# HIT & RUN BLOG

## New York's largest charter network outperformed traditional public schools in wealthy zip codes.

New York released its annual test scores this week, and Success Academy, the city's rapidly expanding charter school network, posted remarkable results. Again.

Success Academy schools did well in English—68 percent of students were proficient, compared with 30 percent in the city over all—but in math, the scores were astonishing. Ninety-three percent of Success Academy test-takers were proficient in math, compared with 35 percent citywide.

To put that into perspective, of the 1,282 public schools tested, just 12[*] were part of the Success Academy network, or 1 percent of the total. Yet 5 out of the 10 schools that scored highest in math were part of the Success Academy network. Of the 20 schools that did best in math, 9 were part of the Success Academy network. All twelve schools in the network were ranked in the top 40 for math. Results of this sort were unheard of before Success Academy arrived on the scene.

It's clear that Success Academy trounces the vast majority of public schools, but the rankings appear to show it dominating all but the very best. Are Success schools also markedly better than the other schools in the top five percent in New York City?

They are.

I asked statistician Aaron Brown to take a look at the data. He pointed out that a problem with the rankings is that "the chosen metric is so close to 100 percent for top schools that a big difference in ranking can represent a small difference in kids." So it could be that the quality of the education is really no better at Success Academy than at the other top schools.

To clarify what these results really mean, Brown crunched the numbers by putting all the Success Academy students, plus all the kids who go to the top five percent of other schools, in one pot. Then he took a random sample of 3,065 kids to see how they did compared to the 3,065 kids from Success Academy. This exercise is designed to answer the question: What if those Success Academy kids had been distributed among all of the top schools in the city? Would they have done better or worse in math?

Brown found that they would have performed significantly worse: 310 fewer kids would have gotten a level 4 on the exam, the top score. And 203 more kids would have received a 1 or a 2, which are considered to be failing grades. That would have been a tremendous waste of potential.

Of course, this assumes that all of these schools are drawing from the same pool. That's difficult to determine with any certainty, but we know that Success Academy students, who are selected through a random lottery, tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Seventy-seven percent of its students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. Ninety-two percent of test takers were black or Hispanic.

It's fun to thumb through the data and see how Success schools trounced their counterparts in wealthy zip codes.

Two-bedroom apartments near Brooklyn's P.S. 321 tend to sell for more than a million dollars, in part because parents are desperate to get their kids into the famed Park Slope elementary school. At P.S. 321, 82 percent of test takes were proficient in math this year. That's respectable—56th highest in the city—but well below all 12 Success Academy schools.

At P.S. 87, which is P.S. 321's counterpart on Manhattan's Upper West Side (except the kids are even richer), 80 percent of students were proficient in math. That earned the school 67th place citywide, or well below every Success Academy school.

In an email, Brown noted selection bias might still partially explain Success' scores:

Any school will look good if its students are the brightest poor kids with the most parental support, and even affluent neighborhoods have some challenging kids and problematic parent situations. Still the overwhelming statistical performance of Success Academies versus even the best other New York public schools sets a high hurdle for anyone who wants to attribute the results to selection bias or test defects.

Let's not forget that when Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) was running for office, he told a teachers-union crowd that Success Academy's founder and CEO, Eva Moskowitz, must "stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.”

Last year, I profiled Renee Lopez, a struggling student who was slipping through the cracks at a traditional public school. Then she won a coveted spot at Success Academy and got the help she needed.

For more on Success Academy's political fight with the mayor and the teachers union, watch Reason TV's profile of Eva Moskowitz, which I put together with Nick Gillespie:

[*] There are 32 schools in the Success Academy network, but the state combined 7 middle schools with their accompanying elementary schools in its data reporting. Twelve more schools haven't yet reached grade level to participate in the testing, and one school is a high school, which means students there take a different set of tests.

Jim Epstein is managing editor of Reason TV.

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

• ||

It's great that a charter school so conclusively exhibited proof-of-concept. However, the fact remains that the metrics used to display that success (high scores on state-designed multiple-guess tests) are lousy predictors for success in life.

All this really means is that Success Academy teachers do a better job of teaching kids how to pass a test.

So, kudos to the school administrators, but feel pity for the kids who are still unprepared for higher education, or future employment.

• John||

Your comment assumes the test tests nothing of value. Teaching to the test can be good if the test tests the right things. Beyond that, these kids at least learned enough to pass the test. That is better than what the public school kids learned, which is likely nothing.

• Ken Shultz||

Yeah, even if what he's saying is true, what's it say about NYC's public schools if they can only teach 30% of their students to pass an English test?

"It's great that a charter school so conclusively exhibited proof-of-concept. However, the fact remains that the metrics used to display that success (high scores on state-designed multiple-guess tests) are lousy predictors for success in life."

I'm sure New York City's parents will be happy to hear that just because 70% of their children can't demonstrate proficiency in English, that doesn't mean they won't have any success in life.

• ||

If you want a kid to know that the War of 1812 happened in 1812, than the tests have value.

If you want a kid to be able to think critically, to integrate new information into her worldview, to write coherent sentences - all those things that we credit intelligent adults for doing - then the tests are miserable failures.

Our education system (including fancy-schmancy colleges) relies on standardized testing because it is a cheap and easy way to measure students. However, as any college professor will tell you, most freshmen arrive without the basic skills they need to flourish. And this is a problem that's getting worse... not better, despite glorious government action like No Child Left Behind.

Again, kudos to Success Academy to doing a better job than the local public schools. But all they're doing is getting a brighter polish on a turd.

• Ken Shultz||

I appreciate that a true education is about more than just proficiency in English and math.

But if we're scraping the bottom of the barrel in terms of bare minimums, 30% proficiency in English and 35% proficiency in math is unacceptable.

The kind of education you're talking about probably doesn't show up on test scores, but I expect that kind of education to be--in addition to--proficiency in English and math.

• John||

And what Ken said.

• SimonD||

I agree also with the basic idea, but it's impossible to critically think without the ability to read and write and figure proficiently.

The NY Public Schools have failed at even the first minimum benchmark, much less at the higher functions which Chinny has decribed.

It is starting to appear that even the idea of public schools is a failure.

• Marshall Gill||

It is starting to appear that even the idea of public schools is a failure.

Starting to appear?

• John||

It does you no good to think critically if you don't know anything. The whole "we are teaching critical thinking" claim is nothing but an excuse for not teaching anything. For hundreds of years schools taught facts and worked fine. When the teachers became too lazy and incompetent to teach facts, suddenly they started claiming they were teaching critical thinking as if that exists in a vacuum independent of knowledge. Basically you are pretending that you can somehow be educated without actually knowing anything.

• GamerFromJump||

Critical thinking is essentially another way of saying "evidence-based thinking". If students haven't even the most basic methods of evidence gathering (ie, reading and math), then how could they possibly engage in forming a basis of thought from it?

Devoid of the ability to gather and discern evidence for themselves, people so handicapped must, like the peasantry that couldn't read Latin, rely on the pronouncements of the gatekeepers, who can toss out whatever they want without fear of contradiction.

Waaaait a minute...I'm seeing a correlation here.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"If you want a kid to be able to think critically, to integrate new information into her worldview, to write coherent sentences - all those things that we credit intelligent adults for doing - then the tests are miserable failures."

I strongly disagree with this. Not being proficient at math makes it impossible for you to pursue some of the highest paying career paths, like engineering and the hard sciences. When they have 90%+ of their kids proficient compared to 35% in the city, I guarantee you far more of that 90% is going to have a good life outcome than the 35%.

Also, everything Ken said below me. We aren't talking about just meaninglessly reciting dates, we're talking about the capacity to write sentences, read for comprehension, and solve math equations. Those are major life skills, not just knowing random trivia about the War of 1812.

• lap83||

"If you want a kid to be able to think critically, to integrate new information into her worldview, to write coherent sentences - all those things that we credit intelligent adults for doing - then the tests are miserable failures."

I agree that these are important, which is why I don't think school should be subsidized or mandated at all.. You can't teach people to be open-minded, independent thinkers. You can only give them freedom to learn what they want and how they want to learn it.

