Kentucky juniors improve slightly on ACT, but most still aren't college-ready

This from the Herald-Leader:

Scores on the ACT test taken by juniors in Kentucky's public high schools in the spring improved slightly over last year in most subject areas, according to results released Wednesday by the state Department of Education.

The composite score for Kentucky juniors this year was 18.8, up from 18.5 in 2010.

Average scores in English rose from 17.8 last year to 18 this year. Math went up from 18.3 to 18.5; reading from 18.9 to 19, and science from 18.7 to 19.

Students who achieve so-called "benchmark" scores or higher on the ACT are considered ready for college-level courses. Those benchmark scores are 18 in English, 22 in math, 21 in reading and 24 in science.

According to ACT officials, students who reach benchmark scores have a 50 percent chance of getting a grade of B or higher, or a 75 percent chance of getting a C or higher, in corresponding first-year college credit courses.

Test data released Wednesday show that the percentages of Kentucky juniors ready for college work have increased fairly steadily since Kentucky started requiring juniors to take the ACT in 2008.

Search ACT data at H-L.
In a story released yesterday in H-L:

The percentage of Kentucky high school graduates reaching benchmark scores on the ACT test improved in some subjects this year, but educators still have much work to do, results being released Wednesday show.

For example, more than 35 percent of Kentuckians who graduated from high school this spring failed to achieve any benchmark score on the ACT. The benchmark scores indicate likely success in college.

The Kentucky numbers are included in the national 2011 Condition of College and Career Readiness Report, which ACT Inc. [released] Wednesday morning at the Jessamine Career and Technology Center in Nicholasville...

In an apparent effort to be fair and balanced the story quoted a politician from the Bluegrass Institute who made no effort toward either.

Richard Innes, an analyst with the free-market Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions, contended that scores from Louisiana, another 100 percent testing state, show the potential of charter schools. Louisiana opened large numbers of charters after Hurricane Katrina in 2005.

Innes noted that Louisiana's 2011 ACT composite score was 20.2, compared with Kentucky's 19.6. Louisiana's scores for white and African-American students also were significantly higher than Kentucky's, he said.

"There definitely are indications here that a well-run charter program could help us a lot," Innes said.

The fact that Innes unabashedly suggested a causal relationship between charters and the ACT is not surprising - not as surprising as the fact that H-L continualy returns to him and other politicians at BIPPS as sources for education analysis in news stories. Their stuff belongs on the opinion pages.

For example, Innes has cited Tennessee's value-added system as a shining example of what Kentucky should aspire to. Yet, "Kentucky, with an overall composite ACT score of 19.6, edged ahead of Tennessee, whose composite was 19.5." Is that proof enough for Innes that value-added systems don't work?

Where is the Bluegrass Institute's press release abandoning their support for such systems?

On Charter Schools

Around the time charter schools first began to appear in Minnesota, Kentucky was neck-deep in KERA, the most sweeping set of school reforms undertaken by any state at any one time. As a result, there was little interest on the part of the legislature, or the press for that matter, in allowing Kentucky schools to veer from KERA's path. Everybody's hands were full. The new law was already being attacked from the right and supporters worried there might not be enough votes to sustain KERA in 1996. Meanwhile the Patton administration took the position that “Kentucky is not ready for charter schools.”

The idea for charters began around 1988 with Albert Shanker, then president of the American Federation of Teachers. Shanker proposed that teachers who believed they had a better approach for helping the toughest students, ought to be able to get permission from their districts to try. Such experimental schools would directly target dropouts, and likely dropouts. The schools would be given a specific charter - a mission, if you will. Their successes would improve equity in the school system.

Since charter schools would experiment with new approaches, regulations governing curriculum and instruction would have to be waived. Any improvements that could be validated would be shared. Thus, charter schools were seen as an effort to strengthen the public schools, not to make “losers” of them. That idea came later, and from others who were much less interested in the public schools' success.

While the American economy soared in the early '90s, Bill Gates was becoming the world's richest man. To his credit, he made retirement plans that included spending 90 percent of his personal wealth by supporting important causes, including education. The $43 billion Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation has spent hundreds of millions on public schools. The foundation's first effort - to make inner city high schools excellent by making them smaller - was an admitted failure. But undaunted, Gates nimbly moved on to new ideas, one of which was promoting charter schools.

As more charters arose, a new and more opportunistic breed of charter operator began to shift attention away from the original mission of improving the public schools while helping the least among us, to providing parents with public funds they could use to escape them both. Charter schools were starting to re-segregate as birds of a feather exercised school choice.

When Shanker first saw such developments, he renounced his own idea. He came to believe that charters, once established, turned into a form of privatization that was indistinguishable from vouchers and he began to fight against charters as a threat to public education.

Conservatives argued that charter schools provide “school choice.” They claimed that the public schools were bad and - forgetting recent lessons from Wall Street - that deregulated competition was inherently good. In Kentucky, the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions (BIPPS) went further, promoting the addition of vouchers, and the subtraction of the Kentucky Education Association.

Interestingly, BIPPS found an unlikely ally in Rev. Jerry Stephenson and the equity-minded Kentucky Education Restoration Alliance. Apparently fed up with certain persistently low-performing schools in Jefferson County, and perhaps lacking faith in Superintendent Sheldon Berman - who in 2004, sued to stop charters in Massachusetts - the Alliance sought to create better schools for inner-city kids and locked arms with BIPPS to promote charter schools. One wonders if they stood together while BIPPS opposed President Obama's healthcare plan; a plan that surely will benefit many of the children Stephenson sought to help.

Kentucky Education Commissioner Terry Holliday says that he is no great fan of charters, but supports them under the right circumstances and with sufficient community oversight. He has 175 million reasons to give them a try. But he wisely insists that all publicly supported schools, charter and otherwise, must be accountable for results.

Hoping to avoid the lax oversight that has existed in other states, Kentucky's HB 109 places primary oversight with the local school boards. But the bill fails to specify the conditions under which a charter might be granted. Governor Steve Beshear is considering a special session to give the bill the public vetting it needs.

During a recent appearance at Eastern Kentucky University, Kati Haycock, president of the Education Trust put the charter school issue into perspective. She told the audience that there are people in the charter world because they want to make a difference for kids - and there are wonderful examples of charter schools. But there are others in the charter movement who are just about freedom from regulations and whose results are worse than some of the worst traditional public schools.

“There is a battle going on for the soul of charter schools. It is very important who wins that battle,” Haycock said.

Used

One of the problems with being a moderate is that one tends to take flack from both sides. Another problem is that from time to time, the wrong people agree with you.

Such is the case with this week's misinformation from the Bluegrass Institute.

A post by Tabbitha Waggoner at BIPPS asserts on scant evidence that charter schools are needed and would thrive in Kentucky.

Her evidence: People like choice.
Granted. So what?

Her argument: WKU's Gatton School exists. EKU's Model Lab school exists. She wheedles, saying they operate "essentially as charters" - and therefore they are? The Gatton School's students do well on the holy ACT. Wouldn't it be nice to have a Gatton School in your neighborhood? All you have to do is push for choice. Along the way, she attacks strawmen and uses a few magic words: "teacher-union policies," "bureaucratic practices"... you know the list.

Yes, the Gatton School exists - by specific legislation. But No, it does not have a state charter.

The Model Lab School is a much older design, is funded jointly by EKU and the Madison County BOE and follows state policies. It is not now and never has been a charter school. This has been pointed out to the Bluegrass Institute several times before, but one assumes that since the facts don't support their narrative, they continue to deliberately misinform the public. What this think tank mostly thinks about is politics.

If BIPPS's idea of charter schools is Gatton, then Kentuckians should be prepared to oppose a right-wing charter law that will cream off the best students and send them to schools mirroring Gatton's model of a highly selective, and inherently disequalizing series of offerings. All the rhetoric is about choice for poor families. But the realities are much more suburban.

What Waggoner really does is underscore the powerful impact of adequate funding and a select student population on a school's student achievement scores. But she comes nowhere close to describing how charters would thrive or produce the worthy goal that "all Kentucky students should have equal opportunity to a quality education."

KSN&C is evoked as support for this notion. Waggoner sees my disagreement with Helen Mountjoy's assessment, that Kentucky doesn’t need charter schools because Kentucky offers school based decision making councils, as some kind of admission.

Kentucky education blogger Richard Day admits he’s “been having a hard time seeing how (the SBDM argument is) likely to help.”

