Shapiro Consulting, Author at The Center for Education Reform

Our National Education Crisis Shows No Signs Of Ending

May 23, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Jeanne Allen
Investor’s Business Daily
May 20, 2016

The latest report by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an urgent reminder of the crisis in U.S. education, with just 37% of all 12th graders making the grade in reading and 25% in math. And the achievement gap is growing among minority kids.

White and Asian students score as many as 40 percentage points higher than black, Hispanic and other minority students. The number of 12th grade students failing to demonstrate even basic levels of math and reading achievement increased from the last time the test was administered in 2013.

NAEP data, combined with information on college readiness, presents a clear picture on the need to improve and expand access to innovative learning opportunities. Despite the U.S. graduation rate being at an all-time high of 81%, graduation rates clearly have little relevance to achievement, with 12th grade 2015 math and reading results revealing that less than half of graduating seniors are prepared for college coursework.

While 42% of 12th graders report being accepted to four-year colleges at the time of the NAEP assessment, research reveals that 20% of first-time students at four-year colleges require remedial coursework. At the community college level, approximately 60% of students enroll in at least one remedial course.

While the dropout rate has slowed, this data doesn’t even account for those who don’t make it to 12th grade. Eighty percent of the U.S. prison population is made up of high school dropouts. We must think creatively about how to create unique learning opportunities for students we have yet to reach.

Amid these grim statistics, we can find hope in the fact that more and more entrepreneurs and policymakers are doing extraordinary things and breaking the mold to foster innovative learning opportunities that lead to better outcomes and results for our nation’s children.

Twenty-five years ago, policymakers on both sides of the aisle in Minnesota came together to craft a novel policy, a charter school law, to allow for a new type of public school to solve the persistent issue of underachieving schools and a growing dropout problem.

Today, there are more than 6,800 charter schools educating more than 3 million students. These schools were the first among public schools to show that innovations in teaching and learning can lead to student achievement, with results that outpace most comparable conventional schools — and they accomplished this feat despite adverse funding conditions.

As lawmakers enact more laws that provide children access to greater opportunities to achieve upward mobility, there is also unprecedented application of technological, teaching and system innovations being tested and applied.

This is the era in which schools find themselves, and yet the Nation’s Report Card demonstrates that the majority of schools have still not caught up with the pace of advancement sweeping other flexible schooling structures.

Most students are still sitting in rows and amid systems created when education was simpler, flatter and less homogeneous, and well before the age of labor contracts and large bureaucracies dictating the bulk of actions that a school must undertake daily.

To apply what works demands not only a reset on this outdated system, but meaningful measures that test and evaluate that which is working. NAEP provides only an aggregated snapshot of academic achievement from samples of students across states, and does not capture individual student progress or outcomes.

We do not have another 25 years to wait for the flexibility to apply the pathbreaking research and innovations that exist today to the schools of tomorrow. NAEP’s ongoing assessment of students does not change dramatically, for better or worse, year after year.

While it is unwise to use NAEP scores to make speculations surrounding specific policies, due to the nature of the data, we know that unleashing the power of innovation and opportunity can drive success for even the most disadvantaged students.

Policymakers must free the schools. Schools must update their infrastructure to make learning more personalized in an increasingly technological and global world. And they must do so in a way that does not shut out access for those traditionally underserved by our education system.

Resetting the landscape for structural change in education requires providing maximum opportunities for kids, teachers and families, and allowing flexibility for innovations to be tested and applied.

Allen is Founder and CEO of The Center for Education Reform in Washington, D.C.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

AEI Study Finds Slight Negative Tilt in Media Coverage of Charter Schools

May 21, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Mark Walsh
Education Week
May 20, 2016

A study of news coverage of charter schools shows “some evidence of a noticeable anti-charter tilt.”

…

The Center for Education Reform, a Washington organization that promotes charter schools and used to grade media coverage of school reform issues, applauded the AEI report.

“It comes as no surprise that the media plays a huge role in how people perceive charter schools,” the center said. “The media can only report what they hear and see, and when opponents outnumber proponents and have a habit of spreading misinformation, it’s no wonder the media leans negative.”

Read the full article at Education Week.