• Blume||

Up until about 7th grade, most children's brains are not developed enough for "critical thinking" so attempting to teach it is pointless and possibly counterproductive. The American obsession with trying to teach advanced topics to younger and younger children I will never understand.

Anyway, there are plenty of ways to standardized-test critical thinking. Give them a Paul Krugman column (for example) and have them answer multiple-choice questions about the validity of his argument and possible ulterior motives.

• commodious spittoon||

The American obsession with trying to teach advanced topics to younger and younger children I will never understand.

• LynchPin1477||

High School GPA is a good indicator of college success. That GPA was derived from tests.

Not all tests, and certainly not all standardized tests, are good ones. So you have a point about how teaching to the test can be useless in the long run.

But you do need some way to evaluate what kids have and haven't learned. Waiting to see if they are successful 10 or 20 years down the road isn't a feasible way of doing that.

And even if these particular tests are not testing important skills, the fact that the charter schools can teach *anything* well is a good indicator that they are doing something right.

If you realign the incentives about what to teach by using better metric to gauge success, it is plausible that the charter schools could then teach those skills successfully, too. Traditional public schools? Not so much evidence of that in these poorer areas...

• GamerFromJump||

Though this is not always true. I had a lousy high school GPA, mainly because it was a small slice of hell. In college, I actually enjoyed what I was doing, so my grades rose like a rocket.

• Pulseguy||

If 70% of your students aren't passing basic literacy tests you aren't teaching them critical thinking skills.

Try teaching an illiterate person critical thinking skills. It is possible, but not likely. And, if your teachers can't teach the three R's they're probably not capable of teaching logic, analysis, and rhetoric.

• Lord at War||

Yeah... I remember showing up in a college Calculus 101 course as a junior in HS- after spending a year in juvie jail.

I broke my left thumb (writing hand) the Friday before the Monday final. I took the cast off Sunday night in the bathroom at the mall.

3 hour final- I was done in 54 minutes. I scored a 99 (I "failed to completely show my work" on one question , because I didn't want the pain of actually writing it out)- the second best among 80 students in three classes was a 92- and my 760 SAT math, and my 36 ACT math score had absolutely nothing to do with it...

• C. S. P. Schofield||

Not meaning to attack you personally, but I have noticed that the "the tests don't prepare you for life" argument started springing up when it had become clear that what was wrong with the public schools was NOT lack of money.

• Ken Shultz||

You are such a racist.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Also whenever talk of merit pay for teacher comes up.

• Blume||

I first remember hearing it in the days after that great conservative piece of legislation, No Child Left Behind, when teachers discovered they were now required to devote a month of the school year to teaching test-taking strategies and review, re-review, re-re-review, etc of the tested material. Rather than being able to use that time to cover more of the subject they were actually teaching.

That's not really the fault of the test, it's the fault of the administrators who don't give a shit about the kids learning something at their school and are only in it to save themselves. If you teach the kids well for the first 8 months of the year, you don't have to drill on the test for the last month.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

The thing is, no matter what the flaws of each successive layer of "school reform", the core problem is that the teachers' unions hate being accountable in any way, and what really needs to be done if deep fat fry the lot of them.

Teaching is not a "Profession". It is not Divinity, Medicine, or Law. Teachers may be wonderful people, but the vast majority of them are going to be drudges ans drones. The teachers' unions are criminal conspiracies to defraud the public.

Universal vouchers are the only solution I can soo. In the short term, we need to give scholarships to poor brown kids whose parents will hustle for them.

And most especially, screw each and every Political suck-up to the Teachers' Unions.

• Pulseguy||

What happened to you in your childhood C.S.P. that you hate children so much?

• C. S. P. Schofield||

Children happened to me. With great thoroughness.

• Paul.||

So, kudos to the school administrators, but feel pity for the kids who are still unprepared for higher education, or future employment.

I guess I don't understand... is public school demonstrably better at these things?

• Jerryskids||

I think he's just pointing out that getting poked in the eye is not much better than getting kicked in the nuts and you're assuming that he's encouraging more nut-kicking. Yes, private schools do a better job of teaching kids to pass standardized tests than the public schools do but let's not lose sight of the fact that teaching kids to pass standardized tests is not the same thing as educating kids. (And let's not forget which schools are run by the people who came up with the idea that passing standardized tests is a good way of measuring how well our kids is being teached.)

• Sevo||

"...Yes, private schools do a better job of teaching kids to pass standardized tests than the public schools do but let's not lose sight of the fact that teaching kids to pass standardized tests is not the same thing as educating kids...."

Cite(s) missing.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Are you a teacher?

• Francisco d'Anconia||

I smell Tulpa.

• That's A Bingo!||

A teacher? Hookers make twice that money.

• Blume||

What metric do you propose we replace test scores with? Or are you just nitpicking?

• Sevo||

"...However, the fact remains that the metrics used to display that success (high scores on state-designed multiple-guess tests) are lousy predictors for success in life..."

Cite(s) missing.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Dude, he said the FACT remains!! What more do you need?

• Sevo||

So you're leaning tulpa-ish also?

• BigT||

Let's not forget that when Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) was running for office, he told a teachers-union crowd that Success Academy's founder and CEO, Eva Moskowitz, must "stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.”

de Blasio thinks Success is not all it's cracked up to be. And math... harrumph. What good is math?

Making politicians and voters FEEL GOOD and kids getting equal results are what's important.

• PapayaSF||

For de Blasio, making the teachers' union feel good is what's important.

• SimonD||

math... harrumph. What good is math?

Heck, math is not only no good, it's actively bad. If people learn too much math, they may learn that De Blasio is completely full of shit (and progs in general).

• John||

http://www.bloombergview.com/a.....then-what-

Megan McArdle puts on her retard whisperer hat and attempts to explain economics to the Bloombergites It is not a bad article. She is often a first class nitwit. It is more that the things in the article should be so obvious that no one should be paid to write them. That this article had to be written and writen in response to leftist journalists is monument to the stupidity of today's left.

• John||

Maybe 50% nitwit.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

McCardle is sometimes irritating, but she's one of the better journalists out there regarding economics.

You might say I'm damning with faint praise, but if every journalist was like Megan McCardle instead of like Ezra Klein, this country would be a vastly better place. It is telling how right-leaning and libertarian the people who read McCardle's articles are compared to the people who read other columnists at Bloomberg.

• John||

When her articles are not annoying it is when she is pointing out things that are self evident to anyone who is not a half wit. As I said her entire career is a monument to the stupidity of most journalists. They actually have to have it explained to them that restreraunts can't just magically raise the wages of their employees. That boggles the mind.

• Tundra, well-chilled.||

That boggles the mind.

Not really. And it's not just journalists. How many of the proggies around you are economically illiterate? Or maybe just people in general. It blows me away how many people think that the net expense of an employee is simply wages. They know nothing about businesses run, about how many associated taxes, benefits and bullshit are part of every hire. Honestly, having it explained in idiot terms is probably, on the whole, a necessary and good thing.

• Blume||

It blows me away how many people think that the net expense of an employee is simply wages. They know nothing about businesses run, about how many associated taxes, benefits and bullshit are part of every hire.

There's a reason your employer is not allowed to put that data on pay stubs.

Same reason gas stations are not allowed to tell their customers how much of the price of a gallon is due to taxes.

• See Double You||

Same reason gas stations are not allowed to tell their customers how much of the price of a gallon is due to taxes.

This must vary by state, because here in Montana most gas stations list the price of the state tax right on the gas pump.

• Sevo||

"This must vary by state, because here in Montana most gas stations list the price of the state tax right on the gas pump."

Yeah, I think Blume is pulling 'facts' out of his ass. CA clearly shows tax on the pump, and since most stations are now self-service, it's kinda hard to miss.

• C. Anacreon||

There's a reason your employer is not allowed to put that data on pay stubs.

I'm often amazed at how this lack of info results in people unaware about their pay, even ones that should know better. Example: we hire moonlighter docs for our ER as employees at a certain hourly wage. As employees, they have a regular W-2 paycheck with deductions, and our hospital pays the employer share of Soc Security and Medicare, of course (along with some smaller line items like unemployment tax, state disability and a few other things.) The employer tax contribution adds up to close to 10% of the salary.

