Suggested Discussion Outline

[johnkarls]

.

Suggested Discussion Outline -

Revisiting The Issue Of Charter Schools – Stanford University vs. Stanford’s Hoover Institution


********************
Section A – Thomas Sowell’s “Studied Ignorance” of Stanford U Studies of Charter Schools

1. Sowell’s “Charter Schools and Their Enemies” implied that he would at least recognize the CHIEF enemy of charter schools – Stanford University’s 2009 charter-school study which –

• Was funded by such pro-charter groups as the Walton Family Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation;

• Analyzed data from 2,403 charter schools in fifteen states and the District of Columbia -- about half of all charters and 70 percent of all charter students in the nation at the time;

• Found that 37% had learning gains that were significantly below those of local public schools, 46% had gains that were no different, and only 17% showed growth that was significantly better; and

• DID NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT the relatively-poor performance of charter schools occurred despite their admitting only students of parents who were functional enough to apply and then expelling students who did not meet performance standards.

2. The 2009 report was issued by Stanford U’s CREDO (Center for Research on Educational Outcomes).

3. Stanford U’s CREDO has released 67 reports 2009-2021, virtually all of which deal with individual states or individual cities.

4. HOWEVER, Stanford U’s CREDO issued in 2013 another “National Charter School Study” which showed that the overall performance of charter schools was still slightly worse than public schools in math and slightly better in reading.

5. The 2013 report covered 26 states which educate over 95% of the nation’s charter school students.

6. Since Stanford U’s CREDO is funded by such pro-charter groups as the Walton Family Foundation and the Michael and Susan Dell Foundation, it would be fair to infer from the lack of any “National Charter School Studies” since 2013,that the overall charter-school performance has not improved.

7. Sowell studiously ignored Stanford’s COMPREHENSIVE studies.

8. Sowell had no other comprehensive studies to cite.


********************
Section B – Sowell’s Laughable Criteria For Focusing On Five Charter-School Networks in NYC

1. Sowell confesses that he would only focus on charter schools meeting three criteria including –

• a charter school and public school “serving the same local population,”

• the students in each such pair of schools “are taught in the same building,” and

• the students in each such pair of schools “have one or more classes at the same grade level in the same building.”

2. For anyone who knows anything about education, the second and third criteria regarding “the same building” are pure nonsense and represent nothing more than an UNADMITTED EXCUSE to avoid addressing the 2009 and 2013 COMPREHENSIVE studies of Stanford University.

3. In contrast, the criteria of Stanford U’s CREDO are the GOLD STANDARD which –

• Were peer reviewed and approved by other academic institutions;

• Selected for virtually all of the charter-school students a “twin” attending the public-school that would have been attended by each charter-school student;

• The matching criteria for selection of the “twin” included –

(a) Grade level

(b) Gender

(c) Race/Ethnicity

(d) Free or Reduced-Price Lunch Elibigility

(e) English Language Lerner Status

(f) Prior test score on state achievement test

4. Additional details regarding selection criteria for “twins” are available from Stanford U’s 2013 CREDO report as reproduced in viewtopic.php?f=658&t=2116&sid=e11a6ff8 ... a2d571081e.


********************
Section C – Sowell’s Apologies (But Failure To Correct Claimed Results) For Charter-School Advantages

C-1 – Admitting Only Children Of Parents Who Are Functional Enough To Apply

• Constantly tries to get readers to overlook this advantage by talking about LOTTERIES.

• Argues (p, 102) that “those who win in these lotteries are greatly outnumbered by those who do not win.”

• This is yet ANOTHER of Sowell’s logical FALACIES since he is obviously trying to get the reader to ignore that 100% (!!!) of charter-school students have “motivated parents” (his term) while ignoring the percentage WHICH HE DOES NOT QUANTIFY of public-school students who do NOT have “motivated parents”!!!

C-2 – Expelling Students Who Do Not Meet Academic Standards (Who Then Go Back To The Public Schools)

• Ignores completely this advantage.

C-3 – Expelling Students Who Do Not Meet Behavioral Standards (Who Then Go Back To The Public Schools)

• Praises this difference throughout the book (see, for example, pp. 104-112 and pp. 118-119).

• This is the central theme of his ELITIST defense of charter schools that ONLY SOME children can be saved, and then only if the “bad apples” (my term for his concept) are weeded out – more about Sowell’s MORAL BANKRUPTCY in the next section.

• Is this reminiscent of your own childhood during which affluent parents would “ship out” their unruly children to “Military” Boarding Schools which typically had military uniforms and ranks AND FEATURED STRICT DISCIPLINE??? With the result that many affluent parents need only threaten Military Boarding School to force the miscreants to behave???


********************
Section D – Sowell’s MORAL BANKRUPTCY Of Studiously Ignoring The GOLD STANDARD Program in 51 American Cities Transforming SINGLE-DIGIT High School Graduating Rates To More Than 90%

1. Sowell repeatedly trumpets an ELITIST view that some children can be saved by charter schools, but only if all of the “bad apples” (my term for his concept) are weeded out.

2. Sowell cannot be so ignorant that he is unaware of the 178 “I Have A Dream”® Programs in 51 American cities during the 1990’s, each of which adopted ALL children in the third grade of an inner-city school (NO EXCEPTIONS FOR BAD APPLES) or all of the third graders in a public-housing project (NO EXCEPTIONS) and then provided each child with a tutor and a mentor through high school graduation with a guarantee of college tuition.

3. They were typically able to achieve 90% high school graduation rates despite the class just ahead and just behind each “Dreamer” class having only SINGLE-DIGIT rates.

4. Their success was achieved despite the typical conditions facing each program featuring -

• 95% of those Dreamers living in single-adult households headed by druggies!!!

• 75%-80% of whom turned over any receipts to the pusher so the kids had to steal just in order to eat!!!

• The children knowing by Kindergarten that they were NOT eligible for their dreams and that their only realistic career objectives were pusher or pimp, or girl friend of a pusher or pimp graduating to whore – none of which requires much education!!!

5. They proved that EVERY child can be saved by SURROGATE PARENTS which is what many, if not most, of the tutors/mentors became.

6. Why does Sowell studiously ignore the power of parenting???

7. BTW, was $84 billion of PRIVATE funding available to provide IHAD- or IHAD-style programs for 10 million inner-city children?

8. And do Sections 4 and 5 of www.ReadingLiberally-SaltLake entitled “Inner-City Holocaust and America’s ‘Apartheid’ Justice System (In Honor of Jonathan Kozol and In Memory of John Howard Griffin)” and containing zillions of legal documents, etc. -- demonstrate how 10 million inner-city children were condemned to “a fate worse than death” culminating in our final appeal for the U.S. Supreme Court to agree to hear our case for which the “question presented for review” was –

“Can state court judges order their decisions which they know are diametrically-opposed to well-settled law, not to be published or cited (a strategy labeled ‘the segregated toilet’ in correspondence with 51 inner-city clergy who represent the 10 million inner-city children who have been disclosed from the outset as the ‘real parties at interest’ in this law suit) in order to flush away the rights of the 10 million inner-city children without disturbing the rights of first-class American citizens -- without violating the ‘Equal Protection of the Law’ requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution?”


********************
Section E – Sowell’s Complaints Against The Charter-School “Enemies” That He Has NOT Ignored

1. Refusals (not quantified) to make available vacant public-school buildings.

2. Slow-walking the approval process (not quantified).

3. Curriculum (pp. 77-80) – though this is really a charter-school ADVANTAGE since they are free to “teach to the tests” – concentrating on reading and math. On p. 120, Sowell clarifies that charter-school “enemies” would like to force charter schools to broaden their educational focus.

4. Governmental regulation of charter schools

• Ignores that this can be a good thing – such as preventing all of those public-school janitors who founded charter schools featuring unqualified teachers.

• BTW, the fact that virtually all of the 67 reports issued by Stanford U’s CREDO 2009-2021 focused solely on individual states or individual cities implies that states/cities are using Stanford U’s CREDO to help them regulate charter schools.

5. Publication of various facts about a charter school

• Sowell claims (pp. 120-126) that “doxing” or “outing” charter-school personnel so they can be harassed is the ONLY reason for publicizing any info except test scores.

• But Sowell counters his own argument by praising (pp. 120 -126) Eva Moskowitz, the founder and leader of NYC’s “Success Academy” – so wouldn’t it be nice to let parents know whether Ms. Moskowitz is still in charge and, when she retires, what the qualifications and philosophy of education of her successor are??? And aren’t there other things parents are entitled to know such as whether, as Sowell points out countering his own argument (pp. 124), that NYC’s KIPP Academy COMPROMISED ITS STANDARDS by hiring NYC Mayor Bill de Blasio’s Deputy Mayor (Richard Buery) as KIPP’s “head of policy” rather than continuing to fight City Hall à la Eva Moskowitz.

6. Others???


********************
Section F – Sowell’s BIG LIES

1. Sowell constantly pretends that in Brown vs. Board of Education, the U.S. Supreme Court was NOT dealing solely with the de jure dual-school systems of the 11 states of the Old Confederacy and the 6 Slave States that did NOT join the Confederacy because of President Lincoln’s constant claim that the raison d’être of the Civil War was to “preserve the union” and DEFINITELY NOT to abolish slavery.

• Sowell CONSTANT LIES throughout his book that the Supreme Court decreed that all schools must be integrated to achieve equality.

• Sowell is not SO IGNORANT that he doesn’t know that the de jure dual-school systems of the 17 slave states had persisted through 1954 as a result of the U.S. Supreme Court’s NORTORIOUS 1896 decision in Plessy v. Ferguson that the 17 slave states do NOT deny the Fourteenth Amendment’s “Equal Protection of the Law” if their laws provide “separate but equal” public facilities!!!

• In other words, “white only” public schools and “black only” public schools.

• And Sowell is NOT SO IGNORANT or has such POOR READING COMPREHENSION that he does not KNOW that Brown v. Board was effectively saying – “Enough already, you 17 slave states – we are no longer going to listen to your zillions of jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction arguments that your de jure dual-school systems are “equal” because we are sick and tired of listening to such arguments which are ALWAYS wrong, so we are just going to rule that such arguments are ALWAYS wrong and not listen to such nonsense anymore.”

• Further details entitled “Sowell’s Brazen Lies About Brown vs. Board of Education are available at viewtopic.php?f=658&t=2110&sid=c1999698 ... 2eeab17279.

• BTW, Sowell still owes me a personal apology as explained in that posting.

2. We were already aware of Sowell’s BIG LIES from last month’s focus book – Sowell’s “Discrimination and Disparities” – in which he lied about the “Aid for Families With Dependent Children” (AFDC) Program.

• Sowell claimed that the AFDC Program did NOT reduce poverty.

• But Sowell could not be SO IGNORANT that he really believed that the AFDC Program was enacted as part of Pres. Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society Program” rather than enacted in 1935 as part of FDR’s “New Deal”!!!

• Accordingly, Sowell LIED that the incredibly SUCCESS of the AFDC Program 1935 thru the 1960’s was NOT due to the AFDC Program which he falsely claimed did not exist during that period!!!

• And Sowell LIED that the AFDC Program was the CAUSE of the tremendous growth in welfare after the 1960’s, when it was really due to the Crack Cocaine Epidemic!!!

• Details about Sowell’s BIG LIE about the AFDC Program 1935 thru the 1960’s are available at viewtopic.php?f=614&t=1993&sid=57228a2b ... 9ac7a9e6cb. [This analysis of Sowell’s “Discrimination and Disparities” was posted in connection with our 12/9/2020 meeting on “Great Society: A New History” by Amity Shlaes but it was referenced in the materials for last month’s meeting on Sowell’s “Discrimination and Disparities.”]

• Details about the CAUSE of the tremendous growth in welfare resulting from the incarceration of so many Black males as a feature of the Crack Cocaine Epidemic are available in a posting for this month’s meeting entitled “Pusher/Pimp or Pusher/Pimp Girl Friend Graduating to Whore” at viewtopic.php?f=658&t=2115&p=2883&hilit ... 5b15#p2883. [Within that posting, please scroll down to the Section entitled “The ‘Root Cause’ of the Loss of Hope – Crack Cocaine” which incorporates a lot of information from our 7/8/2020 meeting which focused on Prof. David Courtwright’s “The Age of Addiction: How Bad Habits Became Big Business” (Harvard U Press - 5/6/2019).]

3. Sowell’s omni-present redundant claims about Washington DC’s Dunbar High School achievements when it was “all black” 1870-1954

• These claims were often featured in Sowell’s lies about the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. Board of Education.

• In “Sowell’s Brazen Lies About Brown vs. Board of Education” (viewtopic.php?f=658&t=2110&sid=c1999698 ... 2eeab17279), did Yours Truly attempt to ignore Sowell’s distraction re Dunbar HS by speculating “that Washington DC might have resembled other American cities whose legendary ‘white flight’ had meant affluent whites had fled to the suburbs, so why would it be remarkable that the best-performing black high school in the ‘inner city’ had a higher college-matriculation rate than any of the ‘inner city’ poor-white high schools”?

• Was “the straw that broke [Yours Truly’s] back" Sowell’s unsubstantiated claim (p. 127) referring to “the ‘M Street School,’ as it was known before it was renamed in 1916”!!! [He makes the same unsubstantiated claim in the footnote on p. 96.]

• Dunbar was actually founded as an educational mission of the Fifteenth Street Presbyterian Church which named it the “Preparatory High School for Colored Youth” which functioned as Washington DC’s academic HS for “colored youth” from all over Washington DC, while other schools for “colored youth” focused on vocational or technical training.

• Its name was changed from “Preparatory High School for Colored Youth” in 1916 when it became a public high school and moved to a new building. As such, its teachers were paid on the same scale as teachers at white high schools because, as U.S. Government workers, they were all subject to the same civil-service rules.

• HOWEVER, Sowell is engaging in yet another LOGICAL FALLACY in claiming that Dunbar, prior to 1916, was “known as ‘the M Street School’”!!!

• In other words, the claim is logically correct if Sowell can cite a single solitary John Doe or a single solitary Jane Doe who “knew” Dunbar as “The M Street School” prior to 1916. But Sowell could not cite a single John/Jane Doe!!!

4. Others???

5. Isn’t it ironic that Sowell’s PhD was in economics??? Because if it had been in history, the U of Chicago would presumably have been forced to revoke Sowell’s PhD in order to maintain its own reputation!!!


********************
Section G – COVID and Teacher Union Damage To Inner-City Children

1. The Original Proposal had included this subject as well as Thomas Sowell vs. Stanford University -- please see viewtopic.php?f=657&t=2103&sid=bf742dfe ... bae63a5b15.

2. This issue is thoroughly covered by the Suggested Answers to the Second Short Quiz at viewtopic.php?f=658&t=2114&sid=bf742dfe ... bae63a5b15.

3. Presumably, the despicable behavior described in the Second Short Quiz (which, comprising only 11 questions, was probably the only so-called “Short Quiz” that really was short in more than a decade) was NOT controversial.

4. Accordingly, I will ask participants at our Oct 13 whether there is anyone who thinks the views expressed in the Second Short Quiz really need discussion so that, if so, some time can be reserved at the end of the meeting for doing so.