Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

JEB BUSH: THE IMPACT TO DATE SOOYON YOUH ELIZABETH HUMBERSTONE CYNDI GREENBERG DAVID MCKINNEY 1.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "JEB BUSH: THE IMPACT TO DATE SOOYON YOUH ELIZABETH HUMBERSTONE CYNDI GREENBERG DAVID MCKINNEY 1."— Presentation transcript:

1 JEB BUSH: THE IMPACT TO DATE SOOYON YOUH ELIZABETH HUMBERSTONE CYNDI GREENBERG DAVID MCKINNEY 1

2 1. CHOICE/VOUCHERS (1) 2  FACTUAL IMPACT AT SCHOOL SYSTEM LEVEL  Charter: In 2012-13, 206,000 Florida students (3 rd highest behind CA, TX) in 578 charter schools (2 nd highest in the nation behind CA)  136 charters rated as “high-performing”  “impressive and staggering” performance of charter school students compared to TPS (according to the Foundation)  ↔ mixed/insignificant results from research  Voucher  McKay Scholarship: satisfaction, academic benefits ↑  OSP: increased student performance in low-performing schools (later ruled unconstitutional)  Private  larger gains for low-income students receiving the Tax Credit Scholarship  union lawsuit against TCS dismissed; movement towards ESA

3 1. CHOICE/VOUCHERS (2)  PUBLIC/KEY CONSTITUENT PERCEPTION  Advocates  “Education is the great equalizer.”: access to superior quality education for low-income students  Promote free-market competition; improved quality and efficiency for schools of choice (Hoxby, 1998 & 2001)  Public schools’ improvement due to voucher programs in Florida (Greene & Winters, 2003)  Critics  Voucher/Scholarship programs draining resources/funding from public schools and eroding standards (e.g. NEA)  Potential for privatization of public services  Problem of “unlucky” students who did not get a space in schools of choice  Students’ outcome not significantly different from TPS 3

4 2. SCHOOL GRADING  FACTUAL IMPACT AT SCHOOL SYSTEM LEVEL  A and B schools: 21%(1999) → 79%(2009) → 72%(2012)  D and F schools: 28%(1999) → 7%(2009) → 9%(2012)  PUBLIC/KEY CONSTITUENT PERCEPTION  Advocates: easy-to-comprehend measures for parents  Critics: putting the “scarlet letter” on schools  improved school grade = better at the FCAT (≠ learning more?)  Lack of factoring in whether the school serves suburban kids or poorer urban children; no consideration of school demographics  Punitive measures for “F schools” vs. bonuses for “A schools” – might be more challenging for teachers in urban neighborhoods  Resources for low-performing schools: not a long-term incentive for teachers 4

5 3. TESTING/ACCOUNTABILITY  FACTUAL IMPACT AT SCHOOL SYSTEM LEVEL  Florida – the test-score gap ↓ b/t white and black 4 th graders (NCES, U.S. Dept. of Ed.) ~ but, similar to the national trend  NAEP: 4 th graders reading at grade level 70% (2007) vs. 53% (1998)  Increased student gains among blacks and Hispanics (Heritage Foundation)  Bolstered achievement among students in low-performing schools (Urban Institute, 2007)  PUBLIC/KEY CONSTITUENT PERCEPTION  Advocates: testing + pressure of a bad school grade: shifted the school’s focus to students who needed it most!  Critics  FCAT: “one-size-fits-all”, no consideration for minorities/ELLs  Narrowing the scope of instruction to focus on the FCAT; “template-writing”  Non-tested subjects neglected 5

6 4. READING/GRADUATION  FACTUAL IMPACT AT SCHOOL SYSTEM LEVEL  4 th grade reading in Florida: 35 th (1998) → 22 nd (2007), outperforming the national average in every subgroup (2013) including low-income & Hispanic students  In 2006, high school grad rate remains among the lowest in the nation (63.6%) compared to the national average (73.4%)  In 2013-14, steadily improved, reached a historic high of 76% / drop-out rate - historic low  PUBLIC/KEY CONSTITUENT PERCEPTION  less impressive results in math or 8 th grade reading; retention  students dropping out after repeatedly failing the 10 th grade FCAT → low graduation rate (discouraging effect of FCAT)  students moving to alternative programs not counted as dropouts 6

7 REFERENCES  Foundation for Excellence in Education. Florida Formula for Student Achievement. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/about-us/reform- agenda/florida-formula-for-student-achievement/http://excelined.org/about-us/reform- agenda/florida-formula-for-student-achievement/  Foundation for Excellence in Education. Florida’s High-Performing Charter Schools. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6620http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6620  Foundation for Excellence in Education. Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6621 http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6621  Foundation for Excellence in Education. Florida’s Opportunity Scholarship Program. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6622http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6622  Foundation for Excellence in Education. Florida’s Tax Credit Scholarship Program. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6619http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6619  Foundation for Excellence in Education. How School Choice Programs Improve K-12 Education. Retrieved from http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6618 http://excelined.org/?attachment_id=6618  Fryer, R. (2012). The Hamilton Project: Learning from the success and failure from the charter schools. Brookings.  Greene, J. & Winters, M. (2003). When schools compete: The effects of vouchers on Florida public school achievement. Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. Working Paper.  Hoxby, C. (1998). Analyzing School Choice Reforms that Use America’s Traditional Forms of Parental Choice” in Paul E. Peterson and Bryan C. Hassel eds., Learning from School Choice, Brookings Institution.  Hoxby, Caroline. (2001). Rising tide. Education Next.  Mathematica Policy Research. (2011). Do Charter Schools Improve Student Achievement? Evidence from a National Randomized Study. Working Paper.  Mathematica Policy Research. (2012). Charter-School Management Organizations: Diverse Strategies and Diverse Student Impacts. The National Study of Charter Management Organization (CMO) Effectiveness.  Mazzei, P. (2009, July 28). Jeb Bush's education reforms, 10 years later: Grades better, though graduation rates lag. The Miami Herald. Retrieved from http://www.tcpalm.com/news/jeb-bushs-education-reforms-10-years-later-rateshttp://www.tcpalm.com/news/jeb-bushs-education-reforms-10-years-later-rates  Op-ed. (2014, September 14). Florida's School Choice Showdown, The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://www.wsj.com/articles/floridas- school-choice-showdown-1410561578http://www.wsj.com/articles/floridas- school-choice-showdown-1410561578  Strauss, V. (2015, February 28). How Jeb Bush’s school reforms really played out in Florida. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet-wp/2015/02/28/how-jeb-bushs-school-reforms-played-out-in-Florida http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet-wp/2015/02/28/how-jeb-bushs-school-reforms-played-out-in-Florida 7


Download ppt "JEB BUSH: THE IMPACT TO DATE SOOYON YOUH ELIZABETH HUMBERSTONE CYNDI GREENBERG DAVID MCKINNEY 1."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google