These docs will often have a competing independent-contractor position which will be at, say, 105% of our salary. I point out to these docs that we are actually a better deal, figuratively more like 110%, because as independent contractors they will be responsible for 'self-employment taxes' - they will have to also pay the employer's share taxes, which they won't with our job. Also, as employees, they won't need to worry about quarterly estimated tax filings and other nuisances.

The blank stare I get in response sometimes is just mind-blowing. Some will respond with "you're wrong, because I'm getting more cash with the other job". Another claimed there was no such thing as employer's payroll taxes, and why was I trying to fool him, shouldn't we just pay more and skip the tricks?

And these are people with over 24 yrs education and hard science degrees..

• Jerryskids||

I saw somebody breaking down the economics of running a McDonald's franchise to argue that raising the minimum wage is not that big a deal, that McDonald's franchisees are still going to be successful and well-off even if they pay their workers more. If you are familiar with how McDonald's operates, you may know that it is true that most McDonald's are owned by fairly well-off successful businesssmen, but you don't become successful and well-off by buying a McDonald's franchise - McDonald's only sells franchises to people who are well-off and have a demonstrated ability to run a successful business. It's as if you look at rich people driving Mercedes Benzes and figuring out that you should buy a Mercedes so that you can be rich too.

• Blume||

I have no idea whether that's true or not, but accepting it FTSOA. Why would the successful, well-off person continue running a McD's franchise if it is not contributing to their wealth? If it's not turning a profit, why not just shut it down and put all the former workers out on the street?

• Sevo||

"you may know that it is true that most McDonald's are owned by fairly well-off successful businesssmen, but you don't become successful and well-off by buying a McDonald's franchise"

I know several people/families who will happily tell you that you are full of shit. Especially the kids who now have advanced degrees because mom and dad bought franchises and worked them personally.
You seem to be shoveling bullshit here; do you have any evidence for your claims, or is this 'everybody knows' crap?

• Careless||

Takes a lot of money to open a McDonalds, Sevo.

• Eman||

well most people dont know what a terrible financial position most restaurants are in. I dunno why anyone would ever invest in a restaurant. im glad people do, but it's a really really stupid investment

• Blume||

When her articles are not annoying it is when she is pointing out things that are self evident to anyone who is not a half wit.

That's really unfair. Not everybody is as interested in the subject as you are and willing to put the time in to thinking about it deeply. The Libertarian view on economics is extremely counterintuitive. You probably have half-baked ideas on basket weaving that a professional weaver would consider you half-witted for.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

Not to mention that McCardle is still one of the best 'mainstream' journalists when it comes to these issues specifically because she's not a doctrinaire leftist goon like the rest of them. I don't understand attacking McCardle when there are approximately 50,000 journalists worse than she is.

• BakedPenguin||

Yeah, she's better than 95% of them. Plenty of real idiots to go after.

• Pulseguy||

John...those uber rich coffee shop owners have to learn to be content with becoming merely millionaires, and not multi-millionaires. Maybe, just maybe, it is more important for their 18 year old staff to make good decent wages, enough to raise a family on, than for them to buy their SECOND Gulfstream.

And, don't get me started on the dry cleaners, or the lawnmower repair people.

• Ken Shultz||

It's hard to believe that when a school system is run for the benefit of students rather than the benefit of the teacher's union, it can make such a difference!

Of course, the obvious solution is to vote more Democrats into leadership positions in New York City since everybody knows that while Republicans favor maniacs shooting children, Democrats care about children instead.

"It's clear that Success Academy trounces the vast majority of public schools, but the rankings appear to show it dominating all but the very best. Are Success schools also markedly better than the other schools in the top five percent in New York City?"

It's unclear to me whether "the top five percent [of schools] in New York City", here, includes private schools. It it did, that would be astounding--considering that NYC's private schools include kids from what may be the wealthiest demographic pool in the nation and are notoriously expensive.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01......html?_r=0

On the other hand, if Success Academy gets results with poor kids comparable to schools that are charging almost \$40,000 a year in tuition, that's amazing.

...but nowhere near as amazing as NYC's taxpayers spending more than \$20,000 per student on public schools and getting results that are so pathetic that only 30% of the kids there are competent in English and only 35% in math.

That's criminal negligence against children.

• Ken Shultz||

Oh, yeah. The stats for how much NYC spends per child on public education:

http://www.cbcny.org/sites/def.....rtMap.html

• John||

And straight up racism. The public school teachers excuse their failure by claiming that no one can teach the poor negro kids.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

I love the double-think that I see from the teacher's union. They simultaneously want to be applauded and paid more for the good work they're doing, and then when someone asks for actual results and questions why so many kids can't fucking read, they say it's because no one could teach those kids.

Well, if no one could teach those kids, why do we need you? Why not just have some random asshole try to teach them for far less money if you're basically admitting to me that you're incapable of doing the job we're supposedly paying you for.

• Ken Shultz||

"Well, if no one could teach those kids, why do we need you?"

It's baby sitting.

What, do you want all those kids "wilding" through Central Park every day?

Five days a week, except for during the summer, they got those kids locked down while people are at work. Otherwise, they might have to guard their homes all day with a shotgun.

• Lord at War||

It's even worse... They didn't want me to enter kindergarten in Sept 1970 because I wasn't old enough. Mom finally begged enough for them to let me in.

By Thanksgiving, my "Masters Degree in Education" kindergarten teacher wanted me out of her classroom (I was "disruptive" because I was helping my classmates). I then took the Iowa Basic Skills Test for 4th graders in December -and "tested out" at almost 5th grade level in both Math and English- and my only teachers until then were my HS grad mom... and my 9 yr old sister.

Kinda blows the "professional teacher" shit right out of the water...

• Overt||

You bring up an important point with comparison to private schools, but I want to twist it the other way.

It is possible that Success Academy is also benefiting from student selection. Sure you can't write a \$40,000 check to get into SA but you do need to go through more work than just enrolling at your assigned public school. Is it really true that the 300 kids would have done (significantly) worse at public schools, or would the same drive and temerity that leads parents to get their kids into SA lead them to help their kids succeed anywhere?

In California, the really good public schools are "Private" because the houses eligible for the schools come at a \$100,000 premium. Those schools generally have to "accept anyone" but they really don't since they are so hard to get into them.

I'm not trying to bemoan the charter system, just trying to be a devil's advocate.

• John||

Yes but that just means the SA is saving the smart kids from the public schools. That is still a very good thing.

• Heroic Mulatto||

• John||

Even if it were large, so what? That just means that you are improving the lives of the kids who have the greatest potential to succeed. How is that a bad thing?

• Heroic Mulatto||

Because s'not fair!

*knocks over friend's alphabet block tower*

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"Even if it were large, so what? That just means that you are improving the lives of the kids who have the greatest potential to succeed. How is that a bad thing?"

And they're improving the lives of the kids with the greatest potential to succeed FROM THE POOR NEIGHBORHOODS, which means it's a very effective means of breaking up the ghettos and ending cyclical poverty. If every school generation 3-4% of the best kids are elevated out of bad neighborhoods by great charter schools, it will blow up those stagnant neighborhoods over time and result in better integration with the rest of the city.

• Heroic Mulatto||

Listen, Irish...it's all or nothing! We have no time for this Talented Tenth nonsense!

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"The Negro race, like all races, is going to be saved by its exceptional men. The problem of education, then, among Negroes must first of all deal with the Talented Tenth; it is the problem of developing the Best of this race that they may guide the Mass away from the contamination and death of the Worst"

HAHAHAHAHAHA. If W.E.B Dubois were alive today, progressives would be calling him a Randian elitist.

• Heroic Mulatto||

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"Here's the son-of-a-bitch yucking it up with Mao circa 1959."

He was a leftist. Leftists have done a very good job convincing people that their forebears weren't evil commies, but that doesn't make it true.

John Kenneth Galbraith went to China in the middle of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution (I forget which) and was obviously deliberately kept away from the peasants starving in the fields. As a result, he declared the Chinese 'experiment' a great success and decided the only really bad thing was that they smoked too much.

"John Kenneth Galbraith went to China in the middle of the Great Leap Forward or the Cultural Revolution (I forget which) and was obviously deliberately kept away from the peasants starving in the fields. As a result, he declared the Chinese 'experiment' a great success and decided the only really bad thing was that they smoked too much."

