1/ We appreciate @dleonhardt’s @NYTimes columns the past 2 weeks re: our study on NOLA reforms’ effects on long-term student outcomes. My co-author Matthew Larsen deserves a ton of credit. This thread addresses questions & comments that have come up.
2/ Before I dive in, here are links to the @NYTimes columns and our @ERA_NOLA report: nyti.ms/2mjy9MM, nyti.ms/2uPmtX1, bit.ly/2JQ06Ft
3/ Many of the more critical responses have focused on the very unfortunate process of reform. The reforms were carried out by mostly white reform leaders, many from outside the city, & the local community wasn't very involved.
4/ These leaders made big decisions about schools that had primarily employed black teachers & primarily served black families--a big problem given the city’s (& nation’s) long struggle w/ educational inequity and disenfranchisement.
5/ I agree completely with these concerns. We didn’t talk about them in this report but I have elsewhere. The unfortunate process of reform has led some to conclude that the reforms have been “inequitable.” I mostly agree with that, too, but . . .
6/ When we looked at the effects on student outcomes, we see that all groups benefited & most achievement gaps (by race and income) actually *declined*. This complicates the inequity argument.
7/ Others point to problems that were prevalent in early reform years, but have subsided somewhat, e.g., spikes in suspensions & schools selecting students rather than students selecting schools. We have studied some of these bit.ly/2LLpEVO & have more work coming soon
8/ Another post argued we didn’t give enough attention to spending increases that accompanied the reform. But we think this issue is so important we wrote an entirely separate report on it (see here: bit.ly/2zOgGWn). We cited & discussed that work in the new report.
9/ Spending did increase relative to other districts which, as we said, likely contributed some to overall improvement. But it's not the main explanation. First, it’s unlikely that this spending would have had the same effect under the old district, given its prior dysfunction.
10/ Second, the reforms partly created the increased funding. So, even to the extent money mattered, it is hard to interpret this as an alternative cause.
11/ @deutches29blog questioned our method of combining state RSD schools with local district (OPSB) schools. We have 2 important reasons for that. First, the schools left under OPSB control experienced significant reforms, too.
12/ The district ended its union contract, nearly eliminated attendance zones & turned over most schools to charter operators. So, it’s fair to say even schools that *stayed* in the district experienced the 2nd most intense reform ever—2nd only to the state RSD part of reform
13/ In short, all publicly funded schools in the city were subject to similar reforms. The other reason we combined OPSB & RSD takeover schools is that separating them would create a new problem—selection bias.
14/ We would have to assume that students in OPSB schools after the reforms were essentially the same as those in the same specific school buildings before the reforms. This wouldn’t be very convincing & given point 12/ above, not very helpful either.
15/ If we had separated out the district schools, 2 things would have happened: First, we would NOT have concluded, as @deutsch29blog & @DianeRavitch assume, that the improvement is driven by schools that stayed in the local district.
16/ It’s almost mathematically impossible for the reform effects to be driven by OPSB given the small share of schools under district control & that black and low-income students (who are disproportionately in state RSD schools) saw mostly larger measurable effects.
17/ The New Orleans experience is important & demands scrutiny. We are glad people are asking questions & glad to clear up misunderstandings. We try to leave no stone unturned & to portray results as fairly as we can. We will continue to do that, no matter what the results show
