Skip to content

Good News, Transparency: Louisiana CREDO Data No Longer Exclusive to CREDO

April 5, 2015

According to Louisiana-based Research on Reforms (ROR), between 2010 and March 2015, the Stanford-University-based, Hoover-Institute-run Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) was the only research body allowed access to decoded student data on Louisiana students.

Prior to 2010, from 2005 to 2009, the Louisiana State Department of Education (LDOE) also sent the same decoded data to ROR. However, ROR findings regarding the state-run Recovery School District (RSD) often did not support the state’s own findings on its state-run district (a conflict of interest, no?). So, according to ROR, beginning in 2010, LDOE stopped sending ROR decoded student data but continued to send such data to CREDO.

In short, CREDO remained the favored research outfit in shaping an image for New Orleans RSD.

Given CREDO’s favor with a pro-privatizing LDOE, one might wonder: Who funds CREDO?

Well, you won’t find a list of CREDO funders on the CREDO website. However, that does not mean CREDO’s funders cannot be found. In 2012, New Jersey blogger Mother Crusader found CREDO funding by researching CREDO director, Margaret Raymond:

…I did a bit of digging, and found that her (Raymond’s) bio on the Hoover Institution’s website disclosed her funding sources.

In partnership with the Walton Family Foundation and Pearson Learning Systems, Raymond is leading a national study of the effectiveness of public charter schools. The public-academic-private partnership helps public charter schools adopt information technologies as a means to both support their operations and generate information required by the study design.  (emphasis mine)

So CREDO is funded not just by Walton, but by Pearson as well.  Pearson, the biggest test pusher on the planet, and Walton, whose “core” education strategy is to “infuse competitive pressure into America’s K-12 education system by increasing the quantity and quality of school choices available to parents, especially in low-income communities.”

A marriage made in heaven for CREDO which seems to be using test scores to push charters. 

Speaking of “marriage,” Raymond is married to Hoover Institute Senior Fellow Eric Hanushek, who is also a CREDO researcher and who is fine with larger class sizes and lesser school funding. (Don’t get me started. I wrote a chapter on Hanushek in my ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes. Feel free to read it.)

Regarding those “test scores” on which CREDO’s power rests, education writer Valerie Strauss of the Washington Post observes:

CREDO’s unique studies of charter schools around the country….

What gets often lost in these discussions is that the studies are based on reading and math standardized test scores. Even if you think that high-stakes standardized test scores reveal something about how much a student knows in the tested subject — and many researchers and educators don’t — it is a different thing altogether to judge an entire school on the results of narrow tests in two subject areas, however important they are. If the education world were not as test-obsessed as it has been since the advent of No Child Left Behind a dozen years ago and Race to the Top in 2009, such a metric for important conclusions would probably be given short shrift. But not today, so the CREDO studies are considered big news.

Interestingly, in a December 2014 Ohio event funded by decidedly pro-charter Fordham Institute, Raymond shocked listeners with the following (as noted by lawyer, education policy fellow and blogger Stephen Dyer):

I actually am kind of a pro-market kinda girl. But it doesn’t seem to work in a choice environment for education. I’ve studied competitive markets for much of my career. That’s my academic focus for my work. And (education) is the only industry/sector where the market mechanism just doesn’t work. I think it’s not helpful to expect parents to be the agents of quality assurance throughout the state. I think there are other supports that are needed… The policy environment really needs to focus on creating much more information and transparency about performance than we’ve had for the 20 years of the charter school movement. We need to have a greater degree of oversight of charter schools. But I also think we have to have some oversight of the overseers. [Emphasis added.]

As to that “oversight for the overseers”: In March 2015, ROR won a case on appeal for access to the same decoded data it had once been allowed but had been denied beginning in 2010.

Let the Louisiana-based ROR “transparency about performance” games begin. And by way of eye-opening introduction, I close this post with an excerpt from a recent post by former LDOE data analyst Jason France (known as blogger Crazy Crawfish), who has been granted access to the LDOE data formerly released to CREDO and (now) recently released to ROR:

… [A] provision of FERPA calls for agencies to restrict access to data – keep it private from those that don’t need that access to perform their specific role or function.  While I dealt with the student data of all students, I did not need to have access to their medical records or diagnoses, or their specific Special Education classifications.  This role was handled by the folks that worked directly with this data and these students in our SER system or those folks who produced necessary reports to the Finance department.  For the nine years I worked there, I did not have access to that data.