I have not seen the future and it works (misquoting Lincoln Steffens)

• Blume||

You may not have noticed, but you can edit Wikipedia articles if there is a fact, justified by reliable sources, you think is important to the article. Light a candle, dude.

• Akira||

Don't forget "uncle tom".

• Blume||

His argument isn't that the kids are necessarily smart, it's that the parents are very motivated to have their kids succeed.

• Heroic Mulatto||

it's that the parents are very motivated to have their kids succeed.

See my discussion of Hattie's findings downthread.

• Ken Shultz||

I'm sure that parental motivation is a key factor in a child's success in school.

But when I see a statistic that says only 30% of NYC's public school kids are proficient in English? I have a hard time reconciling that with the idea that 70% of NYC's parents don't care much about how well their children do in school.

I'm sure a lot of parents are led to believe that their children are doing better than they really are, but are we really ready to say that 70% of parents don't care if their children are proficient in English? That includes plenty of parents for whom English really is their native language.

The other thing I'd say to that is that if 70% of parents really don't care about their children's education, then aren't their children likely to do better in an environment like Success Academy? Surely it's better for children whose parents who don't have a care or a clue to go to a school run by people who genuinely care about a child's success--even if their parents don't.

You're certainly not going to get that care from the teacher's union. The teachers union is there to represent the teachers' salary demands--not the quality of education.

• Heroic Mulatto||

While you're spot on, in my opinion, I would like to state that parental motivation/involvement doesn't have as a great effect as one might think. John Hattie's work shows that the effect of parental involvement upon academic achievement is only about 0.51 Cohen's d. Now keep in mind, that Hattie only considers an effect size greater than 0.40 to be something worthy of consideration because in these types of studies pretty much walking into the room is going to have a statistically significant effect.

• Heroic Mulatto||

Oops. Forgot cite.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

The thing is, only 50% of public school TEACHERS are proficient in english. The rest grunt.

• DEG||

You're certainly not going to get that care from the teacher's union. The teachers union is there to represent the teachers' salary demands--not the quality of education.

I'm always amused by teachers that claim their union cares about students and their education. Some teachers care, but the union bosses? No way.

• Ken Shultz||

All the unions say shit like that to their workers.

You can't have non-union labor building commercial real estate, or you won't know whether the work was done properly! Those non-union shops will hire just anybody.

You can't have non-union labor teaching children, doing air traffic control, etc., etc., because seniority makes sure that union labor is experienced. If it weren't for unions, we'd never know if anything was ever done right!

• DEG||

A company I worked for hired non-union contractors instead of union contractors for office renovations. Why? It was cheaper.

The contractors that weren't hired held a protest in front of the office about how my company was "stiffing the local working class." Really? The non-union contractors my company employed were locals, were working class, and were paid as agreed under the contract. The not-hired contractors found out the real minimum wage is zero.

The protesters didn't make any claims about work quality, but I will say except for one problem with electric the work was done well.

• Ken Shultz||

When I work with cities, it's often the case that the city will let us mitigate for something by doing work on their behalf.

Because we don't have to use union labor to do it, they can effectively avoid having to pay twice as much by having us do it for them--and then maybe they give us a break on having to fill the parking lot of our industrial warehouse development with shade trees.

• Sevo||

Overt|8.15.15 @ 11:18AM|#
"...It is possible that Success Academy is also benefiting from student selection?..."

From the article:
"...Of course, this assumes that all of these schools are drawing from the same pool. That's difficult to determine with any certainty, but we know that Success Academy students, who are selected through a random lottery, tend to come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Seventy-seven percent of its students qualify for free or reduced school lunch. Ninety-two percent of test takers were black or Hispanic...."
Doesn't look like it.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Man, that guy hit bricks PB style.

• Acosmist||

Really, you think that refutes selection?

Are all families forced to join the lottery, and those who win can't refuse?

What are discipline standards? Do they expel "problem" students to boost numbers?

• ||

Probably.

I think the two big factors that arise from such a selective process for getting into these schools are:

1) Parents are invested in the kids' success. If they busted their ass to get the snot nose into that seat, they will damn sure do well.

2) All the other kids around them are similarly invested in being successful. Nothing drags down a class like one asshole who doesn't want to be there. Those assholes demotivate others and take up the teacher's time trying to discipline them.

So, yeah they probably are doing better because they are choosing students who value an education. The solution isn't to stop some from escaping the maws of the regular public schools.

• B. Woodrow Chippenhaus||

Choosing students through a random lottery, you mean, right? Excuse me, I think I will go choose to win the mega millions.

• Mr Lizard||

Cherry picked young mammals riding the Somalian road to coroprate hell.

• John||

And their success is tainted by the original sin of profit.

• Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

Coroprate is a UN plot.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

If corporate WAS a U.N. Plot, we would know it because it wouldn't work.

• BigT||

Everyone at the State Department who knew she conducted all of her business on a private address and had the unsecured server at her home is part of this problem and violation. Thus, all at the State Department of any ranking during her tenure may very well be implicated in her conspiracy to violate numerous statutes, including 18 USC Sections 793(d), (e), (f), & (g)—each of which carries a possible 10 year term of imprisonment

Now, there's a perp walk I'd like to see!

• John||

If you get so much as a single classified document on your in class computer they come and take it and destroy it. I have seen cases where someone accidentally put classified information in an email. It is a big fucking deal. Hillary apparently operated for years using only an unclassified email. If I had been one of the people getting her emails, I would literally have refused to touch my computer until someone gave me a new one.

Her entire tenure was a running felony violation. I am not kidding or exaggerating

• Libertarian||

I wonder what's on John Kerry's computer? In my old job, whoever was leaving a position forwarded lots and lots of emails and information, etc to his successor. Imagine what Clinton sent Kerry.

• Tundra, well-chilled.||

Yoga workouts, I'm guessing.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

Why should her stint inthe State Department be different from the rest of her life?

• Blume||

You're forgetting the major difference. You are little people.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Hey, remember WAY BACK IN LONG AGO TIMES, during the Benghazi aftermath, someone said that Hillary was sent communications about the dangers at the embassy and Hillary shrieked that she gets thousands of emails a day so how could she possibly keep up with all of this stuff?

• C. S. P. Schofield||

Other than there isn't a single one of these spayed and neutered "journalists" who has the guts to be a real reporter?

• ||

seems as though a Marine is about to face serious trouble for the same email problem that Hilliary has.

https://goo.gl/g7C9Se

• Rich||

"Hey, Jason, what did you do that Hillary didn't?"

"Forget to get the goods on the administration?"

• ||

Why not start asking why Chelsea is in jail, while Hillary is walking around free?

Chelsea Manning that is.

• Heroic Mulatto||

• Jed Templin||

From Wikipedia:

Students were not allowed to leave the room for bathroom breaks during practice tests, and frequently wet their pants.

From the referenced article:

Students were not supposed to go to the restroom during practice tests, she said, and she heard a leader from another school praise the dedication of a child who had wet his pants rather than take a break.

The diference between "not allowed" and "not supposed" as well as the difference between "frequently" and "a child" is a little greater than editorial discretion would dictate, right?

• John||

Leftist are horrible people who ruin everything and only tell lies.

• Heroic Mulatto||

The "labor relations" section is even worse. Not even including the wildly unsupported dissertations presented as fact, I like how they state that teacher turnover is 50 percent, while simultaneously acknowledging that "[m]any of the teachers are young recent graduates". Anyone knowledgeable about such things knows that the national turnover rate for teachers during their first five years is, you guessed it, 50 percent. So, we're supposed to be shocked that the school's turnover rate is equivalent to the national average?

• Blume||

Does the article also bemoan that 40% of teacher sick days are adjacent to a weekend?

• Heroic Mulatto||

I see I SF'd the link, but you can read the report from the horse's mouth here.

• C. Anacreon||

Aren't 40% of weekdays adjacent to a weekend?

• Blume||

I agree that Wikipedia has gotten worse at dealing with any controversial subject due to the entrenched (virtually all left-wing) Wikimandarins who have nothing to do but edit war all day. But at least in Wikipedia you can lodge a challenge to wording you think is NPOV, and it will be processed openly (and some of the admins actually do care about NPOV still).

