Study: Take That, Other Studies!

The Cato Institute released a study today criticizing other studies.

Really.

Entitled, "Dismal Science: The Shortcomings of U.S. School Choice Research and How to Address Them," the report points out the flaws in school choice research, focusing in particular on the lack study on the ways that school choice programs affect the education market.

I haven't read the entire report yet, so my comments have to be limited, but I was always under the impression that markets were infrequently addressed because most programs aren't large enough to create systemic market impact. My two cents.

Goldwater Institute Releases Study of Arizona's Choice Programs

Today Matthew Ladner of the Goldwater Institute released a study entitled "School Choice in Arizona: A Review of Existing Programs and a Road Map for Future Reforms."

The school choice programs in Arizona serve a considerable number of Latino children, so his findings will be of particular relevance to the Hispanic community.

Retrospective: Latino Students After Seven Years of NCLB

Elena Rocha at the Center for American Progress has a new article up: "NCLB and Latinos: No Latino Child Left Behind Matters." She does a good job profiling the Latino education crisis AND speaking on the positive gains that Latino students have made under the accountability-focused NCLB.

And then there's this:

Failure to take immediate action to improve public schooling for Latinos will be detrimental. There isn’t much time to reverse course. Latinos are and will continue to be a significant force in every aspect of American life. Admittedly, constructing a 21st century education system that properly supports Latinos and other minorities, poor children, English language learners, and children with disabilities will require greater commitment and financial investments from federal, state, and local leaders. But continuing on the existing path is not an option.

I don't take issue with her assertion that public schooling for Latinos must improve - it's true, it must. But I have to disagree that "greater commitment and financial investments from federal, state, and local leaders" is going to be the key to improving those public schools. More money does not equal a better education; take DC, for example, which consistently ranks among the lowest in the country on student achievement, yet spends over $13,000 per pupil.

Years of pouring money into our school system has not solved the Latino education crisis - 42% of Latino students still drop out of high school before graduation.

Therefore, I ask: do you want a system that supports all kinds of learners? Where students attend schools that serve their individual educational needs? Where Latino students are consistently successful, because they are learning in a way that suits them?

Give families a choice. Give them school choice.

And best of all: it won't cost us millions of dollars.

Florida's Class Size Reduction Threatens Public School Choice

This fall, Florida's schools will begin to enforce a strict class size reduction policy, decreasing the number of student slots allowed in each classroom, according to the Tampa Tribune.

The policy will reduce the overall number of choice spots that are available in public schools - meaning that parents who apply for inter-district transfers or hardship transfers are more likely to be denied. Unfortunately, this means that low-income families will have even fewer educational options than before.

However, an unintended consequence of this policy may be that more parents end up applying for Florida's CTC scholarships, which provide children with the opportunity to attend a private school. I will definitely be interested to see if applications to this program increase as class size reduction takes effetc.

Hispanic CREO's Target States Win Big in Friedman Study

By: Rena Mathena

Hispanic CREO is seeing positive results in our target states, where we are working to empower families with school choice. The Friedman Foundation's latest evaluation of the nation's 21 school choice programs finds that three of our target states have some of the best-ranking school choice programs.

Hispanic CREO's target states of Arizona, Florida, and Ohio all have school choice programs ranking in the top ten positions, with the Florida McKay Scholarship Program for students with disabilities in the number one spot, and Arizona’s Personal Tax Credit Scholarship coming in at number three.

Others in the top ten included Arizona’s Foster Child Vouchers (number 5), Ohio’s Autism Vouchers (number 6) and Educational Choice (EdChoice) Vouchers (number 8), and Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarships (number 10).

This new evaluation, along with other recent articles and reports, is building major momentum in the school choice movement, softening the ground for school choice programs in other states. The movement is likely to gain even more momentum if school choice continues to retain support from Republicans, while growing its support amongst Democrats.

Snell v. Stern on Instructional Reform

A good article by Lisa Snell came out of Reason Magazine yesterday. It's a response to Sol Stern's (now infamous) criticism of school choice and a detailed analysis of how instructional reform has yielded little impact on the achievement rates of low-income and minority kids. As she notes, good instruction is essential (that's a given), but it is not The Answer to education reform; school choice is still necessary.