Related news:
Press Perception on Charter Schools, CER Commentary 5.19.16

Filed Under: CER in the News

School choice advocates celebrate win in Nevada, gear up for next round

May 20, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Heather Kays
Watchdog
May 20, 2016

Nevada’s education savings account program does not violate a constitutional ban on using taxpayer money for religious purposes, Las Vegas District Court Judge Eric Johnson has ruled.

Johnson dismissed the lawsuit challenging the law on Wednesday, ruling that the ESA program was “neutral with respect to religion” because parents, not state officials, decide whether to use the funds for private or religious schools.

Johnson also ruled a provision in the state constitution allowing lawmakers to encourage education “by all suitable means” allows the ESA program to exist alongside the traditional public school system.

The ESA law, enacted in 2015, allows parents to determine how about $5,100 in per-pupil state funding will be spent on state-approved educational options for their children. Those options include private school tuition, home-school expenses, tutoring, textbooks, some therapies and other educational resources.

“The state has no influence or control over how any parent makes his or her genuine and independent choice to spend his or her ESA funds,” Johnson wrote in his decision.

Despite the favorable ruling, the ESA program remains on hold because a Carson City judge issued an injunction in a separate case in January that halted implementation. The Nevada Supreme Court is expected to schedule hearings on that case soon.

State Sen. Scott Hammond, who wrote the ESA legislation, told Watchdog.org that he was “thrilled beyond belief” by the decision. “I think it was obviously the right decision. There was just too much precedent that the judge couldn’t ignore.”

Hammond said he thinks both cases challenging the ESA program will be combined and then heard by the state Supreme Court. And he said he expects the high court to rule quickly.

“I don’t think they’re going to dawdle at all,” said Hammond. “There are about 6,000 students signed up for the program. They have to make a decision.”

And, he said, the ruling is likely to spur more applicants.

“This is about civil rights. I do believe we will get to a point where every parent will be able to customize their own child’s education. Parents have got to be empowered,” said Hammond. “The money is following the kid. It was never about religion. It was always about empowering parents.”

School choice advocates celebrate

Proponents of school choice outside the Silver State were also celebrating the decision.

Leslie Hiner, vice president of programs at the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice says the judge gave parents “renewed hope” that the courts in Nevada will honor the ESA program.

“Nevada’s ESA shifts the balance of power in education from an old one-size-fits-all system that’s been in place since the days before electricity to a child-friendly land of opportunity where all children can get the educational services they deserve – and parents, not the old bureaucracy, have the power to choose educational options that fit the unique needs of their children,” said Hiner.

Hiner says this week’s ruling provide a “solid foundation” for the Nevada Supreme Court to uphold the ESA program.

Jason Bedrick, a policy analyst with the Cato Institute‘s Center for Educational Freedom, said the judge was on solid ground regarding religion.

“The ACLU argued that the Nevada Constitution demanded that the legislature discriminate against religious institutions,” said Bedrick. “Fortunately, the judge rejected this notion. Instead, following the U.S. Supreme Court and the near-consensus of other state supreme courts, Judge Eric Johnson held that the state constitution demands religious neutrality but does not prohibit religious institutions from benefiting from programs, like the education savings account, that have a secular purpose and benefit the public generally.”

Jonathan Butcher, education director for the Goldwater Institute, was also upbeat, while acknowledging that the fight is not yet over in Nevada.

“This is a great outcome for parents and families,” said Butcher. “While there are plenty of steps to go through the system, it’s good to get a win for students.”

“It’s going to be key to resolve the other lawsuit, Lopez, so that Nevada can start awarding accounts to families,” Butcher added.

Mike Petrilli president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, said he is hopeful that the ESA program will be up and running sooner rather than later.

“The Nevada program breaks new ground for parental choice, and we’re glad to see the courts deferring to elected legislators,” said Petrilli. “Now it’s up to state officials to implement the ESA initiative thoughtfully so that it succeeds academically and politically, and not just legally.”

Jeanne Allen, founder and CEO of the Center for Education Reform, pointed to precedents set in other school choice cases.

