Establishment folks in public education have done their best to make charter schools and other parental choice programs look like the Devil. Their story about how such programs drain money from public schools now seems as much a part of American folklore as Pecos Bill or Paul Bunyan. How many times did you see the words “siphoning money” in print in the weeks prior to Betsy DeVos’s confirmation?

But there’s a difference between propaganda and reasoned discourse. The truth is that traditional public schools do not need and should not claim public funds that would have come to kids who no longer sit in their classrooms. When they take advantage of new policy opportunities, including the funds they provide, private and charter schools are cheating no one. They are innovators who are fulfilling our nation’s promise to educate its children. 

Parental choice programs do indeed transfer funds from some schools to other schools. Usually, they take from schools that can’t give kids what they need and give to ones that can. But it’s not that one school is the white- and the other the black-hatted cowboy; it’s not that one school is “public” and the other is a public enemy....

Ten days ago, Jason Bedrick wrote that I was mistaken to equate school “accountability” with “top-down government regulations”:

This fundamentally misunderstands accountability. As I explained at the Heritage Foundation earlier this week, true accountability is when service providers are directly answerable to the people most affected by their performance. When that isn’t possible, as when a utility company has a monopoly, top-down regulations may be necessary instead. But we shouldn’t confuse the inferior alternative accountability regime for the ideal form of accountability just because that’s what we’re used to. As Thomas Sowell has written, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

As Jason knows, I agree with him—and with Sowell, Milton Friedman, and many others—that schools must be accountable to parents via the marketplace, that school choice is a better system than a regulated monopoly, and that I don’t in fact support “top down regulations.” What I and other “choice realists” want is for schools of choice to be lightly regulated yet subject to societal expectations regarding results. That’s what we...

A new study examines the role of high schools in explaining students’ initial placement into college and into a college major. In other words, does where you attended high school have much to do with where you go to college and the quality of the major that you pursue?

Analysts study outcomes from six cohorts of full time, non-transfer students who entered a four-year public university in Missouri as college freshmen straight from a public high school between 1996 and 2001 (the sum of which totaled roughly 58,000 students). Students are tracked for eight years to determine graduation outcomes.

They treat majors as specific to each university such that students at different universities who have the same major (i.e., it has the same classification code from the U.S. Department of Education) don’t get clumped together; this way, they can devise a measure of academic quality for each university major that is based on the academic qualifications of students who complete a degree. In other words, the quality of majors by each university is based on the pre-college academic qualifications (namely class percentile ranks and ACT scores) of the students who completed a degree in that major at that university. So...

When we last caught up with KIPP, they were setting the reform world on its collective ear with a report, at once edifying and sobering, on the college completion rates of its alumni. That report, back in the Spring of 2011, showed a surprising 33 percent of the earliest cohorts of KIPP middle-school students had graduated from a four-year college within six years. Surprising how? That depends on how you look at it. If you are born poor and black or brown in the U.S., your chances of graduating college by your mid-twenties is merely 9 percent; KIPP was improving those odds four-fold. On the other hand, the network itself has long insisted its goal was for the students it serves to graduate at rates comparable to the most advantaged American kids, or about 75 percent.

Bolstered by that initial report, KIPP redoubled its efforts, forming partnerships with colleges, re-examining its academic offerings, and launching other initiatives to increase college persistence among its grads. Those efforts are paying off: As of fall 2015, 44 percent of KIPP students have now earned a four-year college degree after finishing eighth grade at a KIPP middle school ten or more years ago.


The American Federation for Children (AFC) recently released its third annual poll on school choice. The national poll surveyed just over 1,000 likely voters early this January via phone calls.

To determine general support and opposition, AFC posed the following question: “Generally speaking, would you say you favor or oppose the concept of school choice? School choice gives parents the right to use the tax dollars associated with their child’s education to send their child to the public or private school which better serves their needs.” By and large, the findings indicate broad support for school choice—68 percent of those surveyed support school choice compared to 28 percent who oppose it. These results are similar to previous years: 69 and 70 percent of likely voters who expressed support for school choice in 2015 and 2016, respectively.

In addition to overall percentages, AFC broke out the survey numbers by specific demographic groups. Seventy-five percent of Latinos and 72 percent of African Americans support school choice compared to 65 percent of Whites. In terms of political affiliation, 84 percent of Republicans support school choice (up slightly from 80 percent in 2016), compared to 55 percent of Democrats (down from 65 percent...

The major charge against Betsy DeVos—and certainly the one that the writers at “Saturday Night Live” recently ran with—was that she doesn’t know enough about “school” to be Secretary of Education. She hasn’t been a teacher, a principal, or a superintendent. She doesn’t know how to pick a curriculum, evaluate an instructor, or write an Individual Education Plan for students with disabilities.