Definitely a thought-provoking read.

Well, this is not the first time..

that you've heard it, but School Reform News is reporting that "School Choice Could Help Slow Latino Dropout Rate."

Interestingly, the article includes some comments on the difference in dropout rates between Latino immigrants and American-born Latinos. For obvious reasons, Latino immigrants drop out of school at a much higher rate, but as of yet, there is little research to indicate exactly how educators can reach out to these students and prevent them from leaving school. As the Latino immigrant population grows and moves to new areas, however, this will surely because a necessity for school systems that want to graduate their Latino youth.

Educational Robin Hood: Sneaking into Out-of-District Schools

Today's blog post is authored by an Hispanic CREO intern, Moira Nadal. For comments or questions, she can be reached at mnadal@brynmawr.edu.

An article in the New York Times reveals a crisis currently faced by many suburban school districts: students claiming false residence to sneak into out-of-district schools. It describes the experience of one school in New Jersey trying to deal with this problem and the drastic measures administrators have turned to in order to cope. To combat this major problem, for example, school districts are hiring investigators and retired policemen, creating anonymous hotlines and posting bounties for reports of out-of-district students that are proven to be true.

The lack of educational opportunities that creates this phenomenon is a problem for students across the US. Several sources in the article are quoted as saying that students’ sneaking in is a persistent problem in their districts. This is clearly a manifestation of parents' need to have more and better options for schooling their children. In several parents’ and community blogs across the nation, parents admit to sending their children to out-of-district schools and give many reasons why they choose to do so. For many parents in the Berkeley area, for example, the issue of convenience came up for working parents who want their child’s school to be closer to their place of work. In Georgia’s Henry County, many seem to believe that a search for better facilities is leading students to sneak in from neighboring counties.

Other forums mention students who want to switch to another school because of smaller classes, better teachers, and safer learning environments. These reasons for transferring are particularly relevant to Latino students, who are disproportionately enrolled in failing or persistently dangerous schools. For many low-income Hispanics, especially those who are denied school choice and lack the resources to pay for private school, transferring to an out-of-district school - or sneaking in - may be the only viable opportunity for a decent education.

There are still many parents who wish that their child’s school were more convenient, to their work or to a caregiver. There are parents frustrated by the lack of qualified teachers and learning materials, overcrowding, and violence; who wish for their children to be able to go to schools with more competitive sports teams or with specialized language classes. There are many reasons that students are sneaking illegally into other school districts - these reasons are the same why parents deserve to be given more power over their children’s school choices.

Wedneday Issue: Educating Parents to Make the Right School Choose

Earlier this week, the University of Colorado at Boulder and Arizona State University released a collaborative study entitled, "Who Chooses Schools, and Why?" Full text found here.

In the report, the authors examine how parents who exercise school choice evaluate their children's educational options and settle on the best school. They review the literature about parents who send their children to private school, as well as parents who participate in means-based voucher programs, who send their children to charter or magnet schools, and those who choose to homeschool their own children.

Here are some key findings (in italics) and my commentary:

The primary stated motivation in all types of choice is perceived academic quality; the primary influence in terms of documented behavior is peer composition in terms of race and class.... White parents tend to avoid schools with high minority concentrations, and minority parents tend to avoid schools with high percentages of low-income students.

Therefore, while parents are searching primarily for the best academic education for their children, demographic information heavily influences how they define "best academic education."

The school choice movement has long argued that school choice will desegregate schools. While it is true that in certain cities, private schools are more racially diverse than their public counterparts, this research indicates that not all parents who elect schools of choice are necessarily looking for racial (or class) diversity. Therefore, the question becomes: how do we help (White) parents get away from the assumption that a high minority population equals a worse education and how do we convince (minority) parents that schools with large low-income populations can offer a good education?

The primary way that parents learn about schools in through their social networks.... What social networks do is present constrained sets of schools. Of particular note here is that lower-income families tend to have more failing and less competitive schools in their choice sets.

Here is where school choice organizations can provide a real boon to parents. We have the resources to develop effective "word of mouth" strategies to reach out to low-income parents. So, what will they be? How can we ensure that parents are getting the right "word of mouth" information and thus, empowered to make good decisions about their children's schooling?

