I just read a piece in the New York Times by someone who actually writes for a living, and who lives in DC, say that she’d rather have bad neighborhood schools remain open, than have a choice to send her child to a public school that might actually be working. She is angry with people who have run her city and her school system, who had the nerve to “shutter” their failing, poorly enrolled, neighborhood school. And these same leaders even had the audacity to suggest students be provided the options of a new community school to attend (which she didn’t like), while at the same time this same journalist says she only considers high quality private or charter schools, but apparently believes the charters perform poorly and rarely close, while the data shows the complete opposite. In fact, DC’s charter schools make more and faster gains for all children, retain their students longer, and are boasting higher graduation rates. Those that don’t work do close — at a rate of 15% percent, a practice that still rarely happens in traditional public schools, even in this city where she believes officials are school closure crazy.

Why does Natalie Hopkinson want parents consigned to substandard schools, while she herself admittedly enjoys a choice of public OR private education? She has anxiety over making choices, she says. In her own world, white parents have public schools in their neighborhood that work and black parents of whatever means have to exercise choice of schools outside their neighborhoods to find the best fit for their child, as if that’s a bad thing. The person who wrote this drivel has most assuredly never stepped foot in the schools outside of her middle class neighborhood to see the notion of having a choice for the first time in their lives must mean for a parent who has been relegated to unconscionably horrendous schools. No, for this DC resident who has choices, the theory and nostalgia of a neighborhood school has been assaulted by parent empowerment. She claims not enough effort, money, or mandates of some sort has left her without a great neighborhood school. Oh, and she lays it at the feet of Republicans who helped spur the idea, without conceding that the Democratically controlled city has not only joined the reform chorus but now leads it in most cities, oh, and in the White House.

No wonder Diane Ravitch tweeted her praise for Hopkinson’s editorial today. Indeed in countless tweets and interviews, the author — who says she lives between DC and West Palm Beach — demonstrates no grasp of the real issues here, the real data, nor the hope and promise that choices to students and families, including working and middle-class families who have experienced schools that do not excel, despite the paper that says otherwise, and that are more focused tradition and business-as-usual than personalized, student-centered learning.

That’s why families choose, but rather than appreciate what others need, she simply wants a neighborhood school that is open and works. Wish that we all had one, Natalie. In the meantime, most rational people want education to mean something more than a theory for their children. But then, you’d know that if you’d actually talked to a few.

Public money for private interest? That’s what’s being used to fuel outrage and frenzy among unsuspecting Teaneck, NJ residents, by the school leadership that fears a loss of power and control should the Garden State Virtual Charter School be approved by the State in January. Turns out the GSVCS is actually a statewide school proposal, so Teaneck would pay for no more than the students who choose to use that new charter who reside in Teaneck. Such a fact has not stopped the superintendent from claiming she would have to cut dozens of teaching positions this winter, or suffer a $15 million budget cut, a number that came in error from the State education department when it notified districts where charters are pending of potential impact of the costs that they must “prepare” for. The reality is that 1,000 kids from around the state won’t cost anyone $15 million.

But facts are irrelevant apparently. So in this little NJ hamlet barely 15 miles out of NYC, school district list serves and emails are financing a private war over a very public school proposal.

This weekend The Philadelphia Inquirer’s Editorial Board posted an article on their blog, “Say What”, criticizing Governor Corbett and his education reform plans. The Inquirer’s editorial board suggests that Corbett should “stop acting like ‘competition’ from charters and vouchers will be enough to fix bad schools.” We of course responded, but The Inquirer has yet to post it. So we’ve continued the debate here on Edspresso. Check it out…

This post by The Inquirer’s Editorial Board is misleading. Yes, governors do have a responsibility for schools, and yes, the issue of public education has become extremely politicized in Pennsylvania and New Jersey in recent months as both Governors Corbett and Christie look for ways to take responsibility for the failing public education systems in their respective states. But rather than demonize their approach to try something new, by offering parents and students school choice, we should be commending them for trying to get it right.

Technically speaking, according to Article III, Section 14, in the Constitution of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “The General Assembly shall provide for the maintenance and support of a thorough and efficient system of public education to serve the needs of the Commonwealth.” It does not prescribe one system or another, but technically gives the General Assembly absolute power over education. Governor Corbett and his colleagues in the General Assembly recognize that Pennsylvania’s current system is neither “thorough” nor “efficient” and is not “serving the needs of the Commonwealth.”

Consider that only 33 percent of Pennsylvania’s 4th graders and 36 percent of 8th graders can read at a basic proficiency. Eighth grade math scores are not much better with only 38 percent of students proficient. Yet, on average, public school districts in the Commonwealth spend nearly $13,000 per student (among the highest in the nation). This does not seem very efficient and clearly does not seem to be serving student needs very thoroughly.

School choice programs — of which there are 20 (scholarship programs and tax credits) in 12 states and Washington, DC — increase student achievement and graduation rates while costing only one quarter of the amount of money, per child, than conventional public schools.

Scholarship programs stimulate healthy competition that helps public schools improve; there has never been a single study — ever — demonstrating that scholarships have a negative impact on public schools.

According to Harvard researcher Caroline Hoxby, the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program yields healthy competition that encourages public schools to improve. In 32 Milwaukee schools that faced the most competition –– with two-thirds or more students eligible for vouchers –– fourth-grade math achievement test scores exhibited what amounted to an annual gain of 6.3 National Percentile Rank (NPR) points over a four-year period. The 66 Milwaukee schools facing less competition (with less than two thirds of voucher eligible students) saw an annual gain of 4.8 points. In contrast, the schools facing no competition saw an annual gain of only 3.5 points.

Charter school students in New York City demonstrate a long-term trend of outperforming their peers in conventional public schools thanks to a strong state charter law that allows for multiple and highly accountable authorizers. In fact, 68.5 percent of the Big Apple’s charter students are proficient in math compared to 57.3 percent in conventional public schools. There was once a time where conventional public school scores in New York City looked a lot more like Pennsylvania’s dismal record. But over time, the competition from giving parents a choice has improved all schools.

School choice works and is a very effective tool for improving all schools. Competition in education is just as effective as in every other sector of American life. The achievement data from other states do not lie. And Pennsylvania’s working families ARE clamoring for “an escape route.” Yes, maybe it is time to change the political rhetoric, and the media’s role is, in part, to hold elected officials accountable. But the media’s role is also to report the facts. Let’s change the focus from politics and the word choices of our politicians to reporting on the real issue at hand, how best to serve the needs of Pennsylvania’s students.

Race to the Top remains overrated in terms of impact. While there was a flurry of multi-state activity caused, it didn’t result in any real snow.

A cap lift for charters here, a teacher evaluation bill with little teeth there. Many smart people disagree about this. But, the fact is if you look around the country today, there is activity on teacher evaluations, meaningful charter law changes (not just cap lifts), expanded accountability, parent triggers and more without any carrot or stick from Washington.

So, is Washington becoming irrelevant to state policy?

The answer is yes – only when you have strong governors who push and get passage of education policy.

Indiana’s Gov. Mitch Daniels made education a top priority this past legislative session and with it came an avalanche of education reforms, including school choice and an expansion on charter schools. Louisiana’s Gov. Bobby Jindal tied student achievement to teacher evaluations, as many states have as of late, and has applied a whatever-works-as-long-as-children-succeed attitude. Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder is succeeding in pushing multiple reforms such as charter expansions and teacher evaluations, not in response to Race to the Top, but because of the poor state of the status quo. New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie has become a vocal proponent of education reform including the need for multiple authorizers and the introduction of an opportunity scholarship program.

And just this week, Pennsylvania Gov. Tom Corbett unveiled a new education reform package that promises greater flexibility for parents and teachers in the education of the state’s children, and accountability at all levels for substantially greater results.

No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top filled voids left by state policy leaders who neglected their state’s education systems, which wallowed in the status quo. Districts and states spent time complaining about needing to comply with new federal mandates.

Today, the result of their delays is more clear than every before. Student achievement is still lagging, educational crises have not subsided EXCEPT where states have adopted a meaningful combination of reforms.

Washington can create a flurry of activity, but only the states can create a blizzard.

“Learning is like rowing upstream – to not advance is to drop back.” – Chinese proverb.

Well, get ready to go backward … again. Today’s SAT score analysis for college-bound seniors shows that student improvement is going nowhere and that Hispanics and African-American students continue to face a wide achievement gap.

When you take into account this year’s SAT analysis and recent ACT scores, which reveal that only 25 percent of the 2011 class could meet the benchmarks for college readiness in all four core subjects, it’s no surprise that we’re dropping back.

The United States has slipped from 12^th to 16^th globally in college education attainment, according to the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development’s report released this week.

How much more writing needs to be on the wall before we reach a consensus that how we continue to educate our kids is not working?

We’re not adequately preparing our K-12 students for college and therefore we’re falling behind other nations around the globe both educationally and economically. It’s time that we all step back, admit its not working and then work to reform our education system to emphasize student achievement.

We, and especially our kids, need a system that puts them first and rallies against the backward trends evident in our education system.