In a recent blog on the issue, Day reported that he spoke with John White, U.S. Department of Education press secretary, who indicated that SBDMs would not be an acceptable substitute for charter schools, especially if the commonwealth wants to compete for the education stimulus funds tabbed for release later this fall.

“If Kentucky was not open to welcoming these educational entrepreneurs, that would certainly hurt your chances,” White was quoted as saying on Day’s blog, Kentucky School News and Commentary. “It’s a competitive grant, and other states are welcoming them.”

There is no moral high ground in seeking charter schools for middle and upper class Kentuckians. There is federal money and Kentucky should not be so entrenched as to be shut out. But once the department of education issued its guidelines for Race to the Top grants and it became clear that Kentucky would only lose a few points in the application process, some of the steam came out of the issue.

When I was still a principal, I wanted to convert my school to a charter, to off load some state regulations that I saw as counterproductive to our school's success. But my motivation was selfish. I was only concerned with my 500 kids. What we are discussing now is a state law and that has to work for every neighborhood.

The evidence strongly suggests that charter schools perform roughly as well as public schools. They comprise a highly localized set of good schools and bad schools. Their best feature is also their worst - if a charter school fails, it can be closed quickly. That's good, but it also reinforces the appetite for quick change artists who marginalize the importance of high quality instruction in favor of this year's game plan, and perhaps gaming the accountability system.

Kentucky should discuss a charter school law, but it must be done with a lot deeper thought than we find in BIPPS's argument. Allowing charter schools to tailor their student populations, as some have proposed, would do a great disservice to Kentucky students as a whole. But a charter law that allowed private efforts to improve the education of students in areas where the public schools have failed repeatedly over time ought to be given a good look.

The Set Up

Maybe social conservatives are different these days, and I'm just behind the times.

Maybe they really-o truly-o love diversity and would like nothing better than to see our tax dollars go toward lifting up the marginalized. Safe housing for the poor; better healthcare; close those gaps! Maybe they think in retrospect that Reganomics was a mistake for its undoing of LBJ's Great Society programs, which were helping close achievement gaps in the 70s. Maybe they are, but I'm just not hearing it.

Perhaps today's creationists have disavowed former claims of Biblical acceptance of slavery, former support for state's rights over constitutional rights and oppressive local decisions that created a social system of haves and have nots based on race. Perhaps today's social conservatives are sorry the achievement gap was deliberately created and perpetuated throughout the Jim Crow era. Perhaps they regret funding schools for blacks at one third those of whites throughout much of the past century. Perhaps they do, but I just missed it.

If that's true, then please accept my apologies, in advance.

Forgive me, I beg you, if by chance I have only heard the fringe few social conservatives who cry out against diversity and urge the disestablishment of the public schools in favor of a system of free-enterprise options. And forgive me if I missed hearing the mass social conservative movement that calls for justice in a divided world.

But if that's not the case, then the Bluegrass Institute's latest stunt is simply shameful. It is a set up.

This from BIPPS:

ACTION ALERT: Ask Kentucky’s new education commissioner to develop a plan to close longstanding achievement gaps in math and reading between white and black
students in Jefferson County Public Schools, Kentucky’s largest school district
(97,412 students).

SUMMARY: Efforts to improve education, especially for black students, have failed to produce anything close to acceptable results in Jefferson County. It’s time to take action!

ACTION REQUESTED: Please contact the new commissioner, Terry Holliday, and ask him to do what he did as superintendent of the Iredell-Statesville, N.C. school district between 2002 and 2009: focus on, and close, the gap. Please do the following today:

1. Call Commissioner Holliday’s office at (502) 564-3141 or e-mail: terry.holliday@education.ky.gov.
Politely ask him to:

•Do what he did as superintendent of the Iredell-Statesville, N.C. school district in less than seven years: Relentlessly pursue closing gaps in math and reading between Jefferson County’s white and black students.

•Require the districts’ highly paid leaders to develop and publicize their plan to close the gap.

•Convene a task force that will hold public hearings to gather input from all stakeholders in the district: students, parents, teachers, clergy, business and political leaders, teachers, objective researchers and taxpayers.

•Require the district to set a timetable and deadlines for closing the gap.

There is not a thing wrong with citizens expressing their opinions.

But this cynical advocacy favors rallying town hall refugees to pressure school leaders while BIPPS argues against adequate resources. It is disingenuous, at least, but probably worse.

The public schools in Kentucky would exist on greatly reduced funding if the Bluegrass Institute had its way. Vouchers for private religious schools would abound if the Bluegrass Institute had its way. The Kentucky Education Association would not exist if the Bluegrass Institute had its way. If the Bluegrass Institute had its way, I suspect they'd put the system on life support and monitor the the schools using every measure available....if only to know when the patient was dead.

I've got an idea. Call Jim Waters, director of policy and communications for the Bluegrass Institute, at (270) 782-2140 and tell him we'll believe his new found concern for the achievement gap when he speaks out in favor of adequate funding for each and every Kentucky school child; that he opposes any move to teach any specific religious views, including intelligent design, in the public schools; and that the Bluegrass Institute will support healthcare options for all American citizens .

Prefer to email him? Try this, jwaters@freedomkentucky.com.

SOURCE: BIPPS Action Alert

BIPPS has Faith in School Choice - and Creationism

This week the Bluegrass Institute came out in favor of both creationism and Kentucky's school reform - and then compared the two in terms of faith.

BIPPS Communications Director Jim Waters undertook the curious task of rationally comparing the relative amounts of faith required to believe in creationism versus believing in school reform in Kentucky. Waters writes,

You might be surprised to know it takes even more faith for a creationist like me to expect the current bureaucracy to reform Kentucky’s public-education system than to believe the earth, universe, humankind and all life forms happened by accident.

And it takes nearly as much faith to believe Kentucky’s schools will improve without giving parents power where it counts — the right to determine which school gets their children to educate and tax dollars to operate.

To Waters, creationism makes good sense.

Having a localized organizational system of school districts does not.

I wouldn't normally comment on someone's faith - but he brought it up.

I must confess, this position surprised me. I have always taken folks at their word when they described their own political inclinations. Foolishly naive, perhaps. But I had it "on good authority" that BIPPS was a "libertarian think tank." In Waters hands, BIPPS is cast as a faith-based neo-con political effort that would eliminate school distirct organization and move public money into private hands - all while promoting a religious agenda and removing control from local officials. I was immediately suspicious of Water's motives - but perhaps there is another explanation.

Waters finds it "outrageous" that local elected officials are being empowered by state law to decide if and where school attendance boundaries should be allowed to exist - in favor of his proposal that would impose a free-for-all on every local community in Kentucky.

"Parents may send their children to the public school of their choice."

Forget school districts. Forget school board authority. Parents can just send their kids wherever they want.

This dangerous and highly inefficient proposal may sound good to the selfish, politically connected and well-heeled, but consider for a moment how that plan would utterly fail to work in real life.

Imagine a young couple selecting their new home right around the corner from the best school in their community. They have children who grow to school age only to be locked out of their neighborhood school because folks from the next county over have filled the school to capacity. I think I know how those parents would feel. Tough luck, Junior. Where should we move now? Such scenarios would happen repeatedly across the state.

One can only imagine the hostility school officials would face from angry displaced local taxpayers. But Waters seems not to care. They're merely "bureaucrats" after all. Maybe that's why BIPPS also likes the idea of guns on campus. Perhaps such disputes could be settled according to the code of the west.

But we should all appreciate Waters for clarifying where BIPPS stands on issues related to religion and public schools. For all of BIPPS's posturing as small-government libertarians, one may have drawn a wrong conclusion about the neo-con aspirations of the Bluegrass Institute if it weren't for Water's clarifications.

Thankfully Waters offered his readers an alternative way to think about his motives in the form of Hanlan’s Razor: “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

Bluegrass Institute Shifting from Tea Parties to School Choice?

Having gathered a few central Kentucly crowds at recent "Tea Parties," it was surprising to learn today that David Adams of the Bluegrass Institute wants to change the Tea Party name (due to the press' use of an objectional homoerotic slang term involving tea bags) and shift to a new issue.

So Soon?

I've been watching the Tea Parties with a bemused mixture of interest and skepticism:

• Bemused - because of the strange juxtaposition of establishment types, more than a few of whom would have favored police clearing the streets of all protesters in bygone days, now carrying placards;
• Interest - because it is prudent for all Americans to worry about deficits now approaching 70% of GDP; and
• Skepticism - because if Tea Parties were a principled effort they should have started during the Bush administration rather than waiting for Obama.

As it is, Tea Parties smack of partisan free-marketers looking for a new angle that might validate - after the fact - an approach toward unregulated free enterprise that nearly crippled us - and clearly has cost America many years of full productivity.

Curiously, Adams suggests a new strategy and a new issue as early as May.

One wonders if Tea Party organizers sense that the sustainability of such protests is just not there and organizers don't want them to be remembered as an idea that simply fizzled. Otherwise, if it is indeed a strong growing movement - why deflate it now?

Most folks don't know what to believe about toxic assets, credit default swaps and other arcane financial instruments that should have been illegal, but weren't. But Americans did see both Presidents Bush and Obama stand up and tell us that the problem was so bad, that if we didn't stimulate the economy, the whole system could collapse.

I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure I saw America flinch.

BIPPS selection of school choice as the new focus for grassroots activism is interesting. I wonder if BIPPS will be able to generate the same amount of passion for school choice from the smaller segment of the population directly impacted by K-12 education. On the other hand, the Obama administration has certainly given them a platform, and perhaps a level, to go after charter schools in Kentucky - and as far as I can tell nobody in the education establishment wants to talk about it.

Finally, Adams recently complained that the Courier-Journal should not stoop to homoerotic slang in describing the Tea Party protests. He's right.

Perhaps, if the Bluegrass Institute did less name-calling and had a better track record of correcting it's own errors it would stand on higher moral ground when expressing its outrage toward others.

BIPPS Corrects Errors

It took a while, but in a note attached to yesterday's weekly audio blast, Bluegrass Institute Communications Director Jim Waters corrected errors pointed out by KSN&C in last week's audio.

A Bluegrass Audio commentary released Monday contained the incorrect date for implementation of the Commonwealth Accountability Testing System (CATS). House Bill 53, which established CATS as the state's testing system, was passed into law by the Kentucky General Assembly in 1998. Also, schools no longer receive funding based on CATS scores.

Waters stopped short of admitting that, as a result, his conclusions were all wrong.

He had used some factually incorrect information...

"KERA...gives money to schools based on their test scores. The higher its students score on CATS the more money the school gets."

as a basis for an argument...

"Therefore, schools have focused class content solely on CATS material."

The conclusion was 180 degrees wrong -not solely because it was based on faulty information - but partly because Waters formed his conclusion before he gathered his data. It's what researchers call pseudo-science.

In fact, the only schools to receive assistance were those that were not performing well on the CATS.

Schools have focused largely on CATS material because a strong state accountability system had put great pressure on schools to produce better numbers. Since school principals were unable to control for serious problems - like insufficient funding to deliver enhanced instructional services or the fact that too many students' home lives negatively affected school performance -they were left with the only tools they had - "motivation" of teachers.

Of course, that system is now gone.

It is only because we had an accountability system that we knew a lot of schools weren't going to make the grade. That prompted some administrative folks to panic and wade into instructional areas with broad "solutions" that they might not have implemented otherwise. They ratcheted up the pressure on teachers to perform at higher levels as measured by the test.

As for BIPPS, factual mistakes and other errors can happen in any human endeavor. It is only proper that Waters made the corrections.

But those errors when added to BIPPS's prior exaggerations of research data - threaten to place BIPPS on the very edge of credible scholarship. And BIPPS uses its role in scholarship as partial justification for its 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt status. If BIPPS is going to claim that its work is based on scholarship, then we are owed at least one more retraction.

On the other hand, If BIPPS is simply a political group expressing its opinions without any particular adherence to the principles of good science - as seems more likely - fine. But claiming to be one thing while acting like another is inherently dishonest and should be guarded against.

Yesterday's retraction is a step in the right direction.

Warning: Bluegrass Institute Proclamations may be Total Horse Hockey

Lousy scholarship has apparently become business as usual at the Bluegrass Institute. ...and don't expect them to retract a thing. That's just not how they roll.

At BIPPS it's all about the message. Facts are mixed with errors and wild speculation to slant any story toward their predetermined goals. Modestly paid functionaries toil over reports and studies looking for anything that can be twisted into a on-going narrative about the big bad government. Public bad. Private good. After all, if rich folks are going to spend their money to hire underlings to express a point of view - they expect to get what they paid for.

And how much are these donors willing to spend? About $320,000 in a given year. Later in this post I'll attempt a BIPPS-style expose...of BIPPS. But first, Mr Waters.

The latest misinformation is from JWaters@freedomKentucky.org and hit my email inbox Monday as an audio file titled "KIRA-Testing."

That was my first clue, it was going to be about KERA. Close enough for BIPPS.

The audio didn't come with a warning label. But it should have.

The speaker opened with,

"Hello Kentuckians. I'm Jim Waters for the Bluegrass Institute."

I'm pretty sure he got that part right.

Waters begins with the premise that,

"Kentucky's school testing system just doesn't work."

This, three days after the legislature acted to dismantle the system. In support of his premise Waters offers the following:

"In 1988, Kentucky implemented the Commonwealth Accountability Testing system."

Uh oh. Factually inaccurate. First KIRA, now 1988. Just 14 seconds into the piece and the only thing Waters has convinced me of is that he doesn't know what he's talking about.

But he persists,

"In 1990, the legislature passed KERA, the Kentucky Education Reform Act, which gives money to schools based on their test scores. The higher its students score on CATS the more money the school gets. Therefore, schools have focused class content solely on CATS material."

That's three. He is using present tense, so one must assume that Waters is either years behind the times - just where I suspect he'd like us all to be - or he is intentionally misinforming his listeners. As informed people know, Kentucky's rewards program was removed by the Republican-controlled legislature a number of years ago. Schools that have received assistance in recent years are those who did not fare so well on the CATS assessment.

And of course Waters ends with the obligatory punch line about how school choice will solve everyone's problems.

One way to overcome this is to offer parents choice on where to send their children to school.

He closes,

I'm Jim Waters for the Bluegrass Institute, advancing freedom, defending liberty, and building a more prosperous Kentucky online at BIPPS, B-I-P-P-S.org.

At this point I had to laugh aloud. All he needed was a sound track of the Superman theme playing in the background.

I'm Jim Waters for Bluegrass institute; trafficking in hyperbole; spewing propaganda based on misinformation; and promoting the free-market principles that have made the nation's economy what it is today at BIPPS, B-I-P-P-S.org.

The piece is in error and ought to be retracted.

I wonder how the world would look to the folks at BIPPS if their microscopes were turned on themselves. What would they find if they looked inward? Would there be a big expose' in it?

I imagine a story something like this:

Inefficient Operation Wastes Donor's Money at BIPPS

In a shocking development that is sure to rattle the foundations of freedom-minded Kentuckians everywhere, a lone investigator has uncovered substantial evidence of financial inefficiency and waste at the Bluegrass Institute for Public Policy Solutions based in Bowling Green.

According to the Institute's IRS Form 990, total revenue in 2007 was $332,534. But since the group's inception, circa 2005, BIPPS fundraising has accounted for as much as 24% of its total funding.

Outrageous! That means the group spends about a quarter of its money soliciting people for more money! This is a really big deal, one that has implications for future BIPPS donors and even the group's survival, given the current economy.

To make matters worse, it was revealed that only 32.1% of BIPPS funding ended up going toward the "program services" BIPPS tells its donors it will deliver, while another $106,277 or 31.9% of BIPPS funds were spent on "management and general expenses."

Whadyaknow. A libertarian jobs program!

In reaction to press reports of outlandish non-purposeful spending by some non-profits, researchers at the Urban Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics (NCCS)/ Center on Nonprofits and Philanthropy and the Center on Philanthropy at Indiana University explored issues of nonprofit fundraising and administrative cost
reporting. They found that,

"The percentage of total expenses going to program costs is the most common measure of nonprofit organizational efficiency. Focus group research has found that donors expect worthy organizations to have low fundraising and administrative costs. Consequently, nonprofits frequently tout their low overhead ratios in their mailings to the donors. Most striking, the federal government's Combined Federal Campaign, which raised nearly $250 million for nonprofits in 2003, requires that participating organizations certify that their combined fundraising and administrative costs constitute no more than 25 percent of the organizations' total revenues."

Combined fundraising and administrative costs at the Bluegrass Institute, however, exceed 50%, a level of inefficiency not seen in the public school system since the removal of the highly localized Trustee System, where an almost complete lack of government regulation led to the misuse of untold thousands of Kentucky taxpayer dollars in the early 20th century.