Recent research also shows that having instructional and academic information about schools, which many choice programs provide (i.e. booklets on choice programs) is not necessarily sufficient to get families to choose schools of high academic quality. Demographic information about schools appears to be a key factor parents consider in a variety of choice settings...

And here, friends, is one of the paradoxes of school choice. Universal school choice means that parents have the power to choose whatever schools they want, and that choice can be based on whatever information they want, even if it goes against the ideals of the school choice movement (like desegregating schools, for example). So how do we strike a balance between giving parents what they want (and deserve) and ensuring that choice really CAN improve and diversify our school system? It's an interesting question and something that, surely, choice advocates should have on their minds.

Wednesday Issue: Career and Technical Education (Part I)

When we talk about educational options, oftentimes, traditional models come to mind: charter schools, homeschooling, private schools, etc. One educational option frequently ignored, however, is career and technical education (CTE), formerly referred to as vocational/technical education. Considering the needs and values of the Latino community, CTE proves to be a very important educational option for Hispanics. Today’s analysis will take a very quick look at the positive opportunities that CTE offers to the Latino community. Tomorrow, we’ll take a more critical look at these programs and consider their flaws.

Before any real analysis can begin, however, one must understand the full breadth of the term “Career and Technical Education.” CTE is no longer just the auto mechanics class that meets in the back of the school; numerous pedagogical and institutional models fall under the category of CTE. One example is dual enrollment programs, where high school students attend college classes (and receive credit for them) while pursuing their high school diplomas. Another example is Tech Prep programs, which generally begin in the ninth grade and provide students with technical training to pursue a career in engineering, mechanics, agriculture, or a number of other fields. Students often graduate these programs with an Associate’s degree or a professional certificate in their field. Many other models exist for CTE, but all share one main purpose: prepare students to pursue higher education and a specific career field.

Although each CTE model is unique (and thus, has its own positive and negative quirks), CTE programs benefit Latino students in similar ways. Firstly, most of these programs allow students to receive college credit for the classes that they are taking. While this is an obvious “plus” for any child, it is especially helpful for Latinos whose families may struggle financially and are unable to pay college tuition. Research from the organization Excelencia in Education reveals that Latino students are much more likely than other undergraduates to be from a low-income family. Earning college credits in a CTE program can allow Latino students to “speed up” their university careers, reducing their financial obligations and making it more likely that they will graduate from college.

In addition to helping Latinos get an educational and financial “head start” on college, many of these programs equip students with marketable skills that can help them during their undergraduate careers and beyond. For example, many programs train students to work as auto mechanics. Being able to work as an auto mechanic during an undergraduate career is surely a much lucrative option than say, working at McDonald's (or the school's dining hall, like I did).

Thirdly, while I would love to see every Latino child in America (in fact, every child in America) graduate from college with a 4-year degree, that is not the wish or destiny of every student. Some students cannot or do not want to attain a bachelor’s; for these, CTE provides major opportunities. According to the Census Bureau’s most recent analysis, the average full-time worker with an Associate’s degree will earn $1.6 million over the course of his/her working life. In contrast, the average full-time worker with only a high school diploma earns a mere $1.2 million. That’s some difference. By providing students with an easy opportunity to attain an Associate’s degree or professional certificate (which also has extra earning power), CTE programs ensure a better future for that student – a future which holds not only increased earning power, but also increased employment options.

Finally, I must examine CTE from a former teacher’s perspective. Another reason why I support CTE is that students actually like it. The practical approach of these programs provides concrete goals for students to work towards and keeps them invested in their education. When I was teaching in DC, our high school had an extremely popular culinary program. This program funneled students into post-secondary culinary schools, but aside from giving them that opportunity, it kept them interested in their high school work. Needless to say, that is no small feat. Being able to engage students who have been historically alienated by our school system is one major benefit of CTE programs and, in my opinion, all the more reason to support them.

Of course, CTE programs are not perfect. Although they offer many excellent opportunities to Latino students, there are also aspects of CTE which must be criticized. Tune in tomorrow to hear more about the challenges of CTE programs.

Vouchers versus CTC Scholarships, Part II

Today's goal is two-fold:

1.) Point out some of the philosophical differences between vouchers and CTC scholarships.

2.) Discuss how these philosophical differences could affect the CTC push in Utah.

