Thursday, July 1, 2010
Little Rock Schools UA fudges charter school report
Posted by Max Brantley on Thu, Jul 1, 2010 at 5:49 AM
This one's for the public school/charter school wonks, but it's also an enlightening piece of information dug up by Little Rock School District lawyer Chris Heller on how the Walton-inspired education "reformers" up at the University of Arkansas massaged the numbers in attempting to show the Little Rock School District isn't harmed by the state's unlimited approval of open enrollment charter schools in Pulaski County.
A note from Heller and a document he dug up in an FOI of the "reformers" show that the charter schools are draining a big number of white students out of the magnet schools. These are the schools the state agreed to support in a federal court agreement as a means of stemming re-segregation in the district. This is particularly important at the middle school level. The UA researchers hid this critical piece of data in a report Attorney General Dustin McDaniel is now trumpeting as holy writ. Holy s*** is more like it.
The numbers are almost beside the point. You need only look at the clutch of predominantly white schools created in the county to understand these state-encouraged creations harm conventional public schools. If they were luring kids failed by their schools it would be one thing. Generally, they are not, based on scores of white kids enrolling in the majority white schools. If they were working hard to keep the tough kids it would be another thing. They are not. The tough cases are "counseled" back to conventional public schools.
Still. Academics suppressing data to improve the look of their report? Climategate, anyone? UPDATE: See UA response on the jump.
HELLER'S NOTE
board members and dr watson -
let me give you a little background about the attached document. last year, as judge miller was preparing to schedule hearings on the unitary status petitions of pcssd and nlrsd, he requested status reports from all the parties. we filed ours on september 11, 2009 and raised issues about the state board of education's unconditional approval of numerous open enrollment charter schools in pulaski county. we claimed, among other things, that the charters were enrolling students who would otherwise have attended magnet schools, thus undermining the 1989 settlement agreement.
in response to our status report, the office for education policy (oep) at the university of arkansas published on september 28, 2009 a biased report (see my email dated 9/28/09) which was critical of our arguments. when we filed our motion to enforce the settlement agreement on may 19, 2010, the oep published in response an updated report (also biased) on may 27, 2010. we sent an foia request for documents related to the may 27 oep report and the attached document was included in the response.
as i'll explain below, the attached document shows that we are correct about the impact on magnet schools.
table 4 of the september 28, 2009 oep report showed that 178 white students left lrsd for charter schools in the 2008-09 school year. oep claimed that those transfers did not hurt desegregation. the attached document, which oep has not published, shows that 101 of those 178 students came from magnet schools. this impact on lrsd magnet schools is not mentioned in the may 27, 2010 oep report, despite the fact that the report has a section titled " where do students transferring to charter schools come from...?".
i'll present a litigation report at the july board meeting. i thought you would like to have this information about oep and the impact of charters on magnet schools in the meantime. ch
THE COPY OF THE DATA HE FOUND AT UA THROUGH FOI
From: "Nathan Jensen"
To: "Gary Ritter"
Subject: Question about White Student School of Origin
Date: Wed, 30 Sep 2009 16:01:32 -0500
% Minority # of Student Transfers (08-09) School(s) of Origin (N)
55-68% minority enrollment
62 transferred students
9 Mann Magnet Middle
1 Parkview Magnet High
16 Booker Arts Magnet
8 Pulaski Heights Middle
13 Carver Magnet Elem
2 Gibbs Magnet Elem
3 Pulaski Heights Elem
10 Williams Magnet Elem
45-54.99% minority enrollment
0 transfers
Less than 44.9% minority enrollment
33 transfers
3 Forest Park Elem
9 Jefferson Elem
21 Carver Magnet Elem
greater than 68% minority
83
(just did this to double check that I had the right N for white students, which I do)
Looks like the majority of white students did come from magnet schools — 72
from the first three groups, and another 29 from the final grouping for a total of 101 of the 178 students. What should we make of this?