“Nevada’s legal system has affirmed precisely the same rights that the U.S. Supreme Court recognized in 2002 in the Zelman v. Simmons-Harris ruling on Ohio vouchers — that parents indeed have the right to choose programs that they feel best provide the right opportunity for their children,” said Allen.

Filed Under: CER in the News

Press Perception on Charter Schools

May 19, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

IS THE FOURTH ESTATE’S COVERAGE OF CHARTER SCHOOLS BIASED?

Thanks to a new report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), charter school students, educators and advocates can clearly see that their role in advocating has never been more important.

Charter schools have become a staple, albeit still a relatively limited one, in American education today. While just five percent of America’s total school-aged population is being educated by charter schools, millions more are on waiting lists and tens of millions attend better schools since charter schools opened their doors. As former DC Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee once announced, she wouldn’t have been able to drive the improvements in teaching a stampa-03 nd learning that she did had it not been for the pressure caused by the District’s vibrant charter school community.

And yet, many parents, policymakers, and business and community leaders still don’t fully appreciate just exactly what these innovative learning opportunities are, or what they’re doing for our children and nation’s future. In polls and surveys, fewer than half of respondents know what a charter school is. Once educated, however, their support surpasses 75 percent!

So it comes as no surprise that the media plays a huge role in how people perceive charter schools. AEI researchers found that coverage on charter schools in 2015, while broadly mixed, still tends toward the negative.

Those findings today are validated by findings from the Media Bullpen, formerly the Center’s media watchdog. From 2011 through 2013, the Bullpen analyzed and scored the news on education reform. In baseball parlance, there were more strike-outs and pop flys than home runs. Of the 38,000 scored over that time, the Media’s batting average was less than 50 percent. In fact, the media reliability on charter schools overall was never more than 40 percent.

The Center for Education Reform still feeds the news media through the Media Bullpen, but we stopped scoring the news in favor of influencing the news. The media can only report what they hear and see, and when opponents outnumber proponents and have a habit of spreading misinformation, it’s no wonder the media leans negative. It’s also no wonder because even many advocates themselves decry charter school achievements, based on flawed data and government reporting.

Because of the media’s power in influencing policy and communicating information to students, families and voters, one negative story can have enormous consequences. Exhibit A: when the Detroit Free Press failed to respect journalistic integrity and issued an 8-day, 42-article tirade on charter schools based on the opposition’s allegations. The paper then mailed its hatchet job to lawmakers the day they happened to be voting on charter school legislation. Media biased much?

Whether at a local newspaper or larger, nationally known syndicates, most journalists take seriously their responsibility to report the facts on charter schools. But to report the facts, they need those facts. We applaud the AEI report because the Fourth Estate is critical to our public discourse.

Advocates must take responsibility to ensure the public’s understanding of all education opportunities, so that the policies created to foster educational excellence are not stifled by misinformation and bias.

Filed Under: Choice & Charter Schools

America’s graduation rate dilemma

May 18, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Nate Davis
The Hill
May 18, 2016

We have a graduation problem in the U.S. Too many young people, in particular the underprivileged, are failing to get high-school degrees.

Some believe America’s education system is reversing that trend. They point to the U.S. Department of Education’s announcement in December that graduation rates reached an all-time high. Others believe we are actually going in the wrong direction, that higher graduation rates are the result of lowering standards in order to graduate students in four years. Students may be obtaining degrees, but they are not college- or career-ready, leaving post-secondary institutions with a heavy remediation burden.

The newly released “Building a Grad Nation” report thrust the high-school graduation debate back to the forefront. According to the report, the primary roadblocks to obtaining a 90 percent graduation rate by 2020 include graduation gaps between subgroups of students (e.g., whites and minorities, and low-income and non-low-income students) and low-graduation-rate high schools. The report found that a disproportionally large percentage, around 50 percent, of the low-graduation-rate high schools nationwide are alternative, charter and virtual schools, despite the fact that they only make up about 14 percent of all high schools and enroll 8 percent of all high-school students.

But dig deeper into how the graduation rate is calculated and other questions emerge: Does the federal government’s four-year graduation rate effectively measure school performance, or does it enable schools to pass the buck of failure to others? Is there a better way to measure graduation?

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) defines a low-graduation-rate high school as a school enrolling 100 or more students with a graduation rate of 67 percent or below. The U.S. Department of Education requires that the graduation rate be calculated by determining how many students graduated four years after entering the ninth grade out of the total number of students who were in the same class cohort. Therefore, only what happens during a student’s fourth year of high school impacts the graduation rate for that school. What happens in the ninth, 10th, and 11th grades doesn’t matter.

That means some schools are being penalized for non-graduates even though they may not be the primary school that contributed to the student falling behind in the first place. For example, a student could be enrolled in School A for three years, earn no high school credits, and then transfer to School B for his fourth and final year, where he will fail to graduate with his four-year cohort. Under the current graduation rate calculation, School B is penalized for not graduating the student “on time” despite the fact that it only had that student for one of those four years. School A escapes all accountability for failing to progress the student toward graduation. That hardly seems fair.

So just how big of impact could the above scenario have? America’s public education system needs schools that take in struggling students who, for whatever reason, failed or dropped out. Parents seeking help for their children rely on these school choice options. Charter, alternative and virtual schools — the very schools that have been classified as “low-graduation-rate high schools” — often serve as schools of last resort for families. They offer students a second chance to obtain a degree. These schools strongly believe in their mission to serve all who come to them regardless of need and no matter the cost.

The last thing we want to do is discourage these schools from helping underserved students graduate at the risk of being labeled low-performing. Nor should any school be able to simply hand off a credit-deficient student to another school a year or two prior to graduation and force that new school to take full responsibility for the non-graduate that was four years in the making. It’s a classic example of how regulatory policies can unintentionally create the wrong incentives.

Rather than the four-year cohort model, calculating an annual “progress toward graduation” metric for all schools would be a far more accurate measure of whether or not a school is successfully helping students earn diplomas. According to education researcher John Watson, states need to begin by “defining how a student is determined to be behind, on track, or ahead of pace, at time of enrollment; determining what is appropriate progress towards graduation; and determining incentives to schools for working with students who were behind at time of enrollment and getting them on track to graduate.” In other words, measure every student every year, not only in year four.

There is much we need to do to tackle our nation’s graduation and dropout challenges. Getting the right metrics in place is a start.

Davis is executive chairman of K12 Inc., a technology-based education company and leading provider of online learning programs to schools across the U.S.

Filed Under: Opinions

Why Innovators Can’t Get a Seat at the Ed Tech Table

May 17, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

It’s official. American public schools are now the world’s largest purchaser of iPads. And we thought that award went to moms who just want to get the laundry done.

In 2016, it’s no longer possible to argue that the age of digital education has yet to arrive. Walk into any classroom across the country and you’ll see teachers and students engaging with and learning from digital content. In fiscal year 2015 alone, American public schools spent almost $11 billion investing in educational technology for K-12 students . According to the Center for Digital Education, per-student spending for K-12 is projected to increase 18% to $13,200 by 2022-23.

With all this money raining down on education technology, surely school leaders are in touch with the innovators creating the products, right?

Wrong.

There is a serious disconnect between the innovators building products to boost student outcomes and the school-district officials and school leaders with access to the purse strings.

gates

Last week’s ASU GSV conference brought this reality home for me. Out in San Diego, I was captivated by the flurry of innovative ed-tech products on display — apps as far as the eye could see. Yet what resonated most were the conversations with entrepreneurs about how they’re rolling out their products in schools, how they’re partnering with schools to ensure that they’re aware of the niche that their product fills and how to use the product to best educate students.

“Ancient procurement and monetary policies” are what make it difficult to bring great ed-tech into the K-12 space, according to Adrian Fenty, the former mayor of Washington, DC. Our children are in great need of equipment for the digital age, but decisions about their learning are still regulated by outdated, inflexible laws and people who were raised on the one-size-fits-all textbooks of years passed. Innovators need to be players in the game, instead of working at the sidelines tossing their products into the court and hoping someone catches them.

Right now, we have a supply problem in education technology. What we need is a demand problem. We need strong leaders in K-12 schools who will demand the highest quality ed-tech products and hold them accountable. If the needle on student achievement is going to move, then innovators and school leaders need to work together to make it happen.

