The Starbucks / GOOD Magazine Conspiracy of Lies

Last month I noted that GOOD magazine had published an anti-NCLB article so egregious in its lies and incoherence that it stood out in an already-crowded field. This was more annoying than alarming, since I doubt many people take their policy cues from GOOD Magazine.

Unfortunately, as I was paying for my latte in the Capitol Hill Starbucks this afternoon, I noticed a stack of square papers sitting next to the cash register, each emblazoned with the GOOD logo, a cartoon of a school bus with a flat tire, and the words "Education" and "The State of America's Schools." Apparently, in some kind of devious cross-marketing arrangement, GOOD is distributing its education lies in innocuous pamphlet form via the most ubiquitous coffee chain in the world. Here are some falsehoods and misrepresentations:

No Child Left Behind, the 2002 law that ties federal funding and sanctions to gains in standardized test scores, is heralded by some and criticized by others.

As everyone with even a basic understanding of the law knows, NCLB does not tie funding to gains in test scores.

In the "No Child Left Behind" sections, it says:

Federal funding is tied to test performance.

Lie. (See above.)

For any given public school, 9% of the budget comes from federal funds and approximately 91% comes from state, local, and other sources. 

Incorrect. On average, that's how much schools get. But funding at any given public school can vary widely. Some get 20 or 30 percent of funding from the feds. 

Under "Pros" and "Cons" of NCLB, the "Cons" are listed as follows: "Critics charge that tests vary too widely to evaluate school performance nationwide, that teachers are teaching narrowly to the test, that students who learn in different ways are put at a disadvantage, and that one test shouldn't determine who passes and who doesn't, especially if there are errors in the test. 

NCLB wasn't written to "evaluate school performance nationwide" in the sense of comparing school and districts in different states, or states themselves, to one another. That's what NAEP is for. Schools certainly don't always teach "students who learn in different ways" equally well, but that's neither here nor there when it comes to NCLB; the law mandates what to teach, not how to teach. No school is rated by one test; students are tested in multiple subjects and, in elementary and middle schools, multiple grades. It's possible that this refers to students being determined as proficient or not proficient in a subject based on one test--it's not clear--but NCLB doesn't mandate any student-level consequences for passing and failing. And doesn't everyone object to test errors?

High-school graduates going directly to college by percent, national average (2004): 56

According to the Condition of Education, published annually by the U.S. Department of Education, this number is actually 66% and has not been as low as 56% since the mid-1980s.

High-school graduation rate by percent, national average (2005): 69

Drop-out rate by percent, national average (9th to 12th Grade, 2004): 4

There's no way both of these numbers can be true at the same time. If 100 students started high school and 4% dropped out every year for four years, 85 would graduate. Even taking into account students who stay longer, you're still not going to account for the other 16 students.

Some of this reflects a clear misunderstanding of how NCLB works. Some is just sloppy writing. And some is, I suspect, a function of Google-fu research methods: The data sources listed include The ACT, Merriam-Webster, National Center for Education Statistics, National Center for Higher Education Management Systems, the SAT, School Data Direct, Time, U.S. Department of Education, The Washington Post, and various states. In conducting analysis, you can't just slap together data points from a hodgepodge of publications like this without paying attention to the underlying sources and methods. If you do, you'll almost surely end being wrong on some (or many) levels.