Try doing that with a New York Times article.

• Francisco d'Anconia||

#teacherstenuresmatter

• trig||

NYC sounds like an extremely expensive third world country. It's hard for me to understand the appeal.

• John||

If you are very rich, it has everything you could ever want. If you are not, it is exactly as you describe.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

Of course, much the same could be said for some Third World countries; if you are rich, you can get anything. Anything at all. Right up until the lack of Rule of Law means that someone richer, better connected, or more competent decides that what HE wants is YOU, on a stake.

This is what the Liberal Intellectual Radical Progressive establishment is working towards. They just don't understand the lats bit.

• Ken Shultz||

They have some nice museums, excellent theater, excellent opera companies, fantastic restaurants, and fantastic delis and Chinese restaurants on every block.

Give me some decent female companionship, and I'd rather live in a cabin in the woods than NYC.

I guess it's the classic motorcycle guy's dilemma. When you say you wanna go live in the woods or you want to go on a long range motorcycle ride and camp along the way, and you may be able to take a shower every two or three days--whether you need one or not? The kind of chicks that say they want to do that? Are generally some really gnarly chicks.

I'd certainly rather live almost anywhere else than NYC.

Although, I knew these people from the midwest, and the hottest girl in town came to LA to visit. She was incredibly fat, and they still talked about her like she was the hottest chick in town. At that point, I'd rather head up to NorCal or Oregon and find me one of those Rainbow Family chicks that wants to ride on the back of my bike and doesn't care whether she takes a shower or not.

• Ken Shultz||

Anyway, home is where the woman is. And you can't drag them away from their families, really. Even if they don't want to be anywhere near family in their 20s, that goes away. The sisters may end up reconvening somewhere other than where they grew up, but you're either moving to where their family is, or their family is coming to live near you. Marry a girl from NYC, and you may be moving to NYC toward the end of your life.

We lose our bargaining power late in life. Once we've procreated and protected our young into adulthood, we're practically useless from an evolutionary perspective. If you want to live in Portland, marry a girl from Portland.

• Just say Nikki||

And you can't drag them away from their families, really.

Irrational attachment to blood family should be a red flag.

• C. Anacreon||

Anyway, home is where the woman is. And you can't drag them away from their families,

This. One of my best friends in the Bay Area -- he's originally from Illinois but moved here after college, and now's been here ~30 years, and loving it (as those of us from the MIdwest tend to appreciate California's positives, as Illinois is for some reason just as shitty an overtaxed/bad government state as CA, BUT they have terrible weather and bugs by comparison). About 7 years ago he married a beautiful girl 15 years his junior, and they have two kids and a nice house with a yard -- perfect, right? But no, she's originally from Philadelphia, and her parents still live there, so she's been after him from day one to move back east. Guess who just announced yesterday that he's moving the family to Pennsylvania?

• Blume||

How sad that you allow women's preferences to control you.

• Ken Shultz||

Yeah, that's exactly what I said.

Point is I have a preference for female companionship, and women are generally drawn back to live near their families as they get older.

One of the biggest causes of divorce is the desire to live in different locations, and that tension is typically driven by women who want to move closer to their families.

The other point is why anyone would want to live in New York City, and the answer is that a lot of women want to live near their families, and if they're families are in NYC, then that's where they want to live. If you want to live with them, then chances are you're moving to NYC.

Noticing that birds tend to fly south for the winter isn't allowing their preferences to control me, you dolt.

• Ken Shultz||

Blue is Tulpa, is that what I'm to understand.

There's certainly a Tulpa-like quality to his oafish obtuseness.

It really is starting to smell like I may have stepped in some Tulpa.

• Lord at War||

You cannot stop Tulpa, you can only hope to put it in a little plastic bag and throw it in the garbage can

• Ayn Random Variation||

I like the 24 hour lifestyle, the variety of people and things to do, and the fact that I don't have to drive.

You "how can anyone live in NY" types remind me of Bo talking about the SoCons. It's like you think NY is all like Fort Apache, The Bronx.

• Blume||

Cost of living is sky high, gun rights are nonexistent, taxes are ridiculous, the city govt regulates the shit out of everything, and you pretty much can't have a car even if you wanted one for traveling outside the city.

The 24 hour lifestyle may have been a bonus in 1980; not sure how it applies in 2015, since there are supermarkets and restaurants open 24/7 in every medium-sized American city, and of course the internet is open 24/7 too.

• trig||

Yeah I could see living there in your mid 20's to kick start a career but raising children there sounds like child abuse.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Not everyone wants the same lifestyle. News at 11. Seriously this shit pisses me off.

• Ayn Random Variation||

If you want to hide from the gov't, it's much easier living in a rental apt without a car in a huge city, even NY and its surrounding areas, than it is living in the burbs. I can't remember the last time I had to deal with a gov't official, but you guys have to get approval from your Top Men to change a light bulb.

• Just say Nikki||

I never tire of hearing how much more control there is in the city vs. the country. In the city, my neighbors have no idea who I am, what I do, what I have in my home, or anything about me other than what I look like and which car is mine.

My parents in the suburbs have nosy neighbors looking into other people's yards and shit. Watching when various household members come and go. Everything.

But I'm supposed to be the whole whose other people are more hellish.

• Ayn Random Variation||

It's just about preferences. I enjoy visiting the suburbs for their benefits, but I wouldn't want to deal with all the stuff you mentioned. And my suburban friends like visiting my urban area but wouldn't want to live here.

• Just say Nikki||

Yep I like to visit all of the above. But I still can't imagine living in places that seem to involve so much more hassle.

Admittedly, I don't like NYC a ton but mostly because I discovered how much more manageable, cleaner, etc., Chicago is. But I totally get why people like it.

• Blume||

Bullshit. There are nosy people in the city too, it's just harder for them to directly snoop into a tiny apartment with a window facing a brick wall than to snoop into a house with lots of windows a big yard. If you never use your yard and keep the blinds shut, you can enjoy the same privacy you had in your tiny apartment in NYC.

• ||

Dude, I have explained this element about cities--including my time in NYC--countless times here. They don't want to hear it, because the city has to be bad because REGION WAR and it's not their choice and so on and so forth.

They collectivize the city into 8 million raving De Blasio supporters even though only something like 25% of the city even voted. Because they want to. Because hating others feels good. Because the city is, to them, TEAM BLUE. The fact that it's a massively diverse place with shittons of people who only want to live their lives means nothing, because they don't want to hear that.

It's endlessly tiresome. As I'm sure you're realizing.

• Just say Nikki||

Honestly, really large cities are excellent examples of people simply living their lives outside the state. Probably the best examples of mutualism and other forms of anarchy-in-practice.

• ||

The number of my run-ins with any city government at all while I lived for seven years in NYC can be counted on one hand. The number of run-ins I had with town and county government when I moved to Orange County, NY cannot be counted on all four of my appendages.

The number of run-ins with city government I've had in Seattle? If you don't count registering my car or getting my pistol permit (which was effortless and painless)...it's zero.

• See Double You||

The number of run-ins I had with town and county government when I moved to Orange County, NY cannot be counted on all four of my appendages.

Bullshit.

You clearly have more than four appendages.

• ||

You clearly have more than four appendages.

Yes, but the others are in your mom right now, so I didn't feel right in counting them. You know how it is.

• See Double You||

My mom's like public school: she'll take anyone.

• Cytotoxic||

There's the 'visible' run-ins and then there are the regulations that effect you without you knowing it. Trust me, there are far more of the latter in NYC and many other big cities. Again, terrible schools and high taxes. I really do not understand the attraction of living in these giant cities.

• Blume||

Run-in count is not a measure of big govt. What about all the regulations the businesses you patronize, the business you work for, the landlord you rent from had to follow to avoid 'run-ins"? What about all the stuff you simply didn't do because it was illegal (concealed carry, etc)?

• Blume||

They collectivize the city into 8 million raving De Blasio supporters even though only something like 25% of the city even voted.

Which only means that the other 75% of the city was OK with DeBlasio becoming mayor. Refusing to vote means you consent to whatever the voters choose.

• robc||

Try owning your apt instead of renting and see how that works. Or, for apples to apples, rent a house in the burbs.