If the astounding inefficiencies discovered at BIPPS is any indication of the level of operational efficiency we can expect from other privately-operated groups, then the public should move cautiously before offering privately-operated school choice options - and then, only if ethical and financial safeguards are in place to prevent profit from becoming the reason to open a school in Kentucky.

So, how'd I do?

All the facts will check out. It's all truth and opinion. I even believe almost all of it myself. But when do facts, misinformation and spin simply become a lie? Ask our friends at the Bluegrass Institute.

Attention Bluegrass Institute: This is How it's Done

The Kentucky Department of Eucation today issued a retraction for some misleading information contained in charts showing overall average scores for PLAN and EXPLORE tests given to Kentucky students.

The errors were called to their attention by Richard Innes, an analyst with the Bluegrass Institute, here, here and here.

KSN&C agrees with Innes's analysis.

This from KDE:

In News Release 09-017 (EXPLORE and PLAN Results Released), please note that the tables showing overall average scores for those assessments may be misleading.

The tables show Kentucky's average English, mathematics, reading, science and composite scores for 2006, 2007 and 2008, along with average scores nationwide for those years.

The tables should have indicated that the national scores are based on the averages of students who took those tests in 2005, when EXPLORE and PLAN were normed as part of a national study. The 2005 nationally normed score also...used the national average for 2006, 2007 and 2008 and will continue to be the "score of record" for national purposes until the tests are re-normed.

The corrected tables were attached to the press release and show the 2005 normed score only.

Now, if we can just the Bluegrass Institute to retract their exaggeration of of a recent UK study, we'll have two groups who have demonstrated some integrity this week.

Poor Little Think Tank

When he's not muscling the government bureaucracy for being bad for us, or extolling the virtues of a free-market idealism that made the American economy what it is today, it turns out that the Bluegrass Institute’s David Adams has a softer side.

Writing at Kentucky Progress, Adams seemed to be sad about a lone anonymous commenter on the new PrichBlog. "Anonymous" hoped that the new Prichard Committee blog would be “a welcome alternative to the Bluegrass Institute.”

Obviously hurt by this, Adams took the single comment and exprapolated a conspiracy theory claiming,

protectors of the status quo have, instead of making a case for the efficacy of their programs, made a habit of taking potshots at The Bluegrass Institute and anyone else who dares to threaten their base of power.

Poor Bluegrass institute. I had no idea it was so tough being in a think tank.

Adams apparently thought he would open a meaningful conversation with the Prichard folks. As is his wont and right, he started with a little name-calling,

The Bluegrass Institute has tried for years to engage KDE sychophants like Prichard Committee in a meaningful debate.

Sychophants?! Adams followed by describing the Prichard Committee as

“the chief protector of failed bureaucratic education policies that have held Kentucky back for decades.”

One wonders how the conversation with the Prichard Committee is working out.

Adams defends his name-calling with this:

I consider calling someone who uses my own money against me a name or two well within my rights as a taxpayer.

The problem is the Prichard Committee is not a government agency. They don't spend anybody's tax dollars. ...for or against anyone. And if the taxpayer bill of rights includes a name-calling provision, I missed it.

So I fear Adams may have hampered his own effort to engage the Prichard Committee in meaningful debate by choosing an opening gambit that was both disrespectful and off-the-mark; regrettably, an increasingly disappointing Bluegrass Institute trait.

I remain confounded by the Bluegrass Institute's apparent lack of concern over its own credibility. But as David puts it,

I'm not too concerned about my credibility with those who refuse to hear well-documented complaints about the KDE.

In fact, some of BIPPS's complaints are better documented than others. And some of BIPPS's arguments are known to be exaggerations, but remain unacknowledged by BIPPS - further undermining its cerdibility.

Adams's persistent loyalty to BIPPS's principles is unflinching no matter the documentation, or lack thereof. He serves the BIPPS leadership, apparently takes his cues from other BIPPS analysts and, promotes them and their ideas; and has, by that means, advanced personally. I don’t believe I’d be calling anyone a sycophant if I were him.

But the blogosphere would be less fun without Adams's occasionally prescient insights. Take this one for example:

No one in Kentucky is going to freeze to death living indoors this winter. We are going to have to get past the point of these feel-good appropriations should times really get
hard in America.

Oh wait. That wasn't prescient at all, was it?

But it was surely a public service when Adams offered advice to the non-rich on how to be poor while facing problems of college affordability.

And he does produce funny headlines from time to time.

By contrast, BIPPS education analyst Richard Innes reached out the left hand of welcome to Prichard by pimping one of his own blog posts, and inferring that Prichard had arrived late to the party.

Then on January 21, 2009 4:14 PM he wrote the funniest thing of all.

“Note that I linked back to the Prichard Blog, as we really do want to engage in productive conversation.”

What some think of as following copyright law, Innes offers as an olive branch.

I predict that the Prichard Committee will tire of the BIPPS good-cop/bad-cop routine fairly quickly.

Bad Science: It's Not the Study. It's the Spin.

Dr Bill Hoyt (William H.) is an economics professor at UK and a former "Cassidy parent" when I was still the principal there. We consulted once on an earlier KERA report of his and I've spoken to his economics students, as well as his wife Dr Gayle Hoyt's class. Good folks. Solid researchers. Great parents.

Bill is the principal author of a new study on education spending in Kentucky along with Christopher Jepsen and Kenneth R. Troske. The study, Educational Spending: Kentucky v Other States, was sponsored by the Bluegrass Institute, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice (which promotes vouchers) along with the Center for Business and Economic Research at UK's Gatton School of Business, where the researchers work, and two of my daughters have attended school.

And as studies go, this one's a whole lot better than the last school choice study BGI sponsored.

But Bill, like all (?) economists, is a quantitative guy. So I was shocked to find that the front page of his new report comes with a commercial for school choice!

School Choice for Kentucky: Many agree with the concept. Some disagree. And some simply want more information. As the public debate continues to grow about how best to provide a quality education to all Kentucky children, it is important to know the facts about parent choice, and how parent choice programs have had an impact on communities, parents and students around the country. All of this analysis is done with one goal in mind: The best possible education for all of Kentucky’s children.

Short on facts. Long on point of view. I'm guessing Bill didn't write that.

Such a strong suggestion of bias is not generally found in quantitative studies. Typically logical positivists assert: “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.”

Special interests have no such restrictions and may be expected to use good scholarship in support of their predetermined biases. Perhaps this is what happens when special interest groups sponsor a study.

As I read the second page of the report, I felt better about it. At least the biases are up front where the reader can grapple with them. And the Friedman Foundation even offers a challenge to those, like me, who would raise an eyebrow at the approach.

So if you’re skeptical about our research on school choice, this is our challenge to you: prove us wrong... We welcome any and all scientific critique of our work. But if you can’t find anything scientifically wrong with it, don’t complain that our findings can’t be true just because we’re not neutral.

Fair enough - but only if the Friedman Foundation restricts itself to the science and leaves unsupported commentary out. "Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must remain silent.”

Being familiar with Bill's 1999 study, I'm not likely to complain about his science. The conclusions, however, are fair game for any thinking person. Numbers alone are not truth and special interests groups can twist numbers into a tale beyond recognition.

Take this statement from the report's executive summary:

In Kentucky state dollars make up a much larger share of a district’s educational budget than in other states, and this lack of control over funding could lead to less efficient uses of resources.

Is this an example of solid science being overtaken by biased conclusions? Lets break it down:

In Kentucky state dollars make up a much larger share of a district’s educational budget than in other states...

No argument. The data seems to support the conclusion. But then, there's this thin speculation:

and this lack of control over funding could lead to less efficient uses of resources.

What? Control over the sources of the funding?! What control over funding? School districts eat what the legislature feeds them whether by fork or by spoon. Is there some suggestion that school folks waste state money, but spend local dollars more wisely?

Stay tuned. There is a second report promised.

I'm dubious because I'm not sure the source of funding (state v local) matters one iota to school administrators when they plan their budgets. The only thing that matters is how much money - and how much improved educational service it will buy.

The Friedman Foundation's positivist bravado aside, this is a suspect conclusion which should have waited until they presented some basis for it. They should have remained silent.

