CREDO study on charter schools funded by liberal Joyce Foundation

The Joyce Foundation funded in part the study on the successes and failures of [public?] charter schools, CREDO national charter school study [alert: this is one of the most visually boring websites you'll find on the internet--Stanford needs a new web designer] The Joyce Foundation in its causes and in its directors is left wing, with Barack Obama and Valerie Jarrett members of its board of directors.

The 2009 CREDO report, “Multiple Choice: Charter School Performance in 16 States,” “recognized a robust national demand for more charter schools from parents and local communities, it found that 17 percent of charter schools reported academic gains that were significantly better than traditional public schools, while 37 percent of charter schools showed gains that were worse than their traditional public school counterparts, with 46 percent of charter schools demonstrating no significant difference.”

The full report plus supplements since the 2009 issue, includes those states like Indiana and California where charter school students did better than those in traditional classrooms, but also those in Ohio who did worse. (This could mean that Ohio's public schools were better at the starting gate than Indiana's or California's.) With 46% demonstrating no difference and 17% better, that’s at least 63% positive--at least they didn't loose ground. And then there’s the unmeasurables--parental involvement, safety, bullying, behavior, spiritual and moral guidance, special focus (art, music, math, sports) etc. . . . some things aren't measured in test scores. Also, I don't know of a way to account for the "head start" that traditional public schools have over the charters--public or private--nor how to account for the positive affect of competition on the public schools.

It will be interesting to see how the report is used by the various sides, including the unions, within the school system to woo the parents. Also it looks to me like Ohio charters ought to visit Indiana to see what's happening.

Toledo's poverty statistics

Just in time for the convention, we're getting "new" stories on poverty and minorities. In Toledo ABC Channel 13 is pulling stats from the latest census report. 22.6% Toledo residents in poverty (family of 4) compared to 12.3% nationally. And 41.3% of those in poverty in Toledo are black. Instead of tracking the story by race, they should report it by marital status, because that's what causes poverty among women and children. No father in the home.

How is an unmarried woman with children going to show the same economic gains as a married woman and man with children, when counting "households?" That's two incomes against one. A four person household can be a woman with 3 children, or a husband and wife with 2 children, or two gay lawyers and their adopted children. Plus, now that boomers are retiring, the MSM should be reporting that incomes fall after retirement, even if "wealth" hasn't changed at all. But that doesn't play well in speeches and poverty stories.

Toledo Blade: "Overall, the Census found 37.3 million people living in poverty in 2007, of which 13.3 million were children. The poverty level for a four-person family in 2007 was $21,203. Among age groups, seniors had the lowest poverty rate at 9.7 percent, while children had the highest at 18 percent. The poverty rate for 2006 was 12.3 percent, but the change in 2007 was not statistically significant."

Apparently all our poverty programs put in place in the last 30 years have failed. According to a 1987 article in the NYT, “In 1980, Census Bureau figures show the country's overall poverty rate was 11 percent while it was 32 percent for blacks, 25 percent for Hispanic people and 10 percent for whites.” Poverty pimps will find ways to show it is higher now even if the poor own their own home, have an automobile, cable TV and cell phones. If you point out how poverty has decreased in cities (decreased around 50% in Toledo and Columbus by 2000), the Democrats will just tell you that's because the poor moved to the suburbs! Maybe all the "urban development" didn't help the poor? Perhaps all those environmental regulations pushed out industry so the working class have moved to retail and service industries?

Also, in reporting what's happened to gas prices under a Democratic Congress, let's also ignore the gains made during the Bush administration. The median household income in Lucas County, Ohio rose from $40,348 in 2005 to $42,296 in 2006. The percentage of people below the poverty level dropped to 16.8 percent in 2006 from 17.4 percent in 2005.

4577

How can I tell?

A customer satisfaction questionnaire that pops up before I've been able to read anything is a bit off putting. For instance:

"Thank you for visiting US Census Bureau

You have been selected to take part in a customer satisfaction survey. This survey is conducted by an independent company.

The feedback obtained from this survey will help us to enhance our website. All results are strictly confidential."

I was visiting the U.S. Census Bureau site for mining, manufacturing and construction statistics. I selected a newsletter that I thought looked interesting. No longer published. So I moved on to a pollution abatement survey that hadn't been updated in 18 months. Then I looked at a 2003 Remodeling Data Research report that said it was published every 2 years, but I didn't see any for 2005 or 2007, and the report said the data for 2000/2001 wasn't correct and there would be information reissued in 2004. Didn't see it.

Our tax dollars at work. I'll pass on taking the survey until I find something to read.