• Ken Shultz||

"You "how can anyone live in NY" types remind me of Bo talking about the SoCons. It's like you think NY is all like Fort Apache, The Bronx."

The article is about how bad the public school system is, and the cost of private schools there is pretty amazing. The only way to escape those options is to get into a charter system, which you get into by winning the lottery?

It doesn't sound like a great place to raise kids is all.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Everybody doesn't have kids.

• Crusty Juggler||

It is a good place for a subway groper.

I live North of the city, close enough to visit easily, and I do not really care for it, but it does have many positive aspects.

• Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

I lived in NYC 1990-1996(ish). I met my husband, got married, and had my first son in NYC. It's great when you're single or newly married, but it's hell with a kid. Apartments are too small with no storage space, and the lack of quite and really green spaces gets to be a bit much. We live in a small city in Jersey now. We have all the conveniences of city living (food, concerts, shopping) but live in 4000 sf on 5 acres with 2 dogs and a pool. ;-) Fuck NYC.

• Francisco d'Anconia||

I like the 24 hour lifestyle...

Thank god for you and the hundreds of millions like you. Never change.

• AlmightyJB||

This was a great article. I appreciate that Epstein looked at the data critically and addressed the weaknesses and not just the strengths in the data instead of the typical crap "journalism" so common even, and perhaps especially, among the major news sites. That is journalism. And good for thise kids and parents.

• Keltz||

I did a deep dive on Success Academy results last year and found similar results. Graphing test scores against poverty was helpful.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"At every single Success Academy school, from the relatively low needs Success Academy - Upper West to the relatively high needs Success Academy - Bronx 1, performance is remarkable. On average, Success Academy schools are scoring 39 points above what would be expected based on the economic needs of the students served."

Wow.

• Tundra, well-chilled.||

No shit. No wonder the unions are pissing their collective pants.

• Migrant Log Chipper||

Bravo Mr. Keltz.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

I worked as an intern in the office of a state assemblyman in Wisconsin during the protests over Scott Walker's union busting bill. We got all kinds of crazy calls and death threats, but there's one email I remember that was completely absurd. I'm convinced the person who wrote the email was lying because it sounded more like a fictional story than something that had actually happened, but here's basically what he said.

He claimed to be some kind of juice manufacturer who went to a local school to give a speech about how the teachers should be more entrepreneurial and should run schools more like businesses, etc. He then said that one of the teachers asked him what he does if he gets a defective bunch of berries for his juice and he said 'well, I'd throw them out.'

So of course the teacher said 'well, we can't throw out the needy kids!'

There are a bunch of problems here. First off, they're comparing kids that need help to inanimate bunches of fruit that are rotten or something, which is hugely offensive.

Secondly, these same teachers are always telling us how important they are and how they need better job security and to be paid more. Well, if the kids are just inanimate bunches of fruit that you're incapable of juicing properly (to use the ridiculous analogy), then why should we pay you more given that you've just admitted to me that who the kids are is more important to their educational success than who their teachers are?

• Tundra, well-chilled.||

The only part of the story I find hard to believe is the fact that they invited someone "to give a speech about how the teachers should be more entrepreneurial and should run schools more like businesses...".

Otherwise it seems very plausible.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

See, I felt it sounded awfully clean cut. Rich businessman shows his hubris by going into a school to lecture teachers about how to do their jobs. Teacher immediately uses analogy from his own business which shuts him up and makes him come to Jesus!

The arrogant businessman has been taught by the humble teacher! Hosanna in the highest!

I shouldn't have said I'm 'convinced' it wasn't true, but I do think it has a lot in common with the stories you'll hear from Christians where some mean old atheist is talking shit, and a Christian says something witty and immediately the atheist realizes the error of his ways.

• ||

Fuck, I hate it when those asshole christians drop a knowledge bomb so heavy on me that I convert!

It takes literally weeks of heavy drinking to get back into my comfortable heathen rut.

I'd also bet that that story might be listed on Snopes. I'm with you, it sounds too trite to be believed. Especially since it didn't have anything to do with the Pack. And it would have been cranberries from Door county and not just regular berries.

• DEG||

So of course the teacher said 'well, we can't throw out the needy kids!'

Of course you can throw out kids.

Some kids aren't teachable. Why keep them around?

Oh, right. Public schools.

• Francisco d'Anconia||

So of course the teacher said 'well, we can't throw out the needy kids!'

Hence, the problem.

I wonder what would happen to performance if there were real ramifications for non-performance? I wonder what the increase in parental involvement would be if failure to perform meant they'd lose their free daycare?

As with all things, incentives matter.

• See Double You||

Is the phenomenon of "universal service = lowest common denominator" an iron law?

If not, it should be.

• Notorious UGCC (Né GKC)||

Guess who fought for libertarianism?

"Abraham Lincoln's War For The Union Saved (Classical) Liberalism...

"...The “American Question” preoccupied Europeans given what its resolution meant for liberty, particularly political freedom, in the Old World. “Conservatives welcomed the American secession crisis, seeing it as the coup de grace to the republican experiment in both hemispheres.” Liberals believed the war was “the crucial trial” for “popular government” at home and abroad....

"In 1864, Édouard Laboulaye, a French professor of law, eloquently outlined the stakes of the American Civil War:

The world is a solidarity, and the cause of America [the Union] is the cause of Liberty. So long as there shall be across the Atlantic a society of thirty million men, living happily and peacefully under a government of their choice, with laws made by themselves, liberty will cast her rays over Europe like an illuminating pharos. But should liberty become eclipsed in the new world, it would become night in Europe, and we shall see the work of Washington, of the Franklins, of the Hamiltons, *spit upon and trampled under foot by the whole school which believes only in violence and in success.* [Emphasis added]"

http://www.forbes.com/sites/ti.....iberalism/

• robc||

"Goverment of their own choice"

Hmmm...I doubt he saw the hypocracy of his writing.

• lap83||

OT Clinton: Email, Benghazi Inquiries Part of GOP ‘Politics’
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....-politics/

Hillary Clinton at a party dinner here Friday sought to portray criticism over her email practices as part of a larger pattern of Republican attacks intended to keep her and a “progressive agenda” out of the White House.

Appearing with three of her Democratic rivals, Mrs. Clinton cast herself as the target of Republicans who want to discredit her so they can impose conservative policies that favor the wealthiest Americans.

“I won’t pretend that this is anything other than what it is–the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before,” said Mrs. Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Waah! Republicans are picking on me

“It’s not about Benghazi. And you know what? It’s not about emails or servers, either. It’s about politics. I will do my part to provide transparency to Americans,” she said.

At least she's being honest when she says it's about politics. For her, anyway.

• Ayn Random Variation||

“I won’t pretend that this is anything other than what it is–the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before"

Ha, so, so tone deaf.

• That's A Bingo!||

A vast right-wing conspiracy.

• lap83||

OT Clinton: Email, Benghazi Inquiries Part of GOP ‘Politics’
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/.....-politics/

Hillary Clinton at a party dinner here Friday sought to portray criticism over her email practices as part of a larger pattern of Republican attacks intended to keep her and a “progressive agenda” out of the White House.

Appearing with three of her Democratic rivals, Mrs. Clinton cast herself as the target of Republicans who want to discredit her so they can impose conservative policies that favor the wealthiest Americans.

“I won’t pretend that this is anything other than what it is–the same old partisan games we’ve seen so many times before,” said Mrs. Clinton, the frontrunner for the Democratic presidential nomination.

Waah! Republicans are picking on me

“It’s not about Benghazi. And you know what? It’s not about emails or servers, either. It’s about politics. I will do my part to provide transparency to Americans,” she said.

At least she's being honest when she says it's about politics. For her, anyway.

• lap83||

I wonder if the Republicans and squirrels are in on it together

• Crusty Juggler||

Mendacious does not even begin to describe her. Her campaign's strategy is to just repeat the same lie over and over, and not only do many in the media go along with it, she is probably going to win.

That article also included this gem:

While Mr. O’Malley said he isn’t the lone liberal in the race, he said he is the sole candidate who has years of executive experience. Mr. O’Malley has also served as mayor of Baltimore.

At least he isn't lying.

• Ayn Random Variation||

I want to thank you for setting me straight, as earlier I had noted that I almost felt sorry for her. I now have the appropriate level of disgust for her back.