But when the authors are free of the foundations, and stick to their science, I see nothing wrong with their findings - and none of it is surprising:

• Despite the increase in educational spending that occurred with KERA, Kentucky still lags behind the average U.S. state in current expenditures per student. However, the gap between Kentucky and other states in per-student current expenditures has narrowed from $2,199 in 1987 to $1,092 in 2006.
• Since KERA, Kentucky has surpassed all other states in the South-Central region in current expenditures per student. In 1987 Kentucky ranked 5th in current expenditures per students among the eight states in the region, but by 2006 Kentucky had the highest expenditures per student in the region.
• KERA has led to a significant decline in differences in educational spending across regions in the Commonwealth. The gap in current expenditures per student between metropolitan and non-metropolitan districts fell from $600 in 1987 to $10 in 2006. Over this same time period districts in the Eastern part of the state went from having the lowest level of current expenditures per student to having the highest expenditures per student.
• While KERA has led to greater uniformity in expenditures per student in the state, the sources of revenue continue to differ dramatically across areas of the Commonwealth. In 2006 districts in metropolitan areas received 40% of their revenue from local sources (property taxes) with the remaining revenue coming from the state (50%) and the federal
  government (10%). At the same time non-metropolitan districts received only 20% of their revenue from local sources with 66% of their revenue coming from the state and 13% coming from the federal government. For school districts in the Eastern part of Kentucky only 17% of their revenue is collected locally, while for districts in the Northern part of
  the state 42% of revenue comes from local sources.
• Between 1987 and 2006 the share of revenue coming from local sources increased in Kentucky while the share of local revenue decreased on average in the U.S.. However, there still remains a significant difference in revenue sources between Kentucky and the average state. In 2006 the average percent of revenue from local sources in the U.S. was 42.8% while in Kentucky the percent of revenue from local sources was 31.1%. Among South Central States only districts in Alabama and Mississippi receive a smaller share of local revenue, and districts in Louisiana, Tennessee and Texas all receive a significantly larger share of local revenue.
• How Kentucky allocates its money on education is quite similar to the average state in the country with approximately 50% of current expenditures going to instruction and 7% to administration. Compensation has a larger share of total expenditures in Kentucky with 70 – 80% of total expenditures going to salaries and benefits in contrast to 69 – 73 % for
  the average state over the period 1989 – 2006.
• In 1987 Kentucky’s pupil-teacher ratio was 18.6 compared to the U.S. average of 17.4. By 1998 both the U.S. and Kentucky average was 16.5. However, since then the U.S average has decreased at a much faster rate; in 2006, the U.S. average was equal to 15.2 and the Kentucky average was 16.0.

And, in the strongest defense of KERA, proffered by "equity-minded" choice advocates, the researchers state:

Since 1990 differences in educational spending per pupil between urban and rural areas of the state have all but disappeared.

There is no better evidence of the intended impact of Rose v Council for Better Education on Kentucky schools than this. Prior to KERA (the General Assembly's response to the Rose case) spending disparities between Fayette County and Whitley County were 8:1.

Now for personal reasons, I love Fayette County students and want them to be the best in Kentucky. But in the eyes of the constitution - they are not worth 8 times more effort than a Whitley County student.

As long as Kentucky relies on a state property tax (collected locally) to fund its schools, the inequities due to disparate property values guarantee that "rich"counties will always "send" a higher percentage of their school tax dollars to the state when compared to "poor" counties. Thus, we expected to see a higher percentage of state dollars flowing to rural districts, and the converse in urban districts. The only way to fix it is to quit funding schools on a property tax.

The study's econometrics are helpful in gauging the efficiency of the SEEK funding formula, but there should have been no surprise about the findings.

The executive summary concludes:

At the same time there is a growing disparity in the sources of funding with urban districts now obtaining over 40% of their funding from local taxes while rural districts obtain only around 20% of their funding from local sources.

In the second report, the researchers plan to make a case. Expect a bunch of correlations. And remember that correlation does not constitute causation. But I'll bet a nickle right now that the special interest groups already have their conclusions outlined.

Here's the spin on the present study - first cautious reporting from the Herald-Leader:

KERA closes rural-urban school spending gap

Kentucky's spending on elementary and secondary education has grown and evened under KERA, but it still lags nationally, a new University of Kentucky study concludes.

The report suggests that while the 1990 Kentucky Educational Reform Act essentially has eliminated disparities in per-pupil spending between urban and rural school districts, it actually might have increased disparities in the sources of urban-rural educational funding.

"Suggests." "Might have." The much maligned "liberal press" reported it just the way the researchers wrote it.

But at Kentucky Progress, BGI buddy David Adams seems to have read a different report:

"funding has increased since KERA but hasn't quite made it into the classroom very well."

I'm not quite sure what David means, but it doesn't seem to be supported. The figure below shows the researcher's findings on instructional spending.

Perhaps David picked up the line from BGI Director of Policy and Communications Jim Waters.

On the BGI wiki (FreedomKentucky.org), the group clearly shows they are aware of the researcher's reservations - they even highlight the "possible" and "could" language. But I guess that wasn't definitive enough. Waters is quoted by the Friedman Foundation saying, "... it appears that not enough of that increased funding finds its way into classrooms of the commonwealth's public schools."

And I'm not sure why Waters spun his fabrications even further in the Georgetown News-Graphic. Perhaps his heart is two sizes too small.

What a great gig! Co-sponsor a study. Then, quote each other's misinterpretation of the results in different locations. And then, get it into the news before anyone else can look into your claims.

Unlike BGI, the Friedman Foundation chose a straightforward statement that defies an agenda-driven interpretation:

"As Kentucky reviews and refines its school-funding mechanism, it's important to have some perspective on the effect of its previous efforts," said Robert Enlow, executive director of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. "We hope this KERA analysis will be of use to policymakers as they continue to improve their funding and schooling systems."

At the Bluegrass Policy blog, Dick Innes takes some literary license himself - twisting speculation into alleged fact.

For example, the researchers cautiously state their terms, like this:

"What evidence there is suggests that KERA may have....."

But the Bluegrass Institute, being on a mission, has no apparent interest in caution. Innes claims,

"the UK scholars indicate that the way tax supports for schools are divided among local, state and federal sources has acted to reduce local taxpayers’ control over their schools in an inequitable way."

Very definite in his mind. Then, Innes tells us a story. It might be true. It might not be true. But it's a good story. It's got hostages, and peculiar philosophies!

While high-wealth school districts still derive an appreciable amount of their total funding from local taxpayers, that isn’t true in low-wealth districts, which are generally located in rural parts of the state. As a consequence, by resisting tax increases when schools don’t perform, parents and taxpayers in wealthier districts have a somewhat more effective say over what happens in their schools than parents in Kentucky’s poor districts do. Thus Kentucky’s poor and rural school districts are more solidly held hostage to Frankfort and the sometimes peculiar education philosophies that emanate from the capital. Meanwhile, wealthier districts have been more resistant to Frankfort’s ideas and instead have kept a focus on rigorous coursework that better prepare kids for college and life.

Somebody ought to call to call Jon Draud and tell him that Shelly Berman and Stu Silberman are resisting the peculiar philosophies expressed in state law. I'll bet that'll be news to him.

But the UK scholars - while willing to offer weak speculation that "it is still possible that the lower level of local control over districts in rural areas of Kentucky could impact educational outcomes" - are appropriately reserved in noting the limitations of that speculation.

While capital and administrative spending did increase more than instructional spending in percentage terms, some caution should be taken in drawing conclusions from these changes as much less is spent on these functions, making small absolute changes in spending seem more significant in terms of percentage changes.

Problems with the state's chart of accounts continues to frustrate researchers who wish to precisely determine how education dollars are spent in Kentucky.

Say a superintendent hires a curriculum coordinator to help several schools improve. Are they district-based (as many were listed in the early 90's)? Or are they school-based (a later trend)? The job doesn't change - but how a district accounts for it will deternmine whether the position is "administrative" or "instructional." Innes has written about the problems with MUNIS and the chart of accounts since a 2006 OEA report. He and the UK researchers lament the limited amount of clarity as lack of transparency - with justification.

But caution? Apparently BGI didn't pay for caution. They're building a case for school choice and seem to lack the Friedman Foundation's restraint. The game plan seems clear. Anything that can be made to sound like bad news for the public schools - is good news for school choice. Otherwise, it's hard to connect the dots between SEEK funding and choice.

Let's not forget, however, that expanded school choice could be delivered federally if President-elect Obama presses one of his central campaign issues.

But let's wait for Dr Hoyt's second report to see where the UK researchers go with this line of thinking - so as not to jump to conclusions.

That would be bad science.

How Big is Really Big?

Let's assume this orange pie chart represents the size of the 2008 financial bailout...

