A Thorough Analysis of DC’s PARCC Scores

Valerie Jablow of EducationDC has a lengthy and thorough column, guest-written by one Betsy Wolf, with way more analysis of the recently-released PARCC scores for DC’s charter schools and regular public schools than I could ever accomplish.

The conclusions that I draw are that:

(1) There is a huge amount of variation in PARCC test scores and proportions of ‘at risk’ students from school to school, both in the regular public schools and the charters;

(2) The public schools have slightly higher scores than the charter schools;

(3) There is a very strong and negative correlation between the proportion of ‘at risk’ students and the proportion of students scoring at the highest levels on this test;

(4) There is a much greater concentration of ‘at risk’ students in the regular public schools than in the charter schools;

(5) No, we have not overcome socio-economic segregation, and

(6) No, the charter schools do not have a secret method for achieving success for every kid, no matter what.

Here is the link: https://educationdc.net/2018/08/27/how-did-dcs-parcc-scores-grow/

I reproduce here a couple of Ms Wolf’s graphs, showing that close correlation between income and PARCC scores in both the charter and regular public sectors. The horizontal axis is the percentage of the student population at the school that is ‘at risk’ (a composite measure including the fraction of families being on food stamps, welfare, incarcerated, free and/or reduced lunch, etc), and the vertical axis is the percentage of students scoring either a 4 or a 5 on the PARCC (that is, the highest levels). Both are for mathematics; the first one is for regular DC public schools, and the second is for the charter sector.

atrisk-dcps - Rebecca Wolf


atrisk-charters - Betsy Wolf

(Both of these graphs are copyright 2018 by Betsy Wolf, and if you click on them you can see enlarged versions.)

The first one shows that Janney, Ross, SWS, Key, and Mann elementary schools all have zero percent of their students classified as ‘at risk’, and have some the highest percentages (about 80%) in the entire city of their students scoring 4 or 5 on the math portion of the PARCC in all of DC.

Conversely, Luke Moore, Washington Metropolitan, and Roosevelt STAY — all alternative high schools — have nearly 100% of their students ‘at risk’ and have zero percent of their students scoring 4s or 5s on the PARCC. There are roughly 30 regular DC public schools that have over 75% of their students ‘at risk’. That’s a lot of kids. So the segregation by socio-economic status in the regular public schools is rather extreme. (Luke Moore happens to be about 6 blocks from my house; I’m not sure how often the students there actually attend class on a regular basis, based on how often, and when, I see students come and go.)

By comparison, there are only about six charter schools with over 75% of their students ‘at risk’. The negative correlation between the fraction of ‘at risk’ students and the fraction that ‘passes’ the PARCC with a 4 or a 5 is very strong in both the charter schools and the regular public schools, but more so in the latter (the first graph).

In the charter sector, there are many fewer schools with greater than 60% of their students scoring 4s or 5s (that is, above the fourth gray horizontal line, counting from the bottom). Also, there are fewer charter than public schools with less than 25% of their students at risk (that is, to the left of the second gray vertical line, counting from the left).

Interestingly, there are a number of somewhat anomalous charter schools that don’t seem to fit the stereotypes: Lee Montessori, Shining Stars and Roots have NO students ‘at risk’, but fairly low fractions of their students scoring high on the math PARCC, and we have four of the KIPP Schools (Spring, Lead, Promise, and Heights) which have middling concentrations of ‘at risk’ students but relatively high scores on the PARCC. (Shining Stars happens to be less than a block from my house, and I see apparently prosperous, professional families, many European-American, dropping off and picking up their kids every morning and every afternoon.)

Why these anomalies? That bears some further investigation, but my colleagues who have taught at various KIPP schools have told me me that the KIPP system is quite effective at weeding out non-compliant students.


Answer: NO.



Is this school, or a prison camp?

You can read here an excerpt from a book on KIPP, based on interviews with former teachers. This is not how I was taught, not how my kids were taught, and it’s not how I would want anybody to be taught.

It sounds like a prison camp.