Numero uno:

School choice opponents are often quick to label tax credit scholarships as "vouchers," however, in reality, the two models operate quite differently - and have different philosophical underpinnings.

Vouchers come from public tax dollars - essentially, as money "returned" to the citizen for his/her own use. Voucher systems function on the belief that individuals have the right to control how their tax dollars are used for their children's education. Generally, voucher programs are proposed as "universal" and available to all residents of a particular state. This fits with their underlying philosophy - after all, if one family has the right to decide how its tax dollars are used, all other families should have the same.

On the contrary, corporate tax credit scholarships are created by the donations of various corporations. The donating corporation is the one who receives the tax credit; the student is the individual who receives a scholarship for private school. Rather than emphasize taxpayers' rights, CTC programs emphasize a philosophy of responsible business. They are also generally targeted to a specific audience - low-income families, for example. This results in a feel-good situation for both businesses and the general public. By participating in a CTC program, businesses enjoy a tax break and the squishy "I made a difference" feeling while families receive the money they need and the comforting thought that Big Business cares.

Numero dos:

The difference between "taxpayers' rights" and a focus on philanthropy cannot be understated for the Utah case. Utah's legislators would be seriously remiss to assume that their constituents who favored vouchers will also support a CTC scholarship program. My guess, based on what happened earlier this month, is that Utah's citizens will not be particularly enthusiastic about CTC scholarships.

To back this up, I must again refer to the Salt Lake Tribune poll, which found that only 6% of Utah voucher supporters favored the program because it would "help the poor." For most voucher supporters, "parental choice" was the driving factor in their approval. However, if a CTC program is initiated, it is likely to be restricted to low-income families. Thus, it will focus exclusively on helping the poor.

It's a recipe for resistance. While voters may not decide the future of this program, they'll have plenty to say to their legislators, who will be listening.

Additional Notes:

One of the most common misconceptions and fears about the Utah voucher program was that it would "take money away from public schools." Since the CTC program clearly has nothing to do with public funds, Utahns may be much more supportive of it despite the fact that it conflicts with some of their original reasons for supporting vouchers.

I will also be watching to see how the idea of competition figures into this debate - will the proposed CTC program actually provide enough scholarships and influence to change the public system itself? We shall see...

Tomorrow Wednesday Issue is Career and Technical Education, so stay tuned for some good information and hopefully, lively discussion!

"I'm Not Dead Yet!" : Utah Voucher Update

Okay, the Monty Python reference was cheap, but I decided to go for it anyway...as it appears, the Utah vouchers are NOT dead yet.

Paul Rolly of the Salt Lake Tribune is reporting that the Utah legislature is considering starting a Corporate Tax Credit (CTC) scholarship program following the defeat of voucher legislation that would have created a universal voucher program in the state.

We have seen this happen before in Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Minnesota. At one point, these states all had voucher legislation on the table, but when the legislation was defeated, the states came back with CTC scholarship programs. And they won.

So what are the chances that this program will pass? When asking yourself that important question, here are some facts to consider:

1.) This campaign will be different. First of all, let's remember that the original voucher legislation passed in the House and Senate and was signed into law by the governor. Then, and only then, was it defeated in a voter referendum. The proposed CTC scholarship program will likely never go to a voter referendum, so instead of convincing everyday citizens, the school choice movement will have to focus their efforts on people in power.

2.) The November 6th vote will have a major effect. School choice suffered a major defeat in the voter referendum - a defeat which could alter the outcome of this (possible) legislation in two ways. On the one hand, the voucher defeat could motivate Utahn legislators who support school choice to re-commit themselves to the cause and ensure that the CTC program is passed and protected.. On the other hand, a 60/40 vote against the voucher program is difficult for legislators to ignore. Well, it's difficult for legislators who want to please their constituents to ignore. Granted, the CTC program is not a voucher program, but polls show that the general public is not very well informed on school choice programs; therefore, the nuances of vouchers vs. CTC just might be too much for them.

3.) The NEA still has lobbyists. Tying in to the fact that the general public is uninformed about school choice programs, we must expect that the NEA will vilify the CTC program as an underhanded way to get vouchers into Utah. Not that I'm trying to give them any ideas; I'm sure they're already thinking that. So the school choice side must be prepared with a strong strategy to educate our legislators about the benefits of the CTC program and how it differs from vouchers.

