The Wall Street Journal has an odd article today trumpeting “A Generation of School Voucher Success” by voucher advocate Paul Peterson of Harvard and Matthew Chingos of the Brookings Institution.
The article is based on a study of a privately funded voucher program in New York City and its effects on college enrollments of those who received vouchers.
The study concluded that “Overall, no significant impacts are observed.”
However, there were statistically significant gains in the college enrollment rates of black students, and statistically insignificant gains for Hispanics.
Why the difference? It’s not clear, but consider what the study says about the two groups compared:
African American and Hispanic students differed from one another in a number of respects. Although students in the two ethnic groups had fairly similar baseline scores, African American students were more likely to be male, have a parent with a college education, come from one-child families (but are also more likely to come from families with four or more children), and, not surprisingly, come from a family in which English is spoken in the home.
But overall, the study produced “no significant impacts.”
If you read the study, check out p. 12, “Results,” which begins:
“The offer of a voucher is estimated to have increased college enrollment within three years of the student’s expected graduation from high school by 0.6 percentage points—a tiny, insignificant impact”
This somehow got spun in the WSJ article into “A generation of school voucher success!”
This study does not delve into test scores. One can only guess what the study would say if there were big test score gains.
The D.C. voucher program, the Cleveland voucher program and the Milwaukee voucher program have not produced any evidence of gains in test scores.
This is from the final evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program:
There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement. On average, after at least four years students who were offered (or used) scholarships had reading and math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not offered scholarships (figure ES-2). The same pattern of results holds for students who applied from schools in need of improvement (SINI), the group Congress designated as the highest priority for the Program. Although some other subgroups of students appeared to have higher levels of reading achievement if they were offered or used a scholarship, those findings could be due to chance. They should be interpreted with caution since the results were no longer significant after applying a statistical test to account for multiple comparisons of treatment and control group members across the subgroups.
Voucher students in DC saw no test score gains, but were more likely to graduate from high school:
The graduation rate based on parent-provided information was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group.
Studies comparing voucher schools and public schools in Milwaukee and Cleveland have not detected any differences in test scores.
Earlier studies of the NYC private school voucher program showed no gains in test scores, which the study notes:
The original study of the New York City voucher experiment identified heterogeneous impacts. Although no overall impacts in reading and math achievement were detected, positive private-sector impacts were observed on the performance of African Americans, but not of Hispanic students (Howell and Peterson 2006, 146-52; Mayer et al. 2002, Table 20).
When vouchers are celebrated, the subject of test scores is irrelevant. When public schools are condemned, the subject is always test scores. Truly, a double standard.
Wonder why.
“When vouchers are celebrated, the subject of test scores is irrelevant. When public schools are condemned, the subject is always test scores.”
Diane, this remark of yours speaks untold volumes, does it not?
“When vouchers are celebrated, the subject of test scores is irrelevant. When public schools are condemned, the subject is always test scores.”
Diane, this remark of yours speaks untold volumes about the hijacked narrative concerning teachers, does it not?
Diane,
I find your logical nature refreshing. Why is public education targeted as the bane of all societal ills? Politicians keep pushing test scores, yet the highest performing countries in the world are moving away from high-stakes standard tests. They find their students are good at taking tests and following directions, but have no creativity or problem-solving skills. How can we help people see the truth?
We have to say it again and again and again and again, with facts, evidence, and logic. Eventually they might hear us and see the damage they are doing.
Also, the tests are faulty–“Pineapple” questions, math questions with no correct answer or two correct answers. And–as a special ed. teacher who had a script for Math and Science testing, many more questions were misleading and confusing. (That’s why they’re saying, now, that they are no longer going to allow scripted tests for sped. teachers!)
As it has been said–again and again–to say these tests are valid, reliable and “standardized” rings hollow.
Not to mention the extremely flawed scoring of the written portions of these tests.
RTMK,
“As it has been said–again and again–to say these tests are valid, reliable and “standardized” rings hollow.”
Not only rings hollow but they are invalid, unreliable and certainly not standardized due to the many errors as shown by N. Wilson in “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error”.
Come explore all of the errors and invaliditities involved with standards, standardized testing and grades/grading students on my blog where we are studying Noel Wilson’s “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” chapter by chapter. I have posted an introduction, a “course of study” and the abstract with my comments on the abstract. We’ll be doing two chapters a month. “Promoting Just Education for All” @ revivingwilson.org . A free graduate level seminar brought to you by the Universidad of OYE.
Duane
Forget the presidential election. We need a series of nationally televised debates on a variety of major school issues, with a fair format, that includes Diane Ravitch.
The “success” stories are like the pre-announcement/advertisement of an IPO. The drive to privatize has to include drawing investors in to promote and finance the initial gleaming appearance (PR campaigns, commercials, initial carefully chosen success stories, charter-school to lobbyist to politician transitions…). Where this inevitably ends is services becoming lean and employees being demeaned to prop up the bottom line and maintain salaries and benefits for the top-level (CEO’s and such). I am surprised that policy-makers and the press overall tolerate this sort of behavior. The swingers and shakers, the bankers and Super-Pac-ing swift boat crowd are entertained like the drunken trust-fund trouble-making nephew. Continually causing destruction, perpetually coming back to the till to support their behaviors. Wall Street wins when they do.
I noticed that PR trick when Mayor Bloomberg took control of the NYC public schools. Every new program was launched with accolades about its success before it was implemented. If the program failed, it simply disappeared without a trace. Signature programs, like small schools, were subject to nonstop accolades, with no willingness to step back and ask why some succeeded and others did not.
The real “success” they are looking for is more access to public money (whether it’s designated for salary/benefit or per-pupil dollars). The most aggravating things to me (beside being blatantly disingenuous with the portrayal of “reform” as student/family centered) are:
1) The unwillingness to be rational, primarily NY Commissioner King’s demand for teachers/schools to submit to state-test based eval-long before -by his own admission-these tests reach their final format, OR the much hailed and promoted CCLS have been fully adapted/adopted. A more reasonable approach (had reform=IMPROVEMENT been the goal) would have been a timeline requiring schools to adapt curriculum and in-house assessments to CCLS with the understanding that THE STATE WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR CREATING AND FINALIZING any state tests to be used (not that I WANT more state tests, but for now we are stuck with them). Instead, a very destructive “cart before the horse” option has been forced upon us and sold to the public.o based . This subjects dedicated and talented educators who have always been there to serve ANY student, from the easiest to the neediest, to an evaluation system that devalues the human nature element in educating ANYONE-from cradle to grave. We are not “standard”, and it is our differences that form a cooperative and powerful whole. What would be the benefit of homogenizing the citizenry and punishing those who have difficulty hammering square pegs into round holes?
2) The unwillingness of “reformers” to engage in cost/benefit discussions regarding the policies they promote, and/or honest examination of the data they believe indicates the need for “reform”. Would they also rise up against “job creators” and “investors” (much praised recently despite their ineffectiveness for our nation as a whole over the past few decades). I’ve already rambled too much and I need to save my appetite for dinner. I’m getting aggravated.
Diane, if you are ever in the area of the rural beauty of Central NY, you are invited to stop and visit.