All true. And if she were seeking employment as a teacher, a principal, or a superintendent, that experience gap would be damning. But she’s not.

President Trump selected her to be the U.S. Secretary of Education. That person’s job is to do education politics and policy—to work with members of Congress and governors, to understand how a bill becomes a law, to provide moral support to reformers as they fight it out in the states and at the local level. With her decades of involvement in politics, with policymakers, and in the trenches of the parental choice movement, DeVos is an inspired choice for the job that the Senate confirmed her for yesterday.

Which isn’t to say that the millions of teachers and parents who flooded social media and the Congressional switchboard to urge her rejection had...

Patrick Riccards

Five years ago, I felt like public enemy number one when it came to education. Despite my fifteen years in education policy, including time spent chairing a local school board, and my standing as a father of two school-aged kids in public schools, I was accused of single-handedly trying to destroy public education in Connecticut.

As I helped lead the fight for the most significant education reform legislation in the Nutmeg State in a generation, I had my tires slashed at a public event. My kids’ teachers, when I went to school to volunteer, literally refused to speak to me. I was depicted in the media as everything from Penguin the Batman villain, to a carpetbagger, to a Klansman. And I was branded a privatizing profiteer, seeking to get rich off the backs of poor children and overworked teachers.

Essentially, I was “DeVossed” before getting DeVossed was cool. I was deemed an outsider because I had never been a classroom teacher, and I was trying to disrupt the status quo in public education. It didn’t matter what background and experiences I brought to the discussion. It didn’t matter that I had a history of successfully working with teachers and teachers...

Larry Sand

The teachers unions don’t just screw over kids, they also screw over new teachers. Millennials beware.

The above tweet from Mike Petrilli, president of the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, tells a dismal story. To followers of Pension Tsunami, UnionWatch and Transparent California, the looming pension disaster for taxpayers is not news. But what has gone under-reported is that young teachers entering the field are carrying a disproportionate amount of the load. And if those teachers don’t make teaching a career for life, they become victims of a reverse Robin Hood scenario—where the “haves” are stealing from the “have-nots” and the “haven’t yets.”

All this is spelled out in a Fordham Institute report authored by Martin Lueken, director of fiscal policy and analysis at EdChoice. As the introduction to the detailed 378 page analysis states, “A new teacher’s pension is supposed to be a perk. The truth is that for the majority of the nation’s new teachers, what they can anticipate in retirement benefits will be worth less than what they contributed to the system while they were in the classroom, even if they stay for decades.” The even sadder news is that, cowed by...

“You’re fired!” For many New Yorkers, the chance to say those words to our next President can’t come soon enough. But barring an impeachment miracle, they'll have to wait several years for that chance.

So what say you, reader? Do you need four or eight more years to form an opinion about Trump—pro or con? How long does it really take to know if someone isn’t the right fit for a job?

Obviously, the President is a special case. Still, the question stands, and the answer matters, especially when it comes to another key role in our democracy: the public school teacher. Like the President’s performance, a teacher’s performance has grave consequences—not just for kids’ academic achievement but for their long-term prospects.

Unfortunately, as we document in a recent analysis, Undue Process: Why Bad Teachers in Twenty-Five Diverse Districts Rarely Get Fired, in most places, dismissing an ineffective teacher remains far too hard. And in New York City and state, it’s particularly challenging.

Because data on teacher dismissals are nearly impossible to come by, our report focuses on the dismissal process as it exists on paper—that is, as articulated in state and district policy. Specifically, we evaluated districts based...

“Winners never quit and quitters never win.” There's a lot of truth in that cliché, but it doesn't seem to apply to education. When it comes to chronically low-performing schools, in many cases, the better – and more courageous – course is to “quit” and close a school that is simply beyond repair.

In recent years, attempts to turn around failing schools are most closely linked to the Obama Administration’s supercharged School Improvement Grant (SIG) program. Between 2010 and 2015, the federal government spent $7 billion in efforts to turnaround low-performing schools. In exchange for these funds, grantee schools pledged to implement prescribed interventions, such as replacing personnel or changing instructional practices.

The returns: Not much—or perhaps not clear—according to a massive study by Mathematica and the American Institutes for Research (AIR). The study examined schools in the 2010 SIG cohort and tracked pupil outcomes through three years of implementation. Using data from twenty-two states, their analysis found that SIG had no significant impact on students’ state math or reading test scores. Nor did they find any evidence that SIG increased pupils’ likelihood of high school graduation or college enrollment. Further, the analysts didn’t even uncover...