Regards,
Nathan C. Jensen
Research Associate, Office for Education Policy
Department of Education Reform
University of Arkansas
ANSWER TO QUESTION POSED IN NOTE: The researchers decided to bury this salient point.
PS: I can't explain the discrepancy that shows different numbers for Carver Magnet under two categories.
UPDATED RESPONSE FROM GARY RITTER AT UA
Of course, we disagree with your accusation that we were intentionally misleading...we were not. The numbers in our September, 28, 2009 report are perfectly consistent with the numbers in our email that you reproduced on your blog. Table 4 on page 9 of the document shows that, in fact, 178 white students did transfer from the LRSD, with the majority (95) transferring from above-average white schools.
In our analysis, the policy question we were answering was about the overall racial composition of the traditional public schools that charter students exited (magnet schools, which are traditional public schools, were included in this overall set of schools). Thus, our guiding question did not differentiate by individual school, because we were interested in knowing the overall impact these transfers have on all schools, and all students, in the LRSD.
Finally, and perhaps most important given your inappropriate accusations, the email you posted on your blog was sent after we released our first report (report released on Sept. 28, 2009, email sent on Sept. 30). This is something that we considered after our report was released. In any event, our question of interest focused on the impact these transfers have on all schools, not just on a specific subset of the traditional public sector.
However, as a service unit in the state flagship University, it is the goal of OEP to answer the questions that are relevant to important policy questions. So, if anyone — including yourself or Mr. Heller — would have asked us to provide information about how many of these students come from magnet schools, we would have been happy to do so. I would also be happy to speak with you more about this (in person or on the phone) if you would like.
Thanks for your interest in our report,
Gary RitterDirector, UA Office for Education Policy
ARK. BLOG COMMENT
By the time of the updated OEP report, if not long before the first report, the impact of charters on magnet schools was a key part of Little Rock's criticism of the state policy on charter schools. Why else would the UA have been moved to make the analysis Heller found. It's disingenuous to say, "if only someone had asked."
Speaking of...
-
Monday night line
January 30, 2012News summary: Double shooting in Alexander and arrest of child rape suspect lead the list. /more/
-
Little Rock board moves to address truancy
January 18, 2012Channel 4 reports some of the discussion at the Little Rock City Board last night about interest on the city's part in obtaining power in the city's district court to take more control of truancy cases and speed their handling. /more/
-
Former school employee charged with theft from homeless fund
January 13, 2012The Little Rock police have reported the arrest of a former Little Rock School District employee for theft of almost $10,000 from funds intended for homeless students. /more/
-
How to assess charter school success
January 13, 2012I took a most unscientific stab at this topic in my column this week. I noted the shortcomings in a University of Arkansas ranking published in the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette that assigned a number score to every school in Arkansas based on the national Iowa Test. /more/
-
Education by the numbers
January 11, 2012The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette opened the new year with three Sunday newspaper pages devoted to a ranking of every school in Arkansas, more than 1,000, by a two-digit number based on the Iowa Test taken by more than 350,000 Arkansas students. /more/
-
Surprises when schools ranked by test scores AND poverty
January 4, 2012I wrote yesterday about what I thought was inordinate attention given by both the University of Arkansas school reformers and the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette to a statewide ranking of every school in Arkansas according to its composite score on the Iowa Test, a national standardized test. /more/
-
School rankings: One size doesn't fit all
January 3, 2012The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette devoted a significant amount of real estate in the Sunday newspaper to some number crunching by the Walton-financed school reformers up at the University of Arkansas. /more/
-
Charter schools allowed to intervene in deseg case
December 30, 2011Some legal normalcy is returning to the Pulaski County school desegregation case. First, it was the 8th Circuit's decision to nullify Judge Brian Miller's out-of-the-blue order ending state desegregation aid to the three Pulaski County school districts. /more/
-
Little Rock School Twitter hit by hacker?
December 30, 2011Sorry I didn't take a screen shot. I was alerted last night to a post on the Little Rock School District Twitter account that suggested a Bible reading for the day — from Revelation, maybe? /more/
-
8th Circuit orders state desegregation aid to continue
December 28, 2011It had tipped its hand decisively earlier with a stay of the order, but the 8th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals finished the job today of undoing Judge Brian Miller's unexpected and preemptory order ending state desegregation funding to the Little Rock School District. /more/
- More »
Comments (77)
Showing 1-50 of 77
The Walton Wizards have never been known for honest stats -- they prefer to use a little magic and distraction to hope that no one looks to closely at the poor quality of their research and inaccurate, biased conclusions.
Thanks to Heller for exposing these inaccuracies and flaws. Shame on Ritter and Greene for stooping to such practices and deceptions.
like
dislike
Jay Greene's name came up several times on Tuesday during a session at the US Dept of Education, Institution for Education Sciences Fifth Annual Research Conference and Poster Exhibition in Washington, DC:
http://ies.ed.gov/director/conferences/10i…
I wonder why he wasn't there? Oh that's right, he doesn't do peer reviewed *research,* he does *advocacy.*
This says nothing. Funny, you guys will bite at anything. Not a single one of you, including Max, can even explain what Heller's going for here (cause he has nothing). You just catch a whiff of an accusation and you dive in. Challenge made, now step-up. I'll interpret your silence as defeat.
Excuse me, with the Waltons involved, it's bound to be slimy.
Come on now, these are the creators of Wal-Mart for goodness sake.
Marco, what part of this is too difficult for you to understand? It's fairly black and white (no pun intended).
Heller claimed "that the charters were enrolling students who would otherwise have attended magnet schools, thus undermining the 1989 settlement agreement."
OEP "claimed that those transfers did not hurt desegregation" in spite of evidence that the majority of white students transferring into charter schools came from magnet schools.
You have to be able to understand the purpose of magnet schools to understand this. What part needs further explanation or verification? Heller's an extremely intelligent guy. If this data meant nothing, why did OEP suppress it?
Dishonesty is as good an excuse as any other.
“If only Al Sharpton were around, Lincoln would have known he was a victim of racism.” Ann Coulter
Interpret however you wish, it still doesn't make you right or aware of the issues being dealt with here. As for saying nothing....we'll just interpret what you're saying as leading by example.
1. You offer no counter to Heller's data. You can't.
2. Playing the game of attributing some Machiavellian cause to this is just BS. The issue is the fact that Ritter, et al, presented erroneous conclusions and hid relevant data. Deny that. You can't.
3. Repeating lies, making false accusations, using asinine logic, and pretending to know something about this ought to be something a good debater avoids. You, however, can't.
I've seen some bad arguments on this blog and you qualify as a semi-finalist with this drivel. So, whine all you want, cry and stomp your little feet, pout and shout....just don't get the idea that you know how to debate or argue.
Because you can't.
“A note from Heller and a document he dug up in an FOI of the "reformers" show that the charter schools are draining a big number of white students out of the magnet schools.”
Memo to Chris Heller, Esq.:
You need to do more than simply sending “a note” to Boss Brantley, sport. These findings should be shared with a MUCH broader audience than exists here. You should call a press conference TODAY with all four LR network television stations present along with Greater LR's 21 or 22 radio stations.
Also, and this is very important, ArkD-G reporters should be present for your press conference.
Folks can say what they will about a Hussman/Walton/UA conspiracy to undermine the LRSD (and, heck, it may be true), but I’ve yet to detect the spin of Hussman’s editorials bleeding over into the news reporting of professionals like Howell, Upshaw, et al.
A press conference, I say, and TODAY!
Do it.
Awesome job Jake! So far it has taken you two, Master Debater that you are, two posts to fail to respond to me. Did the Oreos and Doritos crumbs embedded in your keyboard give you some trouble?
Let's try baby steps. I'll ask a question, and you'll attempt to answer it.
Question one: Why would we care if white kids left predominantly white magnet schools for charter schools that were less white?
Because of the law. It was covered in the article and pre-empted your question.
Next time, read before you formulate an attempt to spin the story.
You keep practicing those baby steps and when you can stand up and walk, then maybe I'll find some interest in debating you. Right now, you can't.
Does it mean that more Black students will get access to the enhanced programs at the magnet schools? Or does the answer to that have to do with, "the purpose of magnet schools?"
Now that I've answered your question, Marco, please answer these very simple inquiries:
1. Is the data Heller presented wrong?
2. Did Ritter, et al, omit this data from their findings?
3. Did the state agree in federal court to support magnet schools in stemming re-segregation?
4. Explain why Ritter would send erroneous findings to McDaniel.
You have already lost this exchange. Pretending otherwise is your prerogative but it doesn't change the facts presented by Heller or the errors committed by Ritter nor does it change the findings of the federal court and the state agreeing to abide by them.
Try as hard as you can, when it comes to changing the facts, you can't.
So dance around the facts with your smirky little questions that basically are just asking for opinions. We enjoy seeing the monkey perform, even if the music he's dancing to has no rhythm or rhyme.
Marco, you may want to join the ATP and a bunch of the conservatives here on our fact-finding trip to Somalia next week. The government is not involved at all in their education system, meaning that it cannot help but be a superior system.
And since we're hiring locals to help us, we'll have a 100% black workforce. That will be nice. Like old times, if you know what I mean.
You're getting ahead of yourself Jake. Refer to your favorite porn page, relieve yourself, and let's try again.
I asked my original question because I had a feeling you were confusing two things, and your answer suggests you are. The UA researchers did not set out to determine the impact of school transfers on "the law." They determined the impact of school transfers on integration and segregation. Do you know the difference, or will I need to explain it to you?
>>The UA researchers did not set out to determine the impact of school transfers on "the law." They determined the impact of school transfers on integration and segregation.<<
And how well did they determine the impacts on segregation if they lie about their findings?
As usual, I have to provide research for the uninformed. In a study (Choice without Equity:
Charter School Segregation and the Need for Civil Rights Standards) using data from charter schools in 40 states and released in January 2010, charter schools were shown to further segregation. Said one of the report's authors, Gary Orfield:
"The theory of charters is that they can offer something unique because they are
autonomous and can be creative in offering distinctive and excellent educational programs. It is very strange that the Obama Administration has not embraced a larger and older movement, the magnet school movement, which already does this and has a much better civil rights stance.
Pilot schools that operate with great autonomy but stay within public school systems have also had considerable success in Boston and elsewhere. Previous administrations may have believed that charter schools were superior just because they were not part of traditional public school systems. There is no evidence for that proposition, but well implemented choice schools do offer important possibilities. I believe that the Administration and Congress should give each of these forms of choice equal and fair treatment in federal funding competition and that each should be expected to meet the same civil rights and accountability standards.
Many parents trapped in weak schools want a choice. We need to make certain that the choices are good ones, that they are fairly available to all, and that they provide, as much as possible, real paths into the mainstream of American society."
Here is a link to the entire report (it's 130 pages & will take sometime to download):
http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/new…
Marco, you just gave the game away. You state that the UA researchers "determined the impact of school transfers on integration and segregation." If so, then why ignore pertinent data? It may have lessened their results but at least they would've been more honest.
Both Ritter and Heller have agendas in this matter. Ritter is trying to portray charter schools in the best light possible and Heller is trying to keep the state honest about its obligations to desegregation and public schools. Both are touching on the issue of segregation and integration impacts of charter schools.
Again, the report I cited is a much stronger and more in-depth report than what Ritter has provided. As the authors indicate, there are a few areas where results are in line with positive civil rights goals. But, on the whole, charter schools are doing are far less efficient job than magnet schools have historically done in educating our children without the stigma of segregation.
Doc,
I asked Ritter and Jensen about the two entries. I got a response to the larger question, but not that question. See update.
Hear, hear, Jake! (Funny: Marco sounds EXACTLY like that other troll with many heads and ADD.)
The OEP is not an unbiased educational entity. Everything they stand for is in opposition to public schools. If you look closely, they are hell-bent on tearing down and destroying public education....that is what they really want.
Just follow the money....look and see who has funded them. The money trail will lead you to the front door of Jim Walton and those who seek to destroy and ravage public education.
Is it fair to say that the more racially-identifiable the magnet schools become (due to siphoning off of white students by the charter schools), the less attractive those magnet schools will become to white parents -- and the more segregated the magnet schools will become? (I assume the white parents response as a historical factor, not as a basis for criticizing them).
Do actions by the state that cause magnet schools to become more and more racially identifiable -- segregated -- place the state at risk for violation of the consent decree, or fresh litigation?
Is that what's going on here?
I'm not a charter/public school wonk, but that's what it looks like.
Heller cites a report from OEP given in September 2009 by Ritter, et al. In it Ritter says:
"As such, it seems worthwhile to examine the types of students who transfer out of PC traditional public schools into PC charter schools, to see if the cumulative impact of such transfers is having a detrimental effect on the integration efforts of the LRSD.
.....With these data, we can look at the demographics of the students that are leaving LRSD traditional public schools for charter schools, and actually begin to determine the extent to which charter schools impact racial integration, be it positively or negatively."
So, with this goal statement in mind, explain why Ritter chooses to ignore data on the number of white students transferring from LRSD to charter schools. That isn't what he says his report is supposed to be doing.
Even Ritter says he's going to "examine the types of students who transfer." Well, why did he ignore these types who transferred?? Did he really determine the extent of the impact (as he stated was his goal) if he had to omit data pertinent to his stated research goals??
What Ritter fails to address now and in his report was that the majority of these white students were in magnet schools which was what the courts set up to deal with the segregation issue.
Also, Ritter uses some very strange logic in analyzing only those who have left the school system and completely ignoring the statistics on the racial makeup of the schools during and after this process. It doesn't take into account all the other transfers and changes that affect racial numbers. Ritter makes a tremendous leap in logic by assuming that the transfer of students from public to charter is the only way integration numbers are affected.
But, like I said. Both he and Heller have agendas.
Gotta go to Texas but one last parting shot. Ritter is the expert who created some graphs for eStem that made a 3% increase look like the side of a mountain. (Something like this - "/")
Been especially leery of his work since then.
Check out my response to this petty silliness:
http://mid-riffs.com/2010/07/fools-gate/
For the love of God, Jake, how do you even get by in this world? You can't stay on a single point and argue that point because if you did, you'd lose. Now we're hearing about reports written in UCLA, some other report Ritter wrote, and your lame-ass life which includes trips to Texas.
You never answered my questions because you can't. You can't tell me why some white kids leaving overly-white magnet schools leads to more segregation. Because it doesn't! At some level you may know that, but shit, quick, google some other barely related study, get your mind away from its own internal inconsistencies before your little head explodes!
And to you Norma...nice pic. Whatcha doin later?
Thanks for the rousing response from the Walton University Charter School Advancement and Teacher Union Destruction Institute. The fudging, JBM, is in recognizing the significance of the data, compiling it and deciding not to disclose it in the May followup report. (And can I ever get an explanation for Carver appearing twice in the list?)
As I said before the numbers game of magnet/charter that you and your colleagues have constructed is a smokescreen. Charter schools have become flight academies (havens not just based on race but on economic circumstance) from the three Pulaski public school districts. In several cases, that was by design. The state shouldn't be in the business of enabling this if the court order has meaning.
Man Jake, I've really enjoyed the show you put on here. You've come at your opponents from so many angles that you've clearly just left them bewildered and in awe of your profundity. You've precisely and systematically answered every question put to you, you've given us the earth-shattering Orfield smackdown (bigger is better, right?), and best of all, you did a fine job of relating the magnet numbers in question to the stated intent of the OEP report. When will we get to see you again? Any teasers for new tricks you might show us next time? Will you be wearing a cape? Should I bring 3-D glasses?