Published in: on August 27, 2016 at 2:08 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,

KIPP gets to hide almost all important data from the public

The KIPP chain of charter schools has been criticized for a number of things, including high attrition rates among both teachers and students, high salaries for its CEOs, and large expenditures on advertising.

They are also allowed to hide most of that information from the public – something that no actual public school would be allowed to do. I am reprinting a few paragraphs from ‘Schools Matter’ on the topic:

We know that KIPP’s high attrition among students and teachers has been documented since 2008, even though KIPP has gone to great lengths to hide the facts that most teachers last less than three year and that the majority of entering 5th graders never reach 9th grade.

Their secrecy, however, took on new dimensions when the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) recently requested student enrollment and attrition information from the U. S. Department of Education.  

Since the U. S. Government handed over at least $40,000,000 in taxpayer money to KIPP over a two year period from 2013 through 2014, it would seem appropriate, would it not, that the federal government provide the requested information to public watchdog groups.  

But, then, KIPP is not just any corporate charter chain.  The KIPP Model of “no excuses”schools is the chosen model among white philanthropists and investors, hedge funds, and businessmen for a 21st Century indoctrination of the poor that is based on cultural/character scrubbing and neurological re-wiring of children to make them immune to effects of poverty.  It is an aggressive and profitable agenda that hopes to re-shape urban education into a tool of paternalistic exploitation.

When CMD requested student attrition information about KIPP schools, ED bowed to KIPP’s request to redact all information related to student attrition.   Would any of those Congressmen who demand public school accountability interested in knowing why the U. S. Education Department will not release this information?  After all, these are public charter schools, right? 

And here are some of those redacted pages:

kipp attrit1

and here is some additional analysis from Lisa Graves and Dustin Belike on PRWatch:


KIPP touts itself as particularly successful at preparing students to succeed in school and college.

Yet, it insisted that the U.S. Department of Education keep secret from the public the statistics about the percentage of its eighth graders who completed high school, entered college, and/or who completed a two-year or four-year degree.

A few years ago, professor Gary Miron and his colleagues Jessica Urschel and Nicholas Saxton, found that “KIPP charter middle schools enroll a significantly higher proportion of African-American students than the local school districts they draw from but 40 percent of the black males they enroll leave between grades 6 and 8,” as reported by Mary Ann Zehr in Ed Week.

Zehr noted: “‘The dropout rate for African-American males is really shocking,’ said Gary J. Miron, a professor of evaluation, measurement, and research” at Western Michigan University, who conducted the national study.

Miron’s analysis was attacked by KIPP and its allies, who said KIPP’s success was not due to the attrition of lower performing students who leave the school or move to other districts. One of its defenders was Mathematica Policy Research, whose subsequent study was used to try to rebut Miron’s analysis. (That name will be important momentarily.)

The Department of Education has been provided with the data about what percentage of KIPP students graduate from high school and go on to college, but it is helping KIPP keep that secret—despite the public tax dollars going to these schools and despite KIPP’s claim to be operating what are public schools.

Real public schools would never be allowed to claim that high school graduation rates or college matriculation rates are “proprietary” or “privileged” or “confidential.”

– See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2016/04/13096/exposed-cmd-kipps-efforts-keep-public-dark-while-seeking-millions-taxpayer#sthash.hgMEHxto.dpuf

Having Two Separate School Systems Is Wasteful

Peter Greene keeps making the point that having a charter school system along side a public school system is wasteful. One reason is that each system would need its own set of administrators. In Washington, DC, where nearly half of the students now attend charter schools, we now have MORE school buildings than we did when I was in junior high school just over 50 years ago, but only about HALF as many students — thus, a lot of unused space.

Inventing two separate school systems has done essentially nothing to reduce the score gaps between children from white, affluent families (living mostly in upper Northwest) and children from minority, poor families (living elsewhere). The segregation is not quite as awful as it was in the 1960s, but it’s pretty close.

Here is an excellent article from Valerie Strauss’ blog where a DC parent decries the waste, segregation, and general bass-ackwardness of what passes for ‘reform’ in the nation’s capital.

