This one website has been bothering me for about a week now. It is a small press release by Great Public Schools Now, which I have discussed in earlier posts. I applaud the way they use data to make decisions, but the data on this part of their website gives me pause. It seems completely innocuous, but it is so interesting if you think about some of the decisions they have made.
To me, the most odd thing is this: They have the individual magnet scores for schools that are not stand-alone magnets. This is a bit wonky, but here: My school has a magnet AND a residential school. But when you look up our data, we just appear as one single school. GPSN somehow has access to the separated data. How did they get access to site level magnet scores? NOWHERE is their individual data made public. So how did GSPN get access to it? Did LAUSD give them access? Can I get access?
Actually, I already do have access through LAUSD’s MyData platform, I just can’t publish it because at the bottom of the website it says:
Disclaimer: This information is the property of the Los Angeles Unified School District and is intended solely for internal use by authorized employees. This information is not to be reproduced in any form, viewed, or distributed by unauthorized individuals. This information is subject to conditions set forth in applicable laws, regulations, and policies regarding privacy and confidentiality.
So my first question is this: Did LAUSD give them access to the Magnet Scores? And if not, how did they get it?
Second, it lays out the guidelines for what GPSN considers to be a great school that serves high-need communities:
- More than 75% Free or Reduced Priced Lunch (also called FRPM, which I pronounce furpum).
- More than 60% of students meeting or exceeding standards in English.
As a math teacher, I am only slightly offended that they don’t evaluate math. But the thing that got to me was that 75% number. Why 75%? Most studies tend to use the 90% threshold for high-needs schools – how did they arrive at that number?
Here is my theory. Let’s rearrange the data so its ordered by percent free and reduced lunch.
By setting their cut off at 75%, they were able to include many more traditional and magnet schools in their list of exemplars than they would have been if they set their cut off at 90%. If they set their cut off at 90%, then 59% of the schools would be charters. Instead, by setting it at 75%, only 38% are charters. This is very important to an organization that is defending against criticism that it is a charter school take over in disguise.
So I think this sparks a debate – exactly what number should we use to classify schools that have high poverty?
The last thing that bugs me is that they left a few schools off the list. I did my own check and there were a few more schools that qualified for these requirements, but didn’t make the list. Fairfax High School is over 75% FRPM and had 61% in ELA. Garfield High’s Magnet is mentioned, but in fact, the entire Garfield High School qualifies. They mention Legacy STEM but not Legacy VAPA, which also meets the requirements.
I know, these seem like tiny things, but if this is how larger decisions are going to be made, and those decisions are going to be backed by millions of dollars, I believe GPSN should be held to the same level of mathematical rigor in their methodology as any organization is, inside or outside of the traditional system.
Nerd, that’s a lot of food for thought. The Magnet data question isn’t wonky as much as it’s mysterious. GPSN IS either about Charter takeover, or run by people who automatically think that high test scores are “replicable, ” “successful models” and proof of a “high-quality education (read: better teaching),” possibly both. Might it be no accident that the overwhelming majority of these schools are Charter, or Magnet, or new Choice traditional schools who can attract the most able students? Should we be surprised by the scores? Do they prove anything? Why aren’t they higher? Your point about the traditional schools barely making the cutoff and the convenient defense they provide for GPSN is well taken. The FRPM numbers could be the topic of a whole other series of posts. They are self-reported by families and therefore highly unreliable. And for accuracy sake, there is considerable difference in income between qualifying for “free” as opposed to “reduced price” lunches. Of course, the food itself (quantity, purchase prices, subsidies, calorie counts, waste, customer/student satisfaction, not to mention the whole Breakfast In the Classroom thing) could even be another series. Back to GPSN, their message is confusing. Are they rewarding certain successful schools with money or investing in efforts to replicate a model in other less successful schools? Both? Either way, they should first look a little deeper and at least come up with an explanation for the higher scores. If there’s a true model, great. Let’s try it in other schools. If, however, the scores are mosty reflective of the students who attend said schools, as I suspect, their money will not be able to lift all boats as advertised. It will reward the rich and punish the poor. If GPSN is indeed committed to helping improve the education of all children in LAUSD, they should consider this much more reliable and ethical alternative: build and fund school and local libraries.