David Adams at BGI posted an informative graphic on the relative size of economic initiatives, which ought to give one pause. Check it out.

Report flunks state, 48 others on affordability

Nice article from Ryan Alessi at the Herald-Leader, Graphic by Chris Ware:

STUDY SAYS KENTUCKY IMPROVING

IN OTHER AREAS

More Kentucky students are being encouraged to enroll in college, showing up prepared and graduating, but the state still doesn't do enough to make college affordable, according to a new national report.

The independent report on American higher education flunks all but one state when it comes to affordability — an embarrassing verdict that is unlikely to improve as the economy contracts.

The biennial study by the National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education, which evaluates how well higher education is serving the public, handed out F's for affordability to 49 states, including Kentucky, up from 43 two years ago. Only California received a passing grade in the category, a C, thanks to its relatively inexpensive community colleges.

Bluegrass Institute free-market guy, David Adams, writing at Kentucky Progress, provides helpful lessons to the non-rich on how to be poor. For some reason, it reminded me of Marie-Antoinette, the Queen consort of Louis XVI, (late 18th century) who is said to have quipped, "Qu'ils mangent de la brioche," when told told that the French populace had no bread to eat. It translates to, "Let them eat cake."

The story gets slightly better treatment at the hands of BGI analyist Richard Innes who reluctantly acknowledges,

"Measuring Up does indicate that Kentucky is making some progress relative to the rest of the country in some areas..."

Alert the media! But he laments that the quality of higher education in America is a "low target."

The report notes:

• Kentucky has hoisted itself up to or above the national average in several key areas.
• Kentucky reached the national average in getting young adults into college, with 35 percent of 18- to-24-year-olds entering a college, university or technical school.
• The number of Kentucky students completing their degrees in relation to total enrollment also soared from near the bottom in the early 1990s to match the top-performing states.
• Forty-seven percent of Kentucky college students now complete a bachelor's degree within six years.
• Richard Crofts, the interim president of Kentucky's Council on Postsecondary Education. credits KERA for many of the improvements reflected in the report, such as greater success with low-income students in math and science.
• Kentucky is more generous with financial aid across all income levels than most states, ranking third in the nation with $1,098 per student.
• Kentucky ranks 9th in need-based grant aid per student with $542, according to figures from the National Association of State Student Grant and Aid Programs annual survey.

Then former North Carolina Gov. Jim Hunt accurately observed, "Our nation and our states can do better... Family wealth and income, race and ethnicity and geography play too great a role in determining which Americans receive a high school education that prepares them for college, which ones enroll in college, and which ones complete certificate or degree programs."

Starve the Schools. Blame the Schools. Bleed the Schools?

The not-too-subtle warrant behind a new study by Richard Innes of the Bluegrass Institute, "How Whites and Blacks Perform In Jefferson County Public Schools," is that after 18-years of KERA, educational problems in Kentucky should now be largely solved - and if they are not, the problem lies with KERA.

Some thoughts on the achievement gap:

The achievement gap was deliberately created and sustained by whites over centuries in America. Slavery, Jim Crow and recalcitrant racism remain America's great historical shame.

So the Bluegrass Institute is to be commended for taking a serious look at the performance of African American students in Jefferson County and the dismal graduation rates that describe their performance. The data remind us of how far we have left to go.

But there is an unchallenged premise in the very first paragraph of the study that bears some comment.

One of the most important tenets of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990 is that all children can learn, regardless of race or economic status. However, during the 18 years since KERA’s enactment, serious questions have arisen regarding the performance of Kentucky’s public schools in meeting that goal for all children, especially black students.

This is all true. But a couple of things leap to mind.

First, BGI is quite correct to suggest that viewing students as capable (able to learn) is an historic first that came to Kentucky schools with KERA in 1990 - and it would be wrong on many levels to retreat from that goal. Prior to KERA (actually more like 1995), it was fully acceptable for a third of Kentucky's students to fail - and in many places, more than a third did just that.

Second, the 18 year period since KERA has not seen that problem solved. But seriously, was that expectation realistic? I have no doubt that KERA's goals can be largely achieved in time, but Kentucky sure did spend a whole lot longer digging the hole it's students are in than has spent climbing out of it. Patience and nutruring are indicated.

Let's review the history briefly.

The best thing that can be said about efforts to educate African Americans in antebellum Kentucky, is that it was not illegal to teach a black person to read.

Following the civil war the legislature's first effort provided that only taxes collected from blacks could be used to educate black children; later amended to add...after taking care of paupers. That "progress" accounted for 74 years of Kentucky's history.

In 1874, eight years later, a school system for blacks began - and where schools existed, they were funded at about 1/3rd the rate given to the pitiful schools whites attended.

During the progressive era at the turn of the century, more schools were built and conditions improved, but under Jim Crow laws blacks were legally separated, and socially "kept down."

Testing was employed to measure human potential. The results were interpreted to suggest that blacks were genetically less capable and therefore, not worthy of equal investment. Still, local schools for blacks developed, and for a time, African American teachers were better educated than white teachers - since the brightest and best were precluded from pursuing many other employment options.

Conditions changed - legally, but only in small measure - with the Brown v Board of Education decision in 1954. It was another 14 to 18 years before a substantial percentage of blacks attended school with whites - then only after the federal government withheld funds from (or troops were called in to) schools that refused to desegregate.

Photo: Louisville, 1955, Black students segregated within a desegregated school

There was nothing in KERA that should not have already been achieved under Brown. But that didn't happen, and by that time Kentucky was in it's 162nd year of the achievement gap.

Conditions improved over time but relative to other states, not so much. By 1984, investment inequities reached a disproportionate 8:1 ratio between the rich schools and poor schools in the state. If parents wanted a good education for their child, where they lived mattered.

It was only since Senate Bill 168, in 1998, that Kentucky schools began any real effort to ensure substantially equitable student achievement outcomes. Student data was disaggregated and schools were held responsible, not only for maintaining high average performance, but for the improvement of each subgroup of students. Prior to that time if a third of a school's students failed to perform up to expectations, it was considered the parents' or students' fault. This marked the beginning of a philosophical shift, away from "equality of educational opportunity" toward "equity of student achievement outcomes" - a philosophy also inherent in NCLB.

In the face of 200 years of a deliberately created achievement gap - ten years of substantial progress in an under-funded system seems somewhat understandable. It might even be crazy to expect that the intractable problems of poverty might be solved, through legislation, by the schools alone.

Now, I know it is heresy to not swallow the "KERA Kool-aid" that all it takes to produce better schools is strong leadership, a whip and a chair. But I believe we need a broader more comprehensive approach.

Without having read the indivdual school reports referred to in the BGI study, I have no reason to dispute the findings of Richard Innes' report. His analysis shows:

• Blacks remain well behind academically in the key subjects of reading and mathematics.
• In a significant number of Jefferson County schools – 47 out of the 120 schools with usable data on reading and 44 out of 120 for math – the gap between white and black students is widening.
• Graduation rates remain extremely low for significant numbers of blacks – especially black males – in the majority of Louisville’s public high schools. Using a graduation-rate estimation formula created by Johns Hopkins University, black males in only three of the 19 high schools in the study had graduation rates equal to or greater than the statewide graduation rate for all students. The graduation rate also is low for black females and even for white students in these 19 schools. Two of these schools reported abysmal graduation rates of less than 60 percent, qualifying them as “dropout factories” using the Johns Hopkins formula. In both of these Jefferson County schools, the graduation-rate estimates using the Johns Hopkins formula fell well below 50 percent for whites and blacks of both sexes.

I'm sure he's correct. I particularly commend Innes for this:

Black students do not benefit if achievement gaps in their schools close only because whites also perform poorly.

Those who would close gaps by lowering standards perform a disservice to all students.

But I do take issue with his conclusion that:

...the CATS assessment process holds no consequences for poor performance with student subgroups and really does nothing to deal with gaps."

This ignores the part of the process where the superintendent chews some principals' butts off, demotes them to a third grade classroom, and replaces them with the next victims. I promise, that part of the process counts for something.

Innes reviews the graduation rates for Jefferson County high schools noting that,

...Kentucky’s existing NCLB high school graduation-rate reports fail to provide accurate data overall and do not contain information on how races perform.

This well-documented problem exists nationally, and is being addressed nationally. Using a measure from Johns Hopkins, Innes finds that the graduation rates for far too many schools, well, ... suck.

In his closing, Innes takes two more shots at his point:

Jefferson County Schools face a considerable amount of work to raise academic performance and high school graduation rates to acceptable levels. After nearly two decades of KERA, real improvement – especially for the district’s black students – remains a long way off.

Kentucky cannot afford schools with low and declining graduation rates, and with low academic achievement. Clearly, as KERA approaches 19 years in force, the trends outlined in this report raise questions about whether the public school system in Kentucky is capable of meaningful reform for all students.

There it was. That last phrase. And, Innes could have written that conclusion as early as 1994 by which time he was publicly (Kentucky Post) acknowledged as a KERA "foe."

Would Innes have us believe that Kentucky schools (parents, teachers, kids...) are not capable? Would he cure these bad schools with a healthy dose of leeches, called school vouchers?

None of that speculation should mask what Innes gets right.

In too many cases student achievement gains are lacking and reported graduation rates remain a fantasy. If Kentucky is serious about reaching its goals, the state needs to get serious about its investment. It is going to take a comprehensive approach to meet KERA's lofty goals.

Innes smacks Kifer. Kifer smacks back.

We recently had a little dust up over testing between education analyst Richard Innes and Georgetown/UK Professor Skip Kifer.

The Bluegrass Institute's Richard Innes, argues that credibility and stability problems with the CATS are reason enough to dump it. In this argument, the GREAT is the enemy of the GOOD. Innes pounds on the CATS' several flaws; hoping that by seeking perfection the utility of the instrument will be doomed. He thinks there's a better idea. Just throw the CATS out. Maybe, replace it with the ACT. After all, the ACT is now a super test with super powers. Just ask ...the folks at ACT.

Ben Oldham recently wrote, "Since the ACT is administered to all Kentucky juniors, there is a tendency to over-interpret the results as a measure of the success of Kentucky schools."

Innes, assisted that over-interpretation mightily, and decided he would "school" Professor Oldham saying,

Oldham pushes out-of-date thinking that the ACT is only a norm-referenced test. The ACT did start out more or less that way, years ago, but the addition of the benchmark scores, which are empirically developed from actual college student performance to indicate a good probability of college success, provides a criterion-referenced element today, as well.

Well, I'm no testing expert but even I knew that was wrong. Wrong enough, that I began to worry that BGI's testing expert might have some holes in his own preparation.

KSN&C responded,

The problem of over-interpretation has been somewhat exacerbated by the inclusion of benchmark scores in the ACT. But benchmarking does not change the construction of the test nor the norming procedures. It does not turn the ACT into a criterion-referenced exam as Innes tries to suggest...

The National Association for College Admission Counseling Commission — led by William Fitzsimmons, dean of admission and financial aid at Harvard University — issued a report last month the sparked a lot of conversation about how tests like the ACT and SAT were being misused.

This is a recurring theme in the college admissions business but this year's report warned that the present discussion of standardized testing has come to be “dominated by the media, commercial interests, and organizations outside of the college admission office.” Some of those groups have other items on their agenda.

Skip Kifer mentioned the report's warning about over-emphasizing test scores and argued for prudent use of the ACT in selecting students. He also warned folks not to get snookered by ACT officials new claims that without having changed the nature of the test, their scores now tell whether a student "meets expectations" or is "ready" to attend college.

As Kifer pointed out,

The benchmark stuff is statistically indefensible. Hierarchical Linear Modeling(HLM) was invented because people kept confusing at what level to model things and how questions were different at different levels. The fundamental statistical flaw in the benchmark ... is that it ignores institutions. Students are part of institutions and should be modeled that way.

Innes persisted and tried to play it off saying,

I guess Kifer and his compatriots at Georgetown College ... will never get the idea behind the ACT’s Benchmark Scores. It really isn’t hard to understand the Benchmarks.

This is when I should have suspected an academic spittin' contest was on the way and somebody was going to have to put up or shut up. (Actually, in the blogosphere, nobody really shuts up, but you know what I mean.)

Stung by the suggestion, and always the professor, Kifer challenged Innes to "Describe the statistical models used to determine the ACT benchmarks." This question would show whether Innes understood the nature of Kifer's argument and at the same time would disprove his claims.

Innes said he was waiting for some information from ACT (which in my experience is a lot like waiting for Godot) and changed the subject to how lousy the CATS is.

We're still waiting to hear him defend his position that the ACT Benchmarks constitute a valid criterion-reference test and that "the Benchmarks can fairly be considered a real measure of proficiency." That may be like waiting for Godot as well.

KSN&C has taken the position that all social science tests are imperfect. This includes the CATS, the KIRIS, the ACT, the SAT, the CTBS, the NAEP, and the EIEIO.

Trafficking in Hyperbole

Thank God, It's Friday!

Feel Free to Reach Out and Smack Someone.

A little firestorm broke out today over at Page One. It seems that Jake Payne has had quite enough of David Adams.

David Adams may pretend that the Bluegrass Institute is an honest think tank. But it’s obviously a right-wing agenda pusher that not only hates public education and stops at nothing to complain about it 24/7. [KY Progress]

This set off a a series of thrusts and parries reminscent of the battling attorneys I had been writing about earlier today. It went something like this:

David: Nuh uh. We don't hate public schools.
Jake: Yeah Huh. You're a hater who hangs out with Frank Simon.
David: Nuh uh. I've got kids in public school.
Jake: Yeah huh. BGI kills your credibility.
David: I may be a right-winger but KDE really sucks.

Or, words to that effect.....

Both blogs stoop to name-calling, which I try not to do, but I suppose I'm sympathetic with Jake's frustration.

Despite trying not to pay too close attention, every now and again, I get my fill of the outrage-of-the-day mentality and petty name-calling that goes on regularly at the Bluegrass Institute blog now. Everybody's a liar, or a fraud - and always an educrat. (By the way, what's the opposite of that? An ignocrat?

For example, Adam's big story of the day at Kentucky Progress was "Cutting through Big Ed's crap" A Richard Innes quote in a wrapper. Adams concludes:

As the Kentucky's mainstream media crumbles, independent researchers like Innes will take on an even more important role in holding government entities like Big Education accountable.

Perhaps so. But if it's wrapped up in an on-going screed about how awful everybody else is, I'm not sure many middle-of-the-road types are going to be able to hear it. Then, BGI's voice only gets further marginalized?

In a normal year, I'd be right in there with BGI fussing to improve assessment methods and results for our kids. I think the CATS concordance idea is little more than a bandaide put on a transition period with the hope no one will notice the 5-7 point bump schools get with the new and easier test. But the dialogic atmosphere is at Kentucky Progress, and now, BGI, is so toxic I'd just rather give KDE a pass and move on the other issues.

It wasn't always that way.

When Adams started blogging for the Bluegrass Institute I expressed my concerns to Innes. My thought was that the style of discourse on Kentucky Progress was inconsistent with what I understood them to stand for. Now I think it was my assessment of what they stood for that was wrong. I was less familiar with BGI overall and didn't make much of an effort to look into it. It wasn't really a concern of mine. I've worked with folks from all kinds of political perspectives for my whole career.

Innes and I managed to work together fairly well on a couple of issues (KIRIS, Barbara Erwin)despite being misaligned politically. We never thought we had to agree on everything to agree on the things we did.

The association probably cost me some credibility with educators in Kentucky.

A close colleague once asked me a question that I can't quite get out of my head. She said, "You've spent your whole life fighting for better schools in Kentucky. How can you stand being identified with the Bluegrass Institute on anything?"

I told her, "We only agree when we agree."

I'm not sure David and Jake are going to be able to hear each other. Jake sees the big picture. David sees individual claims. So today they just "yelled" at each other.

I suspect David isn't half as interested in understanding the implications of the data Innes produces, or the conclusions drawn, as he is in staying on message. I guess it's all about the influence.

Pixels or paper, truth doesn’t care

I'm going to chat through this insightful and honest bit from sportswriter/editor Dwight Jaynes at the Portland Tribune:

There’s something of a war going on right now between the mainstream media – particularly sports writers and columnists – and bloggers.

I have experienced this. Jake Payne over at Page One screams about it from time to time.

I guess bloggers are a threat. In one sense, we rip off legitimate news sources by reprinting their stuff under "fair use" provisions of the copyright act. In another sense, we generate buzz that usually gets picked up in the mainstream media somewhere - and sometimes break big stories the mainstream media misses.

Kentucky School News & Commentary conducted an extensive background search, then working directly with Dick Innes of the Bluegrass Institute, broke the Barbara Erwin story after Mark Hebert mentioned on his blog that the Commissioner's search was being conducted in secret and an anonymous commenter to the Courier-Journal suggested somebody ought to look into resume irregularities.