An excerpt:

“Two years ago, when I moderatedthe mayoral education debate, I gave each candidate a math problem:

“–In 1965, the District had 147,000 students and 196 schools. That’s [an average of] 750 kids per school.

“–In 2014, we had 85,000 students and 213 DCPS [D.C. Public Schools] and charter school buildings. That’s [an average of] 399 kids per school.

“That means we have half the kids that we had in the 1960s, and more buildings, many of them gravely under-enrolled. Yet, we still authorize up to 20 new charters per year, and an unclear number of DCPS new schools. Enrollment is flat. At what point do we match school growth with enrollment needs, geographic balance, and transportation planning in mind? At one point do we focus on using data to invest in and manage the schools that we have?”

She also describes

“…the scene I watch from my house near North Capitol Street. It’s straight-up racial apartheid. If I see white children walking to the parks, I knew they are from Mundo Verde or Inspired Teaching schools. The lack of white faces in a group of children makes me know the kids are from Langley, Harmony, or KIPP.”

Horrifying …

I’m sure most of my former students will tell you I was too strict and gave too much homework, but the chapter I hope you read on apparent abuses by a KIPP CEO at a school in California is absolutely horrifying. It was posted at Steven Krashen’s blog, Schools Matter.

Or click on this link:


Charter Schools Have Failed to Close the ‘Achievement Gap’ their Backers Claim they would Crush.

I am reposting an article that Diane Ravitch brought to my attention, but I’m deleting the crappy and incorrect headline. I am emphasizing a few parts that I think are key, since I think the Levines “buried the Lede” as a reporter would say.

They also could have used a few graphs to illustrate what they meant.

By Adeline Levine and Murray Levine


on October 13, 2013 – 12:01 AM

Charter schools are hailed by the U.S. Department of Education, by major foundations, and by corporate and philanthropic organizations as the prime solution to the alleged failures of traditional public schools to educate children, failures underscored by the poor performance of their minority and disadvantaged students.

Four large-scale studies by two respected research institutes, CREDO and Mathematica, comparing charter schools with traditional public schools were reported in 2013. Major newspapers, apparently relying on the press releases, trumpeted that charter schools had shown astonishing results in closing the achievement gap between disadvantaged and not-disadvantaged students.

Achievement tests are the major yardstick used to assess schools. CREDO conducted three national evaluation studies comparing the achievement test performance of students in charter schools with matched students in traditional public schools. Mathematica studied middle schools in the well-regarded KIPP charter school chain. All four studies compared the amount of “gain” or “growth” in achievement test scores over a school year, not the actual levels of achievement. Even with gains, the achievement level may still be well below norms for the test.

Buried deep in its report, one CREDO study states, “Only when the annual learning gain of these student [minority/poverty] subgroups exceeds that of white or non-poverty students can progress on closing the achievement gap be made.” Charter school minority and economically disadvantaged students made some very small gains in reading and math when compared to matched controls in public schools. However, the difference in achievement growth between white non-poverty students in traditional public schools and minority/poverty students in charter schools is the most relevant comparison.

The average gain, in standard deviation units, for minority or poverty students in charter schools when compared to their counterparts in traditional public schools, was about 0.03. However, the average gain for non-minority, non-poverty traditional public school white students was 0.80. The gain was up to 27 times the gain for poverty or minority students in charter schools. The Mathematica study of KIPP middle schools showed similar large gaps in gains.

The CREDO Institute states: “For many charter school supporters, improving education outcomes for historically disadvantaged is the paramount goal.” While all of the groups in both kinds of schools show gains over the years, the achievement gap remains, as it always has when students from homes in poverty are compared to non-poor ones, in this country and internationally. The “paramount goal” to level the field is not being met by charter schools.

Charter school advocates attribute the educational difficulties of disadvantaged students in traditional public schools to ineffective, uncaring teachers, their unions and bureaucratic restrictions. They insist that having a great teacher in every classroom will overcome every limitation. They claim that low expectations for disadvantaged children are the major problem, not the complex negative effects of poverty.

Charter schools are not hindered in their selection of teachers by bureaucratic restrictions, nor are charter school teachers prevented by union restrictions from pursuing the charter school programs. Allegedly, charter schools have great teachers in every classroom. If there are “no excuses” when disadvantaged students do less well than non-disadvantaged students in traditional public schools, the same rules should apply to charter schools.

What excuse do charters have for the persistent achievement test gap between disadvantaged students in charter schools compared to non-disadvantaged students in the public schools? And why continue down a path where the numbers show that the national policy favoring charter schools will make the majority-minority gap worse?

Charter schools are protected by powerful, wealthy individuals and foundations that profess free-market choice and hold anti-union sentiments and pro-privatization beliefs; some advocates are pursuing profit motives. The advocates seem not to be influenced by data despite their insistence they are data-driven.

The reality is that problems associated with a history of discrimination and the complex negative effects of poverty are not easily solved. The solutions require an enormous, long-term societal commitment. The current reforms, however, threaten the very existence of our public schools, which have long been the envy of the entire world.

Adeline Levine, Ph.D., is professor emeritas (sociology) at the University at Buffalo. A former chairwoman of the department, she is the author of “Love Canal: Science, Politics and People,” and other books and articles on educational subjects. Murray Levine, J.D., Ph.D., is distinguished service professor (psychology) emeritus at UB. He has published extensively on educational subjects.

Published in: on October 19, 2013 at 7:04 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , , ,

An Assessment of KIPP NYC by a former TFAer

This is a very interesting assessment of what a lot of classes were like at KIPP’s only high school so far in New York City.

Not awesome, not excellent, just ‘meh’ at best. Though we are constantly assured how wonderful they are.


Here is one of the comments:

Jane G.

I have mentioned on a few blogs of my nightmare experience working for a year in a KIPP school. I was a veteran teacher who was dumb enough to transfer into a KIPP school. In the year that I was there I saw tremendous staff turnaround. Teachers quit in the middle of the year and were fired in the middle of the year. The entire school seemed like a cult with constant chants, rituals, and songs. The students were told to NOT speak to other students from other schools and were constantly prodded to “work hard be nice”. There was an unrelenting pressure that life as you know it consists of getting into college. The staff was extremely overworked, underpaid, and even had to go on weeklong field trips out of state. All in all, it was the saddest experience of my teaching career. I would never even think of suggesting to any teacher to think of teaching in a KIPP school. They are a world within a world and they care nothing other than spreading their false bill of goods to parents, teachers, and the community. When you have carte blanche to brainwash kids, utilize boarderline mental abuse, and kick kids and teachers out at the drop of a hat, you will have a totalitarian school where results are met by means that are never justified by ends.

Published in: on April 10, 2013 at 8:02 pm  Comments (1)  

A More Realistic Ending to the Movie “Won’t Back Down”

Here is a more realistic version of what would happen in a school that is taken over by a private corporation when parents are duped persuaded to do the “parent trigger” route.



Published in: on September 30, 2012 at 1:01 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , , ,

The Secret Behind KIPP? Get Rid of the Low-Scoring Students

And of course, that’s what private schools do, too. You have to take entrance exams to get into St. Alban’s, Sidwell, Maret, Phillips Exeter, and so on.

At KIPP public charter school, they don’t have an entrance exam. But the parents have to sign up for some pretty heavy responsibilities (ones what we wish all parents could do, but we know, unfortunately, that some will not and can not. After all, if you are locked up or dead, it’s pretty hard to come to mandatory Saturday classes!) or the students will not be accepted.

In any case, today’s guest Answer Sheet column in the Washington Post (conducted by Valerie Strauss but written today by Richard Kahlenberg) shows conclusively that the way that KIPP achieves its “success” is by unloading its low-achievers as they progress through middle school. Enrollments drop, and those students are not replaced with new ones.

What’s more, KIPP once tried to take over an existing inner-city school, one in which they were not allowed to select the students. Guess what: they failed, and gave it up. It reminds me of Geoffrey Canada ‘firing’ an entire grade of students in his ‘Harlem miracle’.

Here is the link:


%d bloggers like this: