Study: Best charters don’t get most dollars

California’s best charter schools don’t get the most philanthropic dollars, concludes a study by Cato’s Andrew Coulson.

American Indian Public Charters‘ students score more than four standard deviations above the norm on the challenging California Standards Test, based on Coulson’s measure of effect size, yet the schools rank 21st in donor funding.

Oakland Charter Academies rank second in performance and 27th in funding, Wilder’s Foundation is third in achievement and 39th in funding and Rocketship Education is fourth in achievment and 10th in funding. All outperform Whitney High and Lowell High, district-run schools that select students based on high test scores, according to Coulson’s effect-size analysis.

Coulson also looked at the number of black and Hispanic students passing AP exams, excluding foreign languages:  “The correlations between charter networks’ AP performance and their grant funding are negative, though negligible in magnitude.”

Aspire Public Schools is the number one recipient of charter-school philanthropy in the state. It’s been around for a long time: Founder Don Shalvey, a former district superintendent, started the first charter school in the state. But Aspire ranks only 23rd among the state’s charters in student performance.

Philanthropists are replicating the charter schools with well-connected leaders, not necessarily those with the highest achievement, the study concludes.

What public schools really cost

The True Cost of Public Education is much higher than school districts admit, says a Cato video.  Capital costs and pensions often are omitted.

What to do about math

Only 39 percent of fourth graders and 34 percent of eighth graders test as “proficient” on the NAEP exam.  The NY Times’ Room for Debate blog asks researchers and advocates how to improve math scores.

Education Professor Bruce Fuller says the flat scores show NAEP has failed.

Lance T. Izumi of Pacific Research Institute warns, “Don’t shoot the messenger.”

Holly Tsakiris Horrigan, a parent of public school children, says the problem is with trendy but “nonsensical” math curricula, not with testing.

These curricula substitute writing, drawing and calculator usage for solid math content, leaving children unprepared for more advanced math topics.

Affluent parents send their children to tutoring centers to learn what’s not taught in school, she writes. But most parents can’t afford that.

Barry Garelick of U.S. Coalition for World Class Math agrees that students need to learn math content.

Students don’t need skills-free math and “real world” problems, they need to learn the skills and concepts necessary to solve challenging problems.

Richard Bisk, math professor and adviser to the Massachusetts Education Department, calls for giving students “a firm foundation” starting in the elementary grades.

.  . . a substantial improvement in elementary teachers’ knowledge of mathematics; a more focused curriculum that emphasize core concepts and skills; and more challenging textbooks that teach for mastery and not just exposure.

NAEP scores tell us nothing about what policies work, argues Cato’s Neil McCluskey. He provides a lesson in how to read the numbers in very different ways.

For advanced statistical hokum, by the way, Gotham Schools explains how New York City counts class sizes: If one teacher is teaching 37 students in the same room at the same time, pretend they’re in two not-so-large classes. See? You can use math in real life!

Better at 9 and 13 but not at 17

Nine- and 13-year-olds are doing better in reading and math since the early 1970s, according to the new Nation’s Report Card analysis of long-term trends by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). Seventeen-year-olds are doing about the same.

The racial achievement gap has narrowed since the ’70s, but there’s been little progress from 2004 to 2008. Nine-year-old boys narrowed the reaidng gap with girls.

What counts is what kids know when they finish high school and go into the world, writes Cato’s Andrew Coulson.  The failure to show progress for 17-year-olds represents a “productivity collapse unparalleled in any other sector of the economy.”

At the end of high school, students perform no better today than they did nearly 40 years ago, and yet we spend more than twice as much per pupil in real, inflation-adjusted terms.

Students are taking more challenging math courses than they did a generation ago. You’d think that would pay off in math scores, but it hasn’t yet made a difference at the high school level.

Update: The lowest-achieving students have improved more than the highest achievers in the last four years, narrowing the gap, points out USA Today.