• Notorious UGCC (Né GKC)||

Fantasy author draws the line at pretending deep-dish is pizza.

"George R.R. Martin, legendary writer of "A Song of Ice and Fire" -- the basis for HBO's "Game of Thrones" -- has weighed in on some very important questions....Martin makes it known he has no time for Chicago deep dish and its pretender status for the pizza Iron Throne....

"...Although he now resides in New Mexico, his New Jersey upbringing has him favoring a thin crust, Neapolitan-American style of pizza. "Nothing beats New York City pizza ... well, unless it's New Jersey pizza, and maybe New Haven's," Martin wrote in his most recent blog post....

"In fact, Martin hates deep dish. Up there with classic "A Song of Ice and Fire" villains like Joffrey Lannister and Ramsay Bolton, deep dish is not even pizza, according to Martin. When one fan claimed Chicago-style is the best pizza, Martin countered with an amazing zinger. "If you like bread, maybe," Martin quipped. For a good overview of the different types of pizza, check out Eater NY's guide."

http://www.ibtimes.com/pulse/g.....sh-2052194

• Rich||

proficient in math

I'll bite. What does that mean?

• lap83||

Schools - unions = success

• Crusty Juggler||

I know many public school teachers, most of whom work in middle-class, to at worse lower-class, predominantly white school districts. One, who works in an inner city school district slapped a kid in the hallway and his punishment was that he had to leave a high school and work in one of the junior high schools. Another was eventually fired for trying to fuck students, which came out after they learned he had been fucking students at his previous school. And another likes to proclaim, when people in the small town he works in give him shit about making at least 70 a year to teach high school English, "don't talk to me about teaching until you have stood up in front of students."

• Crusty Juggler||

I regret writing that, but my point was that I personally know teachers in safe areas who, once they received tenure after three years, either pushed the line of good taste (when it came to their behavior or clothing, etc), or crossed the line of good taste knowing that they would face very few, if any, consequences, all while making salaries that I believe get close to seventy-thousand (with yearly increases) when they reach tenure.

• Ayn Random Variation||

I was seeing a woman who is a public teacher in Jersey, with 13 years in. I was shocked when I saw her paycheck. It came out to about 75k...for 9 months of 7 hour days, which was more than I was making as an evil 10 hour a day bankster.

• Crusty Juggler||

The average household income in the county where my high school is located is \$75,303. The average teacher salary is \$88,628.

• PapayaSF||

• ||

The majority of people who graduate with education degrees are of moderate to low intelligence and don't give half a shit about teaching kids.

The few good ones who really care and enjoy teaching seek out positions where they can make a difference. Decent parents seek out better schools and contribute to their children's education.

The disparity here is...unsurprising.

• ||

My first room mate at Memphis State was an education major. He wanted to teach music and was a fairly bright guy who came from Mississippi.

He asked me to proof read one of his papers. Holy shit, there were sentences in it that didn't even have a verb. It was one of those deals where you can't even start to edit it because you'd end up having to rewrite the entire thing. I made a few spelling corrections and gave it back to him.

I was really worried about what he'd say when he got his grade. Then he brought it back with a solid B. It was at that point I realized how bad the education department was.

• Ayn Random Variation||

" fairly bright guy who came from Mississippi."

citation needed

• Migrant Log Chipper||

I did the same for a cute cheerleader who was a bar maid 30 years ago. For a smoking hot gal she was very nice and not stuck up at all like some hot gals tend to be.

I was thinking she wrote at an 8th grade level while doing the editing and she was a senior in college. In Montana, not an inner city. I cleaned up the obvious mistakes and she got a B for a paper that said absolutely nothing. That was when I first sensed the scam of the education industrial complex.

• Acosmist||

Education majors != teachers

• ||

Also, this is obligatory:

Albert Shanker (teachers union president) - ‘When school children start paying union dues, that’s when I’ll start representing the interests of children.’ ”

• Migrant Log Chipper||

No shit, I hope Shanker is rotting in hell, that was one evil bastard.

• Notorious UGCC (Né GKC)||

What's wrong with everyone? Can't you respond to a good trolling?

South African engineering student invents "Male Medical Circumcision Underwear"

http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle.....c9zb7JViko

• Jerryskids||

• Christophe||

To be fair, if primary voters are dumb enough to vote in a completely unelectable candidate, it's their own damn fault.

• LynchPin1477||

Selection bias may account for some of the success, but it's still so much better than most other public schools that at this point it seems cruel to not expand the model more broadly (assuming it can be scaled up).

If I was a New Yorker I wouldn't even really care if it was more expensive to convert all the public schools into charter-style schools, if there was a good reason to think you'd see success. On the list of things governments spend money on, educating kids is one of the least objectionable, assuming the money is actually going to successfully educating those kids and not propping up the teachers union.

• Sevo||

LP, read the article; they are chosen by lottery and most are from 'low-performing' populations.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

Old man yelling at clouds thinks a lottery somehow removes selection bias.

• robc||

It does if you compare lottery winners to lottery losers. They should be comparable groups, with same selection.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

Right, with the caveat that there appears to be significant attrition at SA.

• C. S. P. Schofield||

One of the several streams of fail that make up the train wreck that is our public school system is the history of "modern" education (hw modern can it be? It dates to the late 19th century.). All the Mew Education ideas - open classroom, child directed study, see say - were tested in small,experimental schools, from the 1890's through the 1930's. And many of them had fantastic results. So the Progressives in Education were all hot to use these techniques n the public schools. Where they tend to fail.

Small, experimental schools are seld selecting samples. ThemProgressive Education techniques worked with enthusiastic teachers and involved parents. They didn't and don't work with public school drones and projects- and trailer- trash.

This is also going to be true of the Charter School techniques, at least to a degree. But allowing the parents who care (plus those few students smart enought to be motivated) to escape the cess pit the public scholls have become is still worth doing.

• Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

But I thought the brown and black people where stupid?

/sarcasm

• Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

Just adding, I volunteer at a charter school in Jersey City. While our test scores aren't as spectacular as Success Academy's, they're still significantly better than the area district schools. The application process is very easy and includes a one page basic information sheet, and the school offers assistance in filling it out. Slots are filled by lottery.

The real difference I've observed is in the expectation and behavior of the principal and then in the teachers. They hire people who understand they're going to be working hard and then they work them hard. The teachers are monitored and mentored by older successful teachers. They get constant feedback. The principal is very engaged - walking around the school constantly checking on teachers and students. There really is no place to hide if you're incompetent, and because they aren't union, they get rid of the crappy ones immediately.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Have you made it to downtown JC lately to see that it's all not a shithole? :)

• Mrs. Lemuel Struthers||

Shithole is a relative term. IMO, yeah, Jersey City is still a shithole. After 9/11 my husband relocated in JC right on the water in the business district. The "nice" area is a few blocks of okay. Now, Camden is a whole 'nother level of shithole.

• Ayn Random Variation||

9/11 is what started it. You wouldn't even recognize it if you haven't been down here for 10 years. The entire waterfront is built up, all the way to Hoboken.

• ||

I don't think the government school's results are especially bad.... for government work. seems about par for government in general. the fact remains that everything the government does is very low quality at very high cost which is why it should be kept to a bare minimum.

• See Double You||

Let's not forget that when Mayor Bill de Blasio (D) was running for office, he told a teachers-union crowd that Success Academy's founder and CEO, Eva Moskowitz, must "stop being tolerated, enabled, supported.”

You know who else wanted certain kinds of people to stop being tolerated, enabled, supported?

• Francisco d'Anconia||

Hit&Republicans;?

• Sevo||

Me?

• ||

OT: @JessicaValenti

Thanks to those who pointed out that "sausage fest" is transphobic. Tweet deleted with apologies; it was unthinking & insenstive.

If she wasn't verified I'd assume it was a parody account.

• Crusty Juggler||

She seems fun.

• See Double You||

Oh, I see. She deleted her use of the term because it's transphobic, not because it's misandric.

• lap83||

not to mention prejudiced against Germans

• MJGreen - Docile Citizen||

Right, is the idea that it's offensive to women who still have sausages? And possibly women transitioning to men who want sausages?

