http://bsdbudget.blogspot.com/2010/09/flawed-statistical-methods-of.html

@ceolaf: It’s nice to finally see what you look like! And btw, Renaissance was once a “regular” district school. They chose to conver to charter status.

http://credo.stanford.edu/reports/CREDO_Hoxby_Rebuttal.pdf

Does anyone think that Renaissance is typical NYC charter schools in this kind of stuff?

Being next to the public library in Jackson Heights and off the main drag on 37th avenue gives us a lot of foot traffic and I’d say at least a plurality of our parents don’t even know we are a charter school, just that we are a “good” school.

Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com

Dirk makes some great points. Does your school have bilingual staff at the front desk? Can a non-English speaking parent find the front desk?

I don’t mean to pick on you or your school. Rather, I just mean to point out that there are lots of ways that a school can — however unintentionally — impact who actually applies for their lottery.

http://www.uscharterschools.org/cs/r/view/uscs_rs/2492

Though I guess I have to formally retract my statement as based on the report, I still believe it to be true based on my ground level work, at least at the time I was doing it. though you will see that Latinos are overrepresented and Latinos who went to charters showed higher achievement. Though I dont want to retread all the potential methodological issues

Well, that’s not what KIPP would have parents think. Tell me if the language from these KIPP websites makes it sound like the KIPP contract (called the Commitment to Excellence) is optional and non-binding:

KIPP in San Francisco, my hometown:

If admitted to KIPP San Francisco Bay Academy, an orientation and home visit will be required
Students and parents sign the commitment to excellence during the home visit.

KIPP L.A.:

At the beginning of every year, all KIPP teachers, students, and parents must sign a Commitment to Excellence form. [Caroline here: The word "must" does not sound optional to me.]

KIPP Indianapolis:

The Commitment To Excellence is signed by all staff, parents, and students prior to enrollment or employment at KIPP Indianapolis.

KIPP Albany:

All KIPP TECH VALLEY students, parents, teachers and staff sign this
Commitment to Excellence to ensure clear expectations for all team and family members.

I looked at KIPP because I know that the contract is a key part of its enrollment process. Clearly, if KIPP can do it, other charters can; if KIPP is doing it, other charters are.

Cue the charter fans: “What’s wrong with requiring a contract?”

Maybe I’m not reading the data above in the same way you are so totally open to being schooled. But I thought those two numbers referred to percentages of students receiving ELL services, not those who were identified as ELL upon entering. And, again, without disaggregating, its really impossible to say but I posited that since charters have no fiscal incentive to design “ELL Services” programs they may be serving ELL students under another umbrella (after school remediation, extra reading/writing classes, Saturday classes, intensives, one-on-one para support, etc.) and not reporting those efforts as specifically ELL.

I don’t know if these methods are more or less effective than those at district schools. To know if the students were being adequately served, you’d have to track them as ELL longitudinally with benchmarks that compare them to their district school peers. They may in fact be exactly the same remediations, just called something slightly different. And that data may even be in the study. I just haven’t had a chance to read and digest the entire study yet.

Campbell’s Law! (Click name for link.)

“”The more any quantitative social indicator is used for social decisionmaking, the more subject it will be to corruption pressures and the more apt it will be to distort and corrupt the social processes it is intended to monitor.”[1]”
– Professor Donald T. Campbell

“Bearing” in mind Prof. Hoxby is now at Stanfurd, I liked him even before I knew he was a Cal grad.

Thanks, Mrs. T.
But to split a fine hair, it’s not about use of services in the years AFTER the lottery — once in a charter or even once staying in a non-charter. It’s simply about whether a child was classified as such the year PRIOR to applying.

Fact remains, per above, charters take 4 ELL kids for every 14 ELL kids who remain in non-charters. How the services are funded and tracked is interesting most certainly, but not germane to my point about factoring prior-year-ELL-kids in future-year-non-disaggreggated-comparisons.

Further, if charters do NOT get separate, or even incremental, ELL funding, a) how do they provide ELL kids the extra help this historically lower-scoring group needs, and b) wouldn’t that be an incentive to not recruit additional-needs ELL kids? How to explain the 4-14 gap not seen in any other category?

My comment was regarding the percentage of ELL students who applied to charters vs those who got in – which was the same. The numbers 4 vs 14 above that you mentioned are the percentages of students who used ELL services – 4% for charters vs %14 for district. But as others have pointed out, charters don’t receive separate funding for ELL so the delta between those two numbers could either be explained by assuming fewer ELL students OR that ELL services in charters weren’t being monitored or reported in that way because there was no funding and thus no impetus to do so. Really, you’d have to disaggregate to be certain which it was in each case. I will say that if you have a charter with a consistently much lower percentage of ELL students (or SPED) than the district, that’s fishy. The school is possibly either intentionally encouraging those students not to come or isn’t recruiting adequately. I’d like to hope it’s usually the latter but in either case the school should address it.

Alexander,

You haven’t won the argument to my satisfaction simply because even if it were true that some, many, or most charters attempt to engage parents in some kind of contract (and I really don’t know how many do this, do you?) those contracts are, as I’m sure you know, completely non-binding. A charter simply can not legally get rid of a student or not admit a student because his or her parent didn’t sign a contract or uphold their end of one. It’s illegal. There’s also no evidence that parents are intimidated by such a contract (which you seem to suggest) or take it so seriously that they would actually opt their child out of a desirable school situation because they couldn’t adhere to it. I’m sure there are parents who take such contracts seriously and I’m sure there are many who sign it and never think about it again.

I have personally heard many charters speak about their SPED and ELL populations and their efforts at recruiting those populations. But my evidence, like yours, is anecdotal. The best thing to do if you are concerned about any school is to talk to approach the school leaders with your questions.

I don’t pretend to know what a gold standard study design might be, but this design calibrates for the common belief that those parents who apply to charters are more savvy or engaged. Thus controlling for the parents and trying to isolate the experience of charter v non-charter.

Again, contact me when your study is ready to go.

Renaissance has participated in probably a half-dozen studies on multiple issues in the past few years and I am familiar with the access levels required by academic researchers.

Best,
Nicholas

Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com

I want data. I want strong and informative data.

I just don’t think that quantitative data will tell us everything we need to know. There is a lot to be gained from qualitative data, especially because we want to know about processes and mechanisms, things that so-called “hard data” can’t really tell us. And I would hardly be doing very good research if I depended upon you to send me information. I would want to sit in meetings — planning and open houses — see drafts and memos, accompany recruiters on visits to schools and where ever else they might go. If I were to look at your marketing and recruiting practices, I want to see it through my own eyes, not through yours.

Furthermore, I think that you are making the same mistake that you accuse others of making here. You don’t believe that your charter school is doing this, and you are extrapolating that conclusion to all other charter schools in the exact same absence of “hard data.” You hardly seem agnostic on the issue, yourself.

A few points about CECs at a higher level than my tease about charter-parent representation:
1) Every parent I spoke to thought last spring’s “straw poll” was a joke, hence the under-5% straw poll turnout. “Selector” turnout was around 40%, and those PTA officers were not bound by straw poll results anyway. This DOE invention was an expensive insult to parent participation.
2) Low interest in the council membership itself is complicated. Pure conjecture: CEC’s are not perceived as power-centers, and imho DOE has done little to empower them and MUCH to evade or disempower them. With full respect for members of its staff, structurally speaking, OFEA (Office for Family Engagement and Advocacy) is widely perceived to advocate for the administration, not for the parents. Activist parents know better ways to push for change, via Community Boards, City Council, etc. But not through the PEP or CECs, sadly.

To your points:
a) Given the perceived weakness of CEC’s, and parent representation on charter BoT’s (as there is parent representation on SLT’s and DLT’s), why oh why would any charter parents WANT to be on a CEC? (Loaded question, tongue in cheek.) Could it be… Space Wars? It seems charters already have a Vulcan mind-meld with the Chancellor already.
b) “Structurally blocked” makes no sense to me either, but I understood to be the charter world’s historic preference. Comic relief: CEC interest, membership, and public attendance at meetings would skyrocket if we exanded the tent. The circus belongs under a big top.

Bottom Line: Public policy affecting a community should be debated in the full light of day with all stakeholders welcomed at the table.

Cheers.

I’m going to have to part ways with you here on not needing hard data (I guess I live up to the charter stereotype there) to address the issue.

Your questions seem as good a start as any to answering these questions. Perhaps the CG team can collect some funds via their new funding model to underwrite your research on charter recruiting.

Contact me offline at the email below and I’m happy to volunteer Renaissance as one of the participating schools; I can send you information about our open houses, parent materials, admissions procedures, interviews with parents, etc.

Best,
Nicholas

Nicholas Tishuk
Director of Programs and Accountability
The Renaissance Charter School
teach11372 @ gmail.com