New Orleans based, Research on Reforms filed a lawsuit to discover just what data LDOE had released to CREDO.  When ROR eventually prevailed I learned what else LDOE had provided to CREDO.  (LDOE first denied the existence of this MOU until I agreed to testify for Research on Reforms.  Then LDOE argued that they could choose whomever they wanted to evaluate their programs and did not need to provide equal access to anyone else to cross examine the claims.  The first judge agreed, but the appeals court overturned this ruling.)

It turns out LDOE violated their own very expansive MOU.  What follows is a description of a few things that should not have been sent.

For instance, it turns out that LDOE sent quite a bit of detailed data on non-public students, their DOB’s, their teachers, their special education conditions, schools, etc.  Non-Public schools were not part of the research project and not part of the MOU.

For the complete version of France’s post, click here.

My best to ROR as it begins analyzing literally years’ worth of data that opaque LDOE actively and intentionally withheld.

data

_______________________________________________

Schneider is a southern Louisiana native, career teacher, trained researcher, and author of the ed reform whistle blower, A Chronicle of Echoes: Who’s Who In the Implosion of American Public Education.

She also has her second book available on pre-order, Common Core Dilemma: Who Owns Our Schools?, due for publication May/June 2015.

13 Comments
  1. Reblogged this on Crazy Crawfish's Blog and commented:
    This is a great addendum by Dr Mercedes Schneider to my recent post on CREDO data and LDOE schenanigans, and one of the best quick summaries of CREDO, its funders, and its founders that I’ve seen.

    I’m not quite sure Mercedes is human, folks. Ijust published my piece around 4 or 5 today and she already has this update out a few hours later, and it’s crazy good.

    I have some more updates on CREDO and their studies coming up, but before that I plan to tackle a few other recent disturbing revelations.

  2. There is no reason to hide data unless there is something you don’t want anyone else to know—for instance, the fact that education reform is still failing, and revealing most of the pertinent data would make it more difficult to lie and bury the truth.

  3. Those of us not in LA may not know the biographies of McDonogh and Barr. Could these be supplied?

  4. Laura chapman permalink

    I too wonder if you ever sleep.
    The CREDO website brags about it being non partisan. What a LIE. All you need to do is explore the website. It is all about charters, and producing hype about charters. The Hoover Institution is ultra right wing, and it should be an embarrassment to Stanford, but the big bucks are there to keep it all going. So markets don’t work but we will push the snake oil anyway. Thank goodness there are experts in crunching data–Mercedes and the Crazy Crawfish– among others who can disclose the lack of integrity in so much talk about data and data integrity.

  5. Coleman permalink

    From its mission statement, CREDO claims that it “was established to improve empirical evidence about education reform and student performance at the primary and secondary levels.” That is interesting wording, since research should be about reporting empirical evidence rather than improving it; that is, unless it is doing research and development for a particular industry. So, the question is whether CREDO is supposed to be an independent research institution, or research and development for the reform schools.

    I am not sure whether any group has attacked this research per se, but it does raise a number of questions for me. Apparently, the Special Education variable that they use is simply a YES/NO variable. Therefore, a charter school student with a speech impediment could be matched up against someone with severe reading problems. They address this concern when they compare special education students in charters and traditional public schools by simply acknowledging that it is a problem, but (1) they still do the special ed analysis, and (2) this special education variable is used as a control in all of the other analyses as well.

    I am also not certain that I agree with their methodology. Students from charters are matched one-one with students from traditional public schools. This is supposed to be superior to traditional statistical analyses where averages and standard deviations are used upon the entire groups under study. There are therefore “residue” students from the traditional public schools that do not get thrown into this study because their demographics don’t match those of the charter school kids.

    Looking at the overall demographics of the traditional public school vs. the charters shows that there are many more special ed kids and English language learners in the traditional public schools. This confounds the study for two reasons. We have no idea how these students would fare (supposedly) in a charter school because they are not counted, and these students must have an effect upon the resources of the traditional public schools, thereby affecting the traditional public school kids in the study.

  6. Update – Spoke with Dr. Ferguson today, May 3. White is refusing to provide data for 2013/14 to ROR denying that it was de-identified and given to CREDO. ROR expects a ruling this week and the judge can assess $100 a workday fine for the two missing years for White’s denial. What continues to be missing is white’s jail sentence for his illegal actions and refusing to follow policy and law in dealing with personsonal Student data such as his secretly giving inBloom SS# and then denying it. I’m pretty sure BESE has not been asked for approval of his refusal.

  7. Stanford has received a lot of money from Gates, too, including to promote the Common Core.

Trackbacks & Pingbacks

  1. Mercedes Schneider: Louisiana Court Orders Release of Data to Qualified Researchers | Diane Ravitch's blog
  2. Will you stink up the privatization garden party with me? | Cloaking Inequity

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: