What's next

The summer issue of Education Next is filled with goodies.

Michael Petrilli and Theodore Sizer debate charter school accountability, specifically the question of whether No Child Left Behind should apply to charter schools.

An English experiment finds a structured reading curriculum significantly boosts reading proficiency at low cost.

Now that students can get more time to take the SATs without a “special accommodations” tag, “special” SAT scores have jumped; test-takers are even more likely than before to come from higher-income backgrounds. In D.C., allegedly disabled students taking the SATs score well above regular students.

About Joanne

Comments

  1. Mike in Texas says:

    I love Education Next.

    Actually I love making fun of them.

    Some of their contributors are:

    Caroline “error-filled” Hoxby, who fearlessly crusdades against perceived errors of those who disagree with her, while ignoring the massive number of mistakes in her own work.

    Chester Finn, sometimes referred to as “Checker” as in I’ll check the facts and ignore them if I dont’ agree with them. Chester spends most of his times railing against public schools and how charters schools are the only hope for the children and it just so happens that “HOLY CONFLICT OF INTEREST, BATMAN”, he runs a foundation that charters schools. He also spent several years absorbing taxpayer money as Asst. Secretary of Education, apparently not doing much to improve public schools but probably pushing the charter agenda. Nah, that would have been a conflict of interest too.

    Jay P. Greene, the creator of “The Educational Productivity Index”, which just so happens to support his beliefs. WHO’DA THUNK IT? A study he made up which happens to prove he’s right? Also the champion of “working papers” which is a way of publishing your work, say with a friend who happens to run a Foundation with a huge website and knows lots of Washington insiders, without having to subject it to be checked for accuracy.

  2. Coming from “Mr. 55%”, I don’t have to bother verifying any of those insults, innuendos and implications.

    So Mike, when exactly is the S.S. NCLB going to hit that iceberg?

  3. Cardinal Fang says:

    Now that students can get more time to take the SATs without a “special accommodations” tag, “special” SAT scores have jumped; test-takers are even more likely than before to come from higher-income backgrounds. In D.C., allegedly disabled students taking the SATs score well above regular students.

    I read that article too, and drew completely different conclusions. At the same time as ETS removed the “special accommodations” tag on SAT scores, it also made it harder to get the special accommodations. Now, as the article clearly states, fewer students are getting the accommodations than in past years. It’s not that more rich kids are getting the special accommodations. It’s that fewer poor kids are getting them.

    An educational pyschologist charges thousands of dollars to test a child and write up the results. In order to get SAT accomodations for a child, you have to apply many months ahead. What appears to be happening is that well-to-do parents have the money, time and knowledge to go through the hoops to get accommodations for their kids if they have learning disabilities, but less well-heeled parents don’t. Rich kids score better on average on the SAT than poorer kids, so it should be no surprise that rich kids with learning disabilities score better than poorer kids with learning disabilities. Now that the poorer learning-disabled kids are being removed from the special accommodations pool, naturally scores are going up.

    Similarly, the kids in DC who are getting special accommodations are undoubtedly almost all from prosperous families. Yet most kids in DC are disadvantaged. It should be no surprise that the rich kids with learning disabilities are outscoring regular DC kids, many of whom are poor and attend bad schools. Those richer LD kids go to good schools and have parents who can afford not only to get them special accommodations but also to hire tutors.

  4. As the parent of an “allegedly disabled” student, Joanne, I find it hard not to take offense.

    I know exactly how hard my daughter has to work to keep up with kids who aren’t as gifted intellectually as she is, but escaped the dyslexia bullet.

    Thanks to Cardinal Fang for stating the realities so succinctly.

    For those of you who do not have a child with a specific learning disability, you can have your child tested by a school psychologist. But it is in the school district’s interest to minimize or deny the child’s learning disability, in order to minimize or deny services under IDEA and FAPE.

    The College Board is now also requiring that children be retested every 3 years, to make sure that this disability doesn’t “go away.” It is maddening. The best minds in research have repeated and repeated that the specific learning disabilities do not “disappear”, but in the great minds at the College Board, they just might.

  5. Mike in Texas says:

    “Mr. 55%”

    Now Allen, you know that number comes from the state of Texas not me.

  6. Mike in Texas wrote:

    Now Allen, you know that number comes from the state of Texas not me.

    No, actually what I know is that you’ve repeatedly asserted that figure without providing a source or context. That means the number means precisely nothing. So, what I know is that you find some value in endless repetition. That’s why you’re properly “Mr. 55%”.

  7. Mike in Texas says:

    No, actually what I know is that you’ve repeatedly asserted that figure without providing a source or context.

    you’re kidding right? I’ve provided you TONS of links to that in the past. You suffer from selective amnesia.

    http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/12-14-04texasfindings.php3

    http://www.investintexasschools.org/schoolfunding/files/2004/april/qanda.pdf

    http://www.schoolfunding.info/news/litigation/9-17-04texasdecision.php3

    http://www.schoolfunding.info/states/tx/march4%20cost%20study.pdf

    Page 21 is where you will find the actual reasons for choosing 55%, although they are fairly stupid.
    You also won’t like this article b/c it states that Texas schools for the most part are very finacially efficient.