I'm sure I missed a few points there, so please chime in.

Tomorrow I'll take a deeper look at the history of CTC scholarship program legislation in Arizona, Minnesota, and Pennsylvania to explain how Utah can move forward. I'll also ask the more philosophical question: Should CTC scholarships be accepted as a "consolation prize" after the defeat of a voucher program?

Wednesday Issue: Guestblogger Dan Lips on NCLB

Guestblogger Dan Lips, an Education Analyst at the Heritage Foundation, takes the reins today to share his views on NCLB and its effects on Hispanic children*:

Here’s a fact you probably won’t see in your local newspaper: Half of all Hispanic children in public schools in this country can not read or write the English language. Will Congress and the American people wake up to this grim reality before Congress makes a big mistake in its new version of No Child Left Behind?

The 2007 National Assessment of Educational Progress reveals the depth of the crisis in education for Hispanic children. It reports that 50 percent of Hispanic fourth grade students scored “below basic” in reading. Given that statistic, it is no surprise that only 59 percent of Hispanic girls and 48 percent of Hispanic boys end up graduating from high school.

Yet parents shouldn’t look to Congress for an immediate solution. True, Congress is about to decide whether and how to reauthorize No Child Left Behind, which was originally intended to address the problem of low expectations facing many minority students. The law was designed to hold schools accountable for results through annual testing and by giving students trapped in low-performing schools the opportunity to transfer into higher performing schools.

But after five years, NCLB hasn’t solved the problems in American education. Evidence suggests that federal high-stakes testing has led some states to change how their tests are graded, making it difficult for parents to understand whether their children are making progress. Some states have simply lowered standards to make their test easier to pass.

Early discussions on Capitol Hill suggest that NCLB will become worse, not better, if Congress moves forward with reauthorization. Some of the changes that are being considered would put Hispanic children further behind in the classroom. In particular, draft legislation released by Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller (D–CA) would change current testing policies to give states more leeway in how English language learners are tested. Specifically, the new proposal would reform existing law to allow states to use more subjective portfolio assessments and native language tests for five or more years to measure whether children are learning.

This change would force public schools across the country to make a tough decision: tackle the challenge of teaching Spanish-speaking children English so they can pass regular exams or take the easier path of using native-language tests and portfolio assessments. Because NCLB would continue to pressure schools with high-stakes state tests, federal law would provide an incentive for states to choose the easier path. The result: Fewer Hispanic children would learn the critical skills of reading, writing, and speaking English at an early age.

If Congress doesn’t have the answer, what can be done to address the crisis facing Hispanic children in the classroom? Fortunately, there is a promising solution.

A growing number of states and communities are enacting school choice policies that let parents use their children’s share of public education funding to choose the best school for their child. This gives parents the power to ensure that their children receive a quality education. If a child isn’t thriving in his or her current classroom, parents can pick a new school where the child will receive a better education. Giving parents choices puts pressure on schools to succeed.

And giving parents more control in education is a popular idea. For example, a recent poll conducted by Harvard University researchers found that school choice reforms are popular among Hispanics. Sixty percent of Hispanics support providing school vouchers to disadvantaged students, and 54 percent support giving all children scholarships to transfer out of failing schools.

For far too long, parents have been waiting for government and politicians to fix our schools. Instead, government and politicians should give parents a chance by letting them choose the best school for their children.

From the Daily Grito: I agree with Dan that NCLB is an imperfect law, but I don't necessarily believe that NCLB and school choice are mutually exclusive reform strategies. Although parents should have more educational options (and children have the chance to attend better schools NOW, not ten years from now), I also see the accountability of NCLB as a positive measure to improve public schools. Certainly, NCLB can be improved, but I don't think that it should be abandoned. In an ideal world, America's public schools would be so phenomenal that they would satisfy every child's learning needs. But since they aren't there yet, let's work on improving them while we give children other options and a fighting chance.

* Please note that this has also been published in the Heritage Foundation's Education Notebook.

IQ/Insanity Tests for Utah's Voters - So which is it?

