Why are people so excited about one study of one charter school showing improved performance on math tests? ( Our coverage of the study here). 

It’s because in academic circles, improving academic performance is seen as an extremely thorny problem with a very long list of past failures. ( See pages 1-2 of the paper for an overview.)  The very strong default assumption is that an education program will fail to improve performance.  To the point where a one-time, one-standard-deviation bump in math scores is considered (by David Brooks) to be a “miracle.” 

But you’d never know it from the world of education philanthropy.  Attend any fundraiser or read any annual report and all you’ll hear is stories of success. 

There’s a similar split between two worlds in international philanthropy.  Academics nearly all stress the challenges, the frustrations, and the sense that progress hasn’t matched expectations.  Talk to a charity and you’ll hear “success, success, success.” 

Many people are incredulous that we recommend so few charities.  I can only guess that that’s because they’re coming from the world of fundraisers, where every charity is assumed to be a success.  In our world, “recommended” is the exception, not the default.