More recently, Jake broke the Robert Felner investigation story at U of L.

The way the world is going, people toiling for newspapers are feeling pretty threatened. The price of newsprint keeps going up, and the number of readers who appreciate the fine feel of a good paper in their hands is going down.

And newspaper employees are being offered buy-outs in budget reduction moves.

People can find their news on the Internet, television, radio or in free newspapers (shameless plug), and so they wonder why they ought to put a couple of quarters into a slot and pay for something that’s most likely yesterday’s news, anyway.

At the same time, those who write for newspapers have grown resentful that bloggers sitting at home in front of their computers – the well-worn cliché is that they’re in their mother’s basement in their underwear – may have increasing clout with readers.

I resent that. It's MY basement and I'm wearing pajamas.

After all, how can those bloggers – with no inside sources, no background and no journalism training, in many cases – have as much credibility as trained and experienced journalists? Who would even bother listening to those yahoos?

Excellent questions. As far as KSN&C is concerned...I've got more than a few sources, 36 years of background in the classroom, in the district office, in the school office, and at the university - public and private and religious. How many working journalists have that?

I also audited two journalism courses (News Editing and Opinion writing) at UK because I knew I wanted to write and I knew what I didn't know. I'd still like to take a Journalism Ethics course at some point.

Well, I’ll tell you what I think. And I’ll also explain how it’s led me to alter my approach to the way I do my job as a columnist, pushing me away from a
philosophy I held dear for decades in this business. I changed, though, because
the bloggers have taught me a lesson.

Really? Acknowledgement from the mainstream media is rare. I'd better enjoy this.

My guideline for years was that, as a beat reporter or a columnist, I would get to know my sources as best I could. I would be there constantly, in their face. I always felt I was impartial enough to write the truth no matter what. And my core values included being there the day after I wrote something negative about someone I covered – so they’d have their shot at me, their fair chance to confront me.

But along the way, at some point, the whole thing kind of went south. The problem with all that, I’ve come to realize, is that I got too close to the people I covered.

In the case of a beat reporter, you almost have to have a degree of that in order to come up with the constant flood of stories you need if you’re covering a beat like the [Portland] Trail Blazers.

Over time, you realize that in spite of all your attempts to know athletes and public figures, what you usually end up writing about them is the cover story – the half-true piece of semifiction that those people want the public to see. You begin to realize you’re usually getting played. And you sold your soul to get it.

Oh, when you get close to sources, you get access. You get inside information. At least you think you do. You get close enough to players and coaches that it’s a fan’s dream. Sources become something very close to friends, and, I confess, I’ve been down that road.

I'm glad to hear somebody else say this. When I began blogging it never occurred to me that I might be writing critically about people I knew and cared about. Pretty naive on my part - not to think about that - but nonetheless that's part of the deal if one chooses to write on public issues.

But by writing commentary and posting news stories on KSN&C I have "run into" Peggy Petrilli, Stu Silberman, Steve Beshear, Brad Cowgill, Fabio Zuluaga, Jon Draud, Elaine Farris, Ernie Fletcher (for whom one of my daughters worked) and many more unnamed persons. I have done stories on UK and EKU where I work - and given the nature of my employment after retirement, I've got to be the easiest guy to "let go" in either place.

I would be less than honest if I did not confess feeling a tug at the heart from time-to-time. For example, I initially came out soft on Draud's car looking for different explanations - only to be taught a lesson by a bunch of emails.

But I also know that when that happens, you’re probably not going to do your job as well as you should. Yes, I’m old school, and I think it’s the job of a columnist or a beat reporter to always tell the truth and be critical when merited, even about the revered home team.

But if you’re critical, you risk your access. Forget about the friendships – you often lose your sources if you offend them.

In the past few years, my job as editor of this paper has kept me from having the time to get the sort of access I used to have with a lot of athletes and coaches. Lately, I don’t have time to schmooz them at shootarounds and after practice. I can’t get on the phone and shoot the breeze with them.

Once in a while, it costs me a story. But you know what? As a columnist, I don’t feel I need their information or their admiration. And I certainly don’t need to worry about making them happy. I think I’m very fair to them. Some sources respect that fairness, and others would rather just own a piece of you.

Yes. We have this "thing" in our society about rank. The higher one's rank, the more those of us holding lower rank are expected to defer. That is counterbalanced by free speech in our democracy; but it doesn't make it any easier. Free speech is not free of cost.

I’m still accountable. The coaches and players know where to find me –as one did last season when he had a problem with something I wrote. I met with him for more than an hour and presented my side and listened to his.

He convinced me of a few things, and I didn’t buy into some other things. I stand
ready to be critical again if I think it’s merited.

The point to all this is simple. What I’ve done, I think, is become a blogger in columnist’s clothing. The secret to the blogosphere is that bloggers usually don’t have that proximity to coaches and athletes. They aren’t hindered by a need to get along
or kiss up to the people they write about. That affords them a certain freedom they can use or abuse.

Interesting observation. And, here I am trying to become a better journalist.

Don’t get me wrong – those trained, experienced journalists are still the backbone of this business and they shouldn’t be insecure about their role. The mavericks out there blogging provide a welcome supplement to their work.

Like the mainstream media, bloggers usually search for some version of the truth. Some are good at it. Some are not. On the whole, the best of them serve up fresh, creative, unvarnished, unrestricted and entertaining thoughts about the issues of the day.

I think that’s what columnists are supposed to do, too. If we do it the right way, we’re really not all that different.

A tip of the hat to Alexander Russo.

Jack Jennings on the new CEP Study

KSN&C recently posted a story on the new report from the Center on Education Policy, "Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?"

CEP presents what is at least the fourth study in the past two years to confirm the significant progress being made in Kentucky schools - one of only four states to show moderate-to-large gains in both reading and math.

Richard Innes, a Bluegrass Institute researcher, doubted the credibility of the study.

Last year, a Kentucky Long-Term Policy Research Center study revealed that Kentucky made across-the-board improvements in its rank among the states; growing from roughly from 43rd to the 34th.

The Bluegrass Institute doubted the credibility of that study, too.

The KLTPRC report mirrored two previous studies done outside of Kentucky. Kentucky was 34th in Education Week's Quality Counts 2007 Achievement Index and was 31st in the Morgan Quinto 2006-2007 Smartest State Index."

I assume BGI didn't think much of those studies either.

When Richard questioned the quality of this study, I contacted Jack Jennings, President of CEP for a comment.

Here's his response:

Mr. Day, you sent a message on Wednesday saying that a commentator had a question about the report we released on Tuesday about student achievement. In
particular, he claimed our report would have credibility problems because Kentucky had a decline in 8th grade reading on NAEP that had not been reflected in the results on the state’s test. I asked the authors of the report to look at this issue and to respond. This is what they say:

First, this is consistent with the CEP report. Table 4-F (in the national summary) shows a moderate-to-large gain on the state assessment but a moderate-to-large
decrease on NAEP for grade 8 reading.

In the state profile, the first bullet says: "From 2002 to 2006, student achievement increased in both reading and math at all grade levels analyzed, according to percentages proficient and effect sizes." This is true for the state assessment, and presumably this is what the e-mail author is referring to.

Kentucky changed its assessment in 2007, so it's possible (although admittedly quite a stretch) that performance dropped in 2007... which showed up on NAEP but we couldn't see on state testing.

The report provides several reasons why NAEP and state tests might differ.

After receiving your e-mail, I got a call from a person from an organization in Kentucky who was asking the same question about our report. I asked him if he had read the report and he said that he had not, and that he was probably the source of your question. I urged him to read the report before he started raising concerns about it.

By the way, the report—Has Student Achievement Increased Since 2002?—and the fifty state profiles, as well as all the test score data from the states is on our web site, CEP-DC.org.

Thanks.

Jack Jennings, President, Center on Education Policy

Now, Innes's suspicions were not irrational. Knowing that there was a decline in 8th grade reading on the NAEP seems inconsistent with the study's conclusions and knowing that the researchers accounted for the NAEP data is important.

But taken as a whole, BGI tends only to report the bad news about public schools...and I suspect he's was looking to discount the good news about Kentucky schools any time he can. It's probably in his job description.

It would seem any study that produces what BGI believes to be "the wrong answer" must necessarily be a bad study. This is a problem whenever one is hired to substantiate their boss's predetermine perception of reality.