The author is the Center for Education Reform’s State Director.

Filed Under: Commentary, Edspresso Tagged With: edtech, innovation

Why Innovators Can’t Get a Seat at the EdTech Table

May 16, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

gatesasugsv

It’s official. American public schools are now the world’s largest purchaser of iPads. And we thought that award went to moms who just want to get the laundry done.

In 2016, it’s no longer possible to argue that the age of digital education has yet to arrive. Walk into any classroom across the country and you’ll see teachers and students engaging with and learning from digital content. In fiscal year 2015 alone, American public schools spent almost $11 billion investing in educational technology for K-12 students. According to the Center for Digital Education, per-student spending for K-12 is projected to increase 18% to $13,200 by 2022-23.

With all this money raining down on education technology, surely school leaders are in touch with the innovators creating the products, right?

Wrong.

There is a serious disconnect between the innovators building products to boost student outcomes and the school-district officials and school leaders with access to the purse strings.

Filed Under: Commentary, Edspresso Tagged With: edtech, innovation

Letter: Charter schools misrepresented

May 16, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Jeanne Allen
Deseret News
May 16, 2016

An article about charter schools (“Do charter schools work?” May 9) misrepresented the success and outcomes of these innovative public schools on students, schools and communities. Research has consistently shown that charters lift all boats and grow student learning across all populations. And not only that, but by law, charter schools must accept all students. If there are more applications than seats available, charter schools must hold lotteries to determine enrollment.

The beauty of charter schools is that there is no “one-size-fits-all” when it comes to what a charter school looks like. Charter schools are public schools that are independently run and held accountable for results, yet their methods, structure, curriculum and more vary based on the unique void the school seeks to fill in a community. Not every school is a good fit for every student. Thankfully, charter schools are one solution to creating more excellent learning opportunities for children. But in order to truly meet the needs of every child, there must be a greater push to expand school choice programs and innovative learning opportunities that break the mold to get results for our nation’s children, giving every parent a plethora of options to choose from.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

School choice works

May 14, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

by Michelle Tigani
Washington Post
May 13, 2016

Regarding the May 12 Politics & the Nation article “The problem that school choice has not solved”:

Has school choice been able to interrupt the strong link between home environments and academic success? The answer to that question is a resounding yes, especially when looking beyond the sole metric of graduation rates.

In the District, 90 percent of students participating in the Opportunity Scholarship Program graduate from high school. The program serves a population that’s approximately 97 percent minority. The average household income of the program’s students is $22,000. Additionally, 88 percent of D.C. voucher students who graduate go to college. We know charter high school graduates are more likely to stay in college and earn more as adults, thanks to research that does an apples-to-apples comparison of students using real data over time and accounting for variations in school composition, size, longevity and more.

School choice can dramatically improve opportunity and upward mobility, regardless of the neighborhood in which a child resides. The problem that must be solved when it comes to school choice is ensuring that all parents truly have access to high-caliber schools and creating policies that will allow innovative, flexible and accountable learning environments to flourish well into the future.

Michelle Tigani, Washington

The writer is communications director
at the Center for Education Reform.

Filed Under: Opinions, CER in the News

Federal Intervention Over Transgender Issues Affects Schools

May 13, 2016 By Shapiro Consulting

May 13, 2016

Obama transgender edict causes stir over the proper use of government in an educational venue, reports Caitlin Emma of Politico:

But critics say the administration has issued a directive that’s going to use up tons of school resources and take time away from teaching students.

“Saying that students are allowed to use the locker room that aligns with their gender identity changes the way schools do business,” said Jeanne Allen, founder of the Center for Education Reform. “Schools have to spend time, money, resources and people working on something that has absolutely nothing to do with the purpose of school.”

…

Allen said she expects more lawsuits to come out of school districts across the country. “Is this a proper use of government in an educational venue?” she said of the Obama administration’s guidance. “Parents will rebel.”

Allen and Neal McCluskey of the Cato Institute, who are both proponents of school choice, said the issue might spur parents to push for more schooling options independent of the public systems and micromanagement by the federal government. Patrick also made that argument.

Read more at Politico

Filed Under: CER in the News

Primary Sidebar Widget Area