• See Double You||

Yeah, it isn't clear to me either why "sausage fest" is transphobic.

And for the record, I realize my post and the ones from yesterday may intimate that I'm one of those "MENS' RIGHTZ" douches, but let me assure everyone that I am not. I just like to point out all the hypocrisy and faux "concern" by the Valentis of the world. They are inherently nasty people.

• Ayn Random Variation||

I assumed it othered people who got their weiners turned into punanis.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

New York released its annual test scores this week

Yo, this is the internet. At least one of these words should be orange.

We're talking about elementary school here, right? Who gives a shit?

• Crusty Juggler||

Yes, Rats Can Swim Up Your Toilet. And It Gets Worse Than That.

That is for all of you city folk!

I told this to Robert Corrigan, who was described to me as the “rat king of New York City.” He seems okay with the title. Corrigan has spent his career fighting rats up and down the Eastern Seaboard, which—with its dense population, waterways, and old pipes—is pretty much rat heaven.

We all know Charlie Kelly is the true king of the rats.

• Ayn Random Variation||

Well my friends in the burbs get bats and raccoons and shit, but a rat biting me while I'm on the toilet might send me packing.

• Crusty Juggler||

I can deal with bats and raccoons and snakes (although snakes freak me out still), but if I came across a rat's nest I would throw a child into it and run away to safety. Rats are not cool.

• Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

We get big ole garter snakes that get chased out when I mow. I know they're just bug and mouse eaters, but they freak me out EVERY time. The little ones not so much but those three footers......brrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

• Galactic Chipper Cdr Lytton||

So the Tall Man is using rodents now. Good to know.

• Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

Announcing the World Pipe Band Championship results! Still on the fucking Juvenile bands. We'll post results of the Grade 1 bands, that ACTUAL "World Champions".

#IKnowYouAllCareSoMuch

• __Warren__||

Just saw part of a trailer for Bradley Cooper's new movie 'Burnt' and my God it like like a giant pile of shit.

#IKnowYouAllCareSoMuch

• Almanian - Trump's Woodchipper||

You are literally worse than Hitler...

• Jmpst||

So the parents of the kids whose parents give enough of a shit about them to send them to a different (public, tax-funded) school did better then the kids whose parents don't give enough of a shit about them to sign up for a different free (to them) school? SHOCKING!!!!

• Jmpst||

Sorry for not checking what I wrote. That should have read:

So the kids whose parents give enough of a shit about them to send them to a different (public, tax-funded) school did better then the kids whose parents don't give enough of a shit about them to sign up for a different free (to them) school? SHOCKING!!!!

Point is, you're not actually fixing anything unless you fix the breeders ("parents", whatever). I would bet that the kids in the charter schools would have done better than the kids in OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS even without the whole charter school difference.

• Sevo||

"... I would bet that the kids in the charter schools would have done better than the kids in OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS even without the whole charter school difference...."

I would bet you don't have a shred of evidence to support that claim.
Other than wild conjecture, did you have a point?

• Jmpst||

You're right. It was a conjecture. There's no evidence for or against it, as far as I can tell. My point was to make a conjecture. I would be interested to see somebody take an in-depth look into it. I'd bet that when you looked into all factors, it would be true, though.

Kids whose parents care generally do better than the ones whose don't.

Other than pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that I was presenting a "wild conjecture", do you have any other questions?

• Sevo||

"Other than pointing out the blatantly obvious fact that I was presenting a "wild conjecture", do you have any other questions?"

No, I don't have any question I'd guess you could answer.
I do have the self-evident point that the parents and kids involved have the opportunity they wouldn't have had if they had been limited to government schools.

• Irish ♥s ESB||

"Point is, you're not actually fixing anything unless you fix the breeders ("parents", whatever). I would bet that the kids in the charter schools would have done better than the kids in OTHER PUBLIC SCHOOLS even without the whole charter school difference."

There is literally an analysis that was posted earlier in this thread in which they found that test scores in Success Academy schools are 39% higher than for kids in the same socio-economic bracket who attend other schools in New York.

I also like that there was an actual statistical analysis proving the efficacy of these schools that was posted in this thread, and you respond by making arguments for which you have no evidence and in which you 'bet' that these kids would have performed the same in other schools.

Your 'bet' or gut instinct does not beat statistical analysis. Sorry.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

Success lottery losers do outperform their classmates, as one would expect from both logic and every other lottery.

scores in Success Academy schools are 39% higher

WTF does that mean?

• Cytotoxic||

Exactly what it says.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

"Exactly what it says" is meaningless, you innumerate sociopath.

Turns out Irish misquoted a guy upthread. The SA students scored 39 points higher on one of those tests where all scores are in the hundreds.

• Migrant Log Chipper||

It means they outperform their peers in shitty, union run public schools, you nitwit. So you seem to think lottery losers should be sentenced to having to go to failed schools.....

Do you hate minority kids? If lottery losers are outperforming their peers you are saying it's ok that their not having access to the best education is ok.

All those kids should have access to the best schools, you asshole and you are cool when they don't. You are a fucking idiot.

These kids need more options, not less and you think that's ok. Fuck You. It's late but fuck you again

• Jmpst||

Good lord, you're stupid.

Nobody has said anything about trapping kids in lousy schools being the best thing for them.

I propose another study to figure out how apes like you learned how to type.

• Jmpst||

1/2

"There is literally an analysis that was posted earlier in this thread in which they found that test scores in Success Academy schools are 39% higher than for kids in the same socio-economic bracket who attend other schools in New York."

That's true. It's not at all what I was challenging, but it's true. Good job on being irrelevantly correct.

• Jmpst||

2/2

Parents who live in the slums who care about how their kids do academically will have kids who do relatively well academically, compared to parents in a similar socio-economic situation who don't care about how their kids do academically. Parents who live in the suburbs who care about how their kids do academically will have kids who do relatively well academically, compared to parents in a similar socio-economic situation who don't care about how their kids do academically.

I'm trying to say that it doesn't matter what school a kid goes to: it all comes down to the family. I would think the idea that family is more influential than government would be appealing to libertarian thinkers, but what do I know. Perhaps I'm a fascist, and don't even realize it.

*Even though "libertarians" approve of them, charters are public schools.

• Jmpst||

3/2 (I know the idea of posting a third post out of two is classless, but so what?)

"Your 'bet' or gut instinct does not beat statistical analysis. Sorry."

Never would say it did. That would make for a terrible bet. I wouldn't enjoy the outcome. Fortunately what I presented hasn't been studied. It would probably really offend people if somebody were to post an analysis of how much parents gave a shit about their kids. Nevertheless, I would be interested to read it.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

It's been studied (don't have a link handy). The lottery winners outscore the losers who outscore their classmates.

• Jmpst||

Like I said, I would be very interested to read it, if you can find a link.

• Sidd Finch v2.01||

study mentioned in the third paragraph here http://nymag.com/news/features/65614/index4.html

• Jmpst||

Thank you. That was an interesting read. It didn't seem to have a definitive measure of how much parents cared about their kids, but I really and truly do appreciate that you provided the link.

I'm really sorry if I'm coming across as irritating, but from what I've experienced, positive parental involvement the biggest factor influencing a child's success. Parents/guardians have to be involved to enroll their kids into a charter school, which indicates that they're likely involved in other ways. Their kids lucked out, and are benefiting because of ALL of the parent's efforts. I really think the particular school is the smallest factor.

• Migrant Log Chipper||

The source you cite fellates Biil, try again.

• JeremyR||

Nice!

OTOH, many of these kids will be crushed when they find out their can't get a tech job because someone from India will do it for half their salary...

• Sevo||

"OTOH, many of these kids will be crushed when they find out their can't get a tech job because someone from India will do it for half their salary..."
Aw, Jerry, did someone beat you out of your roofing job?

• Bitterbear||

What's the point of these high grades if all these wealthy kids are going to take in College/University are Majors in Liberal Arts/Gender Studies.

• Migrant Log Chipper||

Starbucks is hiring, but who you know will yield a few positions.The rest, not so much.

• John C. Randolph||

Why does Bill de Blasio hate children? I think it's because they don't vote or pay bribes.

-jcr

• ## "One sane voice fighting tons of nonsense."

• Subscribe Now