Response by Dr. Alan Ginsburg to Paul Peterson's April 11, 2011 article in Education Next

TheRheeDCRecord - home

Response by Dr. Alan Ginsburg to Paul Peterson's April 11, 2011 article in Education Next and his Washington Times story taking issue with my analysis showing that Rhee's DC gains were no better than those of her two predecessors Vance and Janey. (April 15, 2011)

“In the case against Michelle Rhee,” Paul Peterson presents three alleged flaws in my analysis “ The Rhee DC Record: No Better Than Her Predecessors Vance and Janey.” Two of Peterson’s proposed flaws simply misrepresent my methodology. The third makes the highly questionable adjustment that the DC school system deserves credit only for DC gains above the national average NAEP gain, with Peterson giving credit to some unknown cause for DC gains up to the national average.

First, Peterson claims that my analyses did not adjust for the fact that “Rhee was in office for only two years, while Vance was in office for three and Janey for four.” This is a misrepresentation of my methodology. The analyses (Exhibit IIB and IID below) in the report clearly represent the average annual NAEP score gains. In math, Rhee’s annualized gains fall between Vance and Janey and in reading the annualized gains are about equal between Janey and Rhee.

Second, Peterson also claims that I used the DC NAEP sample that “in 2009 did not include