Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-L] Economist Kern Alexander Explains the Problem with School Choice



On 02/03/2013 08:47 PM, LaMontagne, Bob wrote:
why did John leave TIMES2 - a high performing district charter school off the list?

A better question might be, why did _the district_ leave TIMES2 off
the list?

I followed the PPSD "school choice checklist"
http://www.providenceschools.org/inside-ppsd/registration/school-choice-checklist

on which the second step called for reviewing the school profiles at
http://www.providenceschools.org/family--community-engagement/school-profiles

which, as previously stated, was the source of the data I quoted.
I included all of the schools that the PPSD included.

========

This seems to support the point about asymmetric information and the
lack of an efficient market. Maybe the PPSD doesn't /want/ all comers
to include TIMES2 in their "school choice" menu.

========

Let's add it to the list and see what happens:

Alvarez 3%
Career & Tech 0% †
Central 4% †
Classical 49%
Cooley & PAIS 3% †
E-Cubed 4% †
Hope Arts 4%
Hope IT 4%
Mt. Pleasant 2% †
TIMES2 16%

So, TIMES2 has 16% of students at or above grade level in math, according
to the official test. That's what you call a "high performing" school?

OK, let's accept that characterization. Let's consider a scenario where
TIMES2 actually is a "high performing" school according to some reasonable
criterion.

So, the official test must be a lousy test. It doesn't measure what it's
supposed to. I consider this entirely plausible, based on experience
with other similar testing situations, although I haven't seen the test
used in this particular case. Overall, I reckon people place waaay too
much emphasis on badly-designed tests.

This is further strong support for the point about asymmetric information
and the lack of an efficient market ... starting with the fact that the
"school choice" data -- the data made available by the PPSD to parents --
is inconsistent with the hypothetical reasonable criterion.
-- The available data is not reasonable.
-- The reasonable data is not available.
-- Even the lousy data is not made available by the PPSD if you
follow PPSD directions.

This pretty much requires us to consider the possibility that people are
basing their "school choice" on factors other than academic performance.

By the way, did anybody mention that Hispanics make up 55% of the PPSD
schools but only 38% of the city's population? Maybe we should consider
the hypothesis that "school choice" is a euphemism for resegregation.

as John has indicated, abysmally poor performance from our
traditional schools. He is correct, no one in their right mind would
choose them.

So, we are in agreement then. The people who attend these schools are
the ones who didn't really get a choice. This is what "school choice"
all-too-often means in practice: some people get a choice and some don't.

People who are accustomed to getting the lion's share think
this setup is grrrreat.

Details matter. Please let's stop making policy based on abstract
theories of what "should" happen in an "efficient market" and instead
look at what is really happening.