, and great links

to add to our growing body of evidence against charter schools as an appropriate "reform."

Thanks!

:hi: