CER News Alerts
School Choice
E-Mail
CER
The following is a critique by the Center for Education Reform of the following report:
An Evaluation of Student Achievement in Edison Schools Opened in 1995 and 1996
By Gary Miron and Brooks Applegate
The Evaluation Center, Western Michigan University
For the National Education Association
December 2000
Do schools operating under contract with Edison, Inc. perform better than traditional public schools on norm- and criterion-referenced tests? The recent study of the ten oldest Edison Schools (out of a total of 113 schools) conducted by Gary Miron for the National Teacher Association (NEA) asserts that, at best, Edison Schools are only as good as the traditional public schools in their district and state.
Unfortunately, the study poorly conceals the predetermined nature of its conclusions and only succeeds in demonstrating that the NEA wants to convince the American public that education reforms are unnecessary and will not improve public education in the United States.
Miron and Applegate fail to include the latest scores, scores that in many cases demonstrate significant improvement, in its analysis of student and school performance.
When Edison issued its 2000 annual report, it concluded that many of their schools have achieved significant gains and reported them. The authors of this study, however, saw the same scores, declined to include them in their analysis, and challenged Edison's findings.
The study also oddly classifies several schools. The results at Seven Hills Charter School in Massachusetts, which was recently recognized by Massachusetts as one of the five top gaining schools in the state, were classified as "mixed." Michigan's Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. Academy, where the 2000 state test scores showed double-digit gains (far outpacing the district school with which it was compared) was also classified as having "mixed" results.
The authors attribute to Edison the "advantages" of concerned parents and better students, yet Edison reports that 67% of its students come from economically disadvantaged families. They themselves reveal that when Edison takes over the operation of its schools, "they often start at levels below national norms and districts averages." Miron and Applegate fail to explain how operating schools with students from low-income families "starting below national norms and districts averages" works to the advantage of Edison.
The fact that Edison is often brought in as a last resort to save students attending the worst schools is important. The best way to judge the student achievement at schools starting out below their home districts and states is to see how well they improve relative to where they started. But the authors of this study employed a method of analysis, "odds ratio," that by design conceals progress. By ignoring how low performing schools scratch and claw their way up towards proficiency in math and reading, the study completely misses the real picture and distorts the true progress and importance of these schools.
- John Kraman
Research Associate
# # #
The Center for Education Reform [CER] is a national, independent, non-profit advocacy organization providing support and guidance to individuals, community and civic groups, policymakers and others who are working to bring fundamental reforms to their schools. For further information, please call (202) 822-9000.