Sincerely,
JDS Fanclub
Max, I suppose I will connect the dots for you because you seem to be completely incapable of unraveling the difficult riddle of Carver appearing twice. It was likely a typo. Queue sinister music.
I saw nothing sinister in the duplicate for Carver. I just wanted to get the numbers right. And there are different numbers for it.
Max, when you use words like "fudging" it implies sinister intent on the part of the authors, and not simply that the authors failed to "recognizing the significance of the data." You know that and you chose those words purposefully. You continued the same tone when you used the phrase "numbers game" in your comment.
Interestingly, you continue to fail to identify any substantive concerns with either OEP report. All that you can muster is a gut feeling about the way things are in Little Rock. Data be damned.
Your researcher identified an important number, asked what to do with it and the decision was made not to publish it. Red flag to me.
I indeed have many problems with the OEP's analysis. School-to-school comparisons cherrypicked for marginal percentage advantage miss the forest -- a decline, particularly in LR middle schools, coincidental with the advent of charter schools in Pulaski County.
Max, it certainly is frustrating when you can't tell what the correct numbers are. I wanted to approach the question from a couple of directions but if the data are corrupted at the source, there is no point to that.
I'm really not sure why you thought it was a red flag. This line of reasoning seems absurd to me.
Researchers must decide on a research question and then must decide what information is relevant to answering that question. They cannon simply make a compendium of everything anyone might possibly find interesting in the future. First that is not their job, and second, it would be counterproductive. The OEP is not obliged to disaggregate their data in a particular way simply because you or Heller might be interested in the magnet schools in Little Rock at some point in the future.
By the way, Heller has the data, and is more than welcome to perform any analysis he sees fit.
I am also unclear what you mean by "cherrypicked". It makes it hard to have a discussion with you when you are willing to make things up. The OEP report considers all students from all public schools.
“Both Ritter and Heller have agendas in this matter . . . Heller is trying to keep the state honest about its obligations to desegregation and public schools.” -- Jake
What better way to keep the state honest about its obligations than by calling statewide attention to the alleged dishonesty? And how better to gain statewide attention to said dishonesty than by the press conference I recommended many posts ago?
This disconcerting matter has been beaten to death here on this thread and to absolutely no avail. So, I say again, summon all the media to a press conference to hear what Heller, Linda Watson, and the school board have to say.
Get aggressive, for Pete’s sake! Call an ace and ace and a spade a spade, and let the chips fall wherever they may. And then stay after the culprits for as long as it takes. WTF not?
The state’s TV and radio stations and the print medium, too, would help spread some sunshine on this matter if they were rounded up like a posse so their attention could be called to it.
I just don’t get all the pussyfooting and tiptoeing and tap-dancing on Heller’s part. Sending a friggin’ “note” to the Arkansas Times’ blogmaster (public school advocate and good guy/citizen that he is) will not cut it. It won’t even come close.
So why not a press conference, Chris? WTF not? Wouldn’t be politically correct? Wouldn’t be polite? Might embarrass somebody? Might upset the governor and/or some legislators? Might not be good PR for the school district, or MUCH worse, the FIRM, Lord forbid? And don’t pretend you’re not reading this, ‘cause I know damn well you are.
There are times --- and this is one of ‘em --- when I wish Wendell Griffen was the LRSD’s counsel. Or Phil Kaplan. Or anybody else with their smarts, passion, guts, and gusto.
End of rant. I’m goin’ to the lake.
PS: Boss, do you think a press conference, a broader base of appeal, and a more public “fight” would be productive? If not, why not? I’m always interested in what you have to say.
Durango: Heller knows this BS won't fly before the legitimate press. They'd see right through this scam as soon as he tried to explain it. He knows he can find willing accomplices in self-delusion here on Brantley's turf.
Durango,
Just so you'll be clear: Chris doesn't send me his notes. A Little Rock School Board member shares internal correspondence with me.
JBM,
You've disaggregated data to suit your purposes -- to show, say, that a student has transferred from an integrated public school to a marginally more integrated charter school. Tree, not forest.
Your own data shows: 1) charter schools have gained more than 2,000 students over years studied: 2) LRSD has gained essentially none; 3) transfers from LRSD tend to be more white and better off economically; 4) your study leaves it easy to infer thatyou are saying that none of the other charter school students (about two-thirds of them) would attend schools, regular or magnet, in LRSD if the charter schools did not exist.
Thus, the charter schools are taking potential students; those taken from LRSD are disproportionately white and econmically advantaged; the magnet schools, established to present just the same sort of attraction that charter schools provide, have been inordinately affected. That sounds like state action in support of segregation to me.
Marco, your "legitimate press" ie: the Arkansas Democrat Gazette...Paul Greenburg, is just as much a part of the collusion to wreck public education in Arkansas (and America) as is the OEP.
It is ludicrous for you to reference them as "legitimate." (We know you didn't mention them by name, but we know who you were talking about.)
"The OEP is not obliged to disaggregate their data in a particular way simply because you or Heller might be interested in the magnet schools in Little Rock at some point in the future."
Yeah, but it sure does look better.
Uh oh, Boss, I misread your “A note from Heller” comment early this morning, assuming he’d sent the note directly to you. Yep, one should never assume anything, I know, but it’s sometimes hard not to when things are written in a certain way.
Anyway, I’ll amend my comments to say that your school board confidant and Supt. Watson should push Heller (one wouldn’t think a push would be required) to call a press conference. Said school board member and superintendent oughta be at that conference, too, and should speak up.
erlkonig, if you think Greenberg’s editorials (opinions) seep into the news reporting of Upshaw, Howell, et al, I’d have to disagree with you. I believe the ArkD-G and its reporters are totally “legitimate” when it comes to reporting the news (and no, I’m not related to’em and don't work at the paper or any other news-gathering organization).
I can’t speak for Boss, but I’d be very surprised if he or any other fair-minded reader of the ArkD-G and I differ on this observation. Certainly, he can speak to the contrary raht cheer on his own blog if he disagrees.
I think Cynthia Howell is an Arkansas treasure. She knows more about Arkansas education than most of the people we pay six-figure salaries to deliver to our kids. She's fair. She's thorough.
But...
I'll just say that editors can have an impact on what reporters write.
In that regard, the D-G's recent reporting on standardized test scores has been particularly lacking. I'll say it one more time: It makes no sense and is worthless to compare a 70 percent black school district's scores with scores of a state where the minority population is 15 percent. The D-G persists in doing this. I don't think it's Cynthia's fault. I think it comes from the top. But I don't know.
"But I don't know."
None of us can know for sure, Boss. And that's where our opinions come in, I reckon, as different as they may be. Best to you and yours for a happy and safe holiday.
Max, thank you for finally making substantive comments about the OEP report. I appreciate your willingness to engage on this topic.
First, the OEP report is not my report. I can take no credit for its authorship.
Second, the data was not aggregated in a particular way to suit anyone's purpose. The OEP treated the small number of magnet schools as traditional public schools (TPS), which they are. Separating the magnet schools from the other TPS changes none of the conclusions of the report. The OEP is under no obligation to respond to Chris Heller's whims.
Yes, enrollment in charter schools in Pulaski County has increased by over 2,000 since 2004-05. However, charter enrollment still only makes up about 6.5% of total enrollment in the county. Hardly the scourge you make it out to be.
Again, I have to agree that transfers from TPS to charters are whiter and wealthier than the average student in Pulaski County. However, the differences are not very stark. Here is some verbiage from the OEP report.
“There are more black students transferring to charters than white students. But when compared to their LRSD peers, students who transferred to charter schools are more white (28.2% in charters, 21.8% in LRSD) and less black (59.8% in charters, 68.0% in LRSD).”
I would hardly characterize a difference of 6 percentage points as white flight.
While it is true that a large percentage of students now attending charter schools did not transfer from the public schools in Pulaski County, the report does not as you say assume “none of the other charter school students would attend schools, regular or magnet, in LRSD if the charter schools did not exist.” They simply do not have the data to make an educated guess about where these kids came from or where they would have attended in the absence of the charters. I’m not sure what you would rather them do.
And, what about the overall demographics of the charters? Here is a paragraph on this topic taken directly from the updated OEP report released earlier this year:
“Students enrolled in charter schools are more white than students in the LRSD and Pulaski County TPS (41.8% in charters, 21.8% in LRSD, and 33.0% in Pulaski County TPS). While there are more black students than white students in charter schools, when compared to the LRSD and Pulaski County TPS there are less black students (44.8% in charters, 68.0% in LRSD, and 58.4% in Pulaski County TPS). However, the overall racial composition of charter schools reflects more equal proportions of black and white students than LRSD and Pulaski County schools.”
So please, tell me again what your beef is with the report. It seems your claims rely on half-truths and gut feelings that the data simply do not bear out. Maybe it is time to update your view of the situation. Oh, and apologize to Professor Ritter and Nathan Jensen for erroneously claiming they were dishonest.
The federal courts are the ones who consider magnet schools as important to segregation. The federal courts are the ones who directed the state in this regard. Claims that the data doesn't bear out the changes wrought by the charter schools upon LRSD is just denial and obfuscation. It seems like you "simply do not have the data to make an educated guess."
Claiming "the overall racial composition of charter schools reflects more equal proportions of black and white students than LRSD and Pulaski County schools” proves absolutely nothing about the state and status of racial enrollment at LRSD. White flight has a long history in Pulaski County and the charter schools have exacerbated it in recent years. And, the issue is NOT the racial makeup of charter schools -- the issue is the makeup of students leaving LRSD for charter schools. The law and issue is about the impact of this upon LRSD and Pulaski County schools.
Ritter, et al, have their whims also. Or, agendas, if you like. Ritter has simply found a way to bury data he doesn't like within data that he prefers; just watering it down to his degree of liking and for those whom he serves. Toss in some irrelevant data to distract and serve it up on a big Walton plate.
Just don't act so surprised when someone points out the inferior quality of the dish.
(Oh, and reheating it and serving it up again doesn't improve it at all.)
Author Archives
-
Wednesday night line
News roundup: Little Rock School Board candidate, new hire at Little Rock National Airport, the public gets a crack at Alotian Golf Course, Newt takes off, Postal Service considers consolidation of facilities in Arkansas.
- Nov 30, 2011
-
No charges to be filed in assistant chief's wreck
The Little Rock police today gave me their investigative file on the October wreck involving now-retired Assistant Police Chief Carlos Corbin.
- Dec 30, 2011
- More »
Event Calendar
-
Re: West Memphis 3 judge: I did good
Our version of the Salem Witch trials, and of course this religionist Moron remains PROUD…
- on February 10, 2012
-
Re: The Republican war on birth control
It appears that Biden is telegraphing that obama will make a deal with the Catholics…
- on February 10, 2012
-
Re: This year's legislative gimmick
conservative, and you don't consider the Arkansas and other state legislatures to be "unresponsive and…
- on February 10, 2012
Top Commenters
Blogroll
Site Index
News
Cover Story / Arkansas Reporter / The Week That Was / Smart Talk / The Insider / The Observer / Editorial / Max Brantley / Ernest Dumas / Gene Lyons / Bob Lancaster / Words / Guest Writer / Letters
Entertainment
A&E Feature / To-Do List / In Brief / Movie Reviews / Music Reviews / Theater Reviews / A&E News / Art Notes / Graham Gordy / Books / Media / Dining Reviews / Dining Guide / What's Cookin' / Calendar / The Televisionist / Movie Listings / Gallery Listings
This Week's Cover
Quick Links
Special Publications
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