Patrick Byrne, CEO of Overstock.com and a tireless school choice supporter, published a strongly worded op-ed in Saturday's Salt Lake Tribune, sounding his own "grito" against Utah's declining education system. The rhetoric is strong and maybe off-putting to some, but his righteous anger is something to be admired.

Here's the problem, though: Byrne's argument is that Utah's schools are not working for low-income and minority students and thus, Utah needs school choice. While this is true, we already know that not even the voters who supported the vouchers did so because of a concern for poor/Latino/African-American children. Thus, we have a marketing problem on our hands. Byrne is missing an opportunity to connect with voters and tap into their value system as a way to motivate them to vote for vouchers.

There are better arguments. The Tribune's polls show that voucher opponents in Utah were largely frightened that the voucher program would take money away from public schools. I can affirm this; while I was in Utah, every Referendum One opponent that I spoke with cited the argument "Vouchers take money away from public schools." Every. single. one.

So while I understand that Byrne was speaking on his own behalf - and probably not thinking about how to best "market" the school choice cause - his words still raise some imoortant questions for those of us involved in school choice. It may seem ironic and counter-intuitive, but perhaps the best way to GET school choice for low-income and minority students is actually to focus less on those students themselves and more on the worries of the voters.

School Choice and Hispanic Dropouts

The National Center for Policy Analysis has a report out about how school choice can decrease the number of Hispanic dropouts in the US.

I certainly think that the report could be more thorough; for example, its mentions only charters and open enrollment public schools as "choice options" (no private schools, homeschooling, virtual schools, etc.). That said, it is a good and very basic primer for anyone interested.

T Minus 1 Day: Utah Voucher Melee

Tomorrow, Utah's citizens will vote on one of the most controversial and innovative programs to be recently proposed in their state. Their collective "yay" or "nay" will determine whether or not a new universal voucher program will be created and opened to all the children in Utah.

With only one day to convince undecided voters, both sides are working in full-gear, frantically trying to win over the public. I should know this, because I've spent the past three days in Utah and I'm just not sure I can stand to watch another NEA-sponsored commercial while trying to enjoy my late-night "Meerkat Manor."

All joking aside, the media efforts of both sides are impressive. Salt Lake is literally covered in pro- and anti-voucher propaganda, from highway signs to flyers to radio and TV ads. The voucher yard signs are even competing for space with the mayoral candidates' signs. It almost seems as if there is no other issue on the ballot this year.

And while these PR campaigns seem to be well crafted for their main audience - the White, middle-class population of Utah - they are missing a critical segment of the state's population - Latinos. Hispanics comprise 13% of Utah's population and arguably, are the group that stands to benefit the most from the voucher legislation. All this adds up to a powerful vote. So why isn't anyone reaching out to Latinos?

Here are two possible obstacles (and some ideas on how school choice groups can work around them):

1.) A perceived language barrier.

School choice groups may reluctant to reach out to Latinos because of the time and resources involved in producing bilingual materials and advertisements. However, according to the US Census, only 3.5% of Utah's population speaks only Spanish (no English) at home. Therefore, choice groups could continue to produce materials in English and reach a large segment of the Latino population. However, their materials will have to be tailored to the Latino population - could I please get a single Latino face in a voucher commercial? It would be nice.

As a former teacher, I also have to add this: give your audience materials that they can actually read. Materials written at a college level may look sophisticated and thus, “credible,” but if the community can’t read them, they’re essentially worthless. You CAN write about school choice at a 5th grade level (I have!), but you’ll need to be creative with your style.

2.) Irrelevant outreach tactics.

Blogs, You Tube videos, and newspaper Op-eds are great, but they are not necessarily the best ways to reach a Latino audience. In this community, face time is still the best way to get your message across. The voucher debate is big in new and traditional media, but few groups are attempting any grassroots work. This is a critical strategy for the Hispanic community. Utah's Latinos need information about the issue, but they also need to know about the voting process, how to register to vote, and the impact of their vote. To truly convince Latino voters of their political power and get them to exercise that vote, you have to work in the community, get to know the voters, and be available (and able) to walk them through the process.

Any other ideas? I would love to hear them.

Note: Another interesting article to consider is yesterday's Salt Lake Tribune poll on why Utahans support or oppose vouchers. It's good data to consider when we're developing our marketing and outreach strategies.