Mark Dynarski of the Brookings Institution has published a research review in which he concluded that public schools definitely have the advantage over private schools that receive vouchers. This is especially good news because rightwing ideologues continue to argue the (non-existent) benefits of vouchers, and because Brookings had become an advocacy platform for school choice since the appointment of George W. Bush’s education research director, Grover Whitehurst to run its education center (Whitehurst no longer runs the Brown center program at Brookings).
Here is the executive summary. Open the link to read the full study.
Recent research on statewide voucher programs in Louisiana and Indiana has found that public school students that received vouchers to attend private schools subsequently scored lower on reading and math tests compared to similar students that remained in public schools. The magnitudes of the negative impacts were large. These studies used rigorous research designs that allow for strong causal conclusions. And they showed that the results were not explained by the particular tests that were used or the possibility that students receiving vouchers transferred out of above-average public schools.
Another explanation is that our historical understanding of the superior performance of private schools is no longer accurate. Since the nineties, public schools have been under heavy pressure to improve test scores. Private schools were exempt from these accountability requirements. A recent study showed that public schools closed the score gap with private schools. That study did not look specifically at Louisiana and Indiana, but trends in scores on the National Assessment of Educational Progress for public school students in those states are similar to national trends.
In education as in medicine, ‘first, do no harm’ is a powerful guiding principle. A case to use taxpayer funds to send children of low-income parents to private schools is based on an expectation that the outcome will be positive. These recent findings point in the other direction. More needs to be known about long-term outcomes from these recently implemented voucher programs to make the case that they are a good investment of public funds. As well, we need to know if private schools would up their game in a scenario in which their performance with voucher students is reported publicly and subject to both regulatory and market accountability.

“. . . has found that public school students that received vouchers to attend private schools subsequently scored lower on reading and math tests compared to similar students that remained in public schools.”
Maybe that’s a good thing. Perhaps is indicates learning other than what’s on the test and the teaching to the test that is so prominent in today’s public classrooms.
Now paying for that other, especially if it is religious content/curriculum, with public monies is a huge problem. And if the coin of the realm is test scores, well we’re in serious trouble to begin with by focusing on “doing the wrong thing righter” (Ackhoff) Perhaps the public schools bring on their own condemnation by focusing on educational malpractices such as the standards and testing regime are.
LikeLike
Perhaps it indicates. . . ay ay ay!
LikeLike
Good point, Duane
This “reliance on tests is bad but nonetheless ‘proves’ that reforms don’t work” leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
LikeLike
It seems the folks at Brookings aren’t in the “OPT-OUT of testing mode”…
LikeLike
This is not surprising to me. We had a parochial school in my district that closed, and my school district absorbed many of the students. What we discovered was that the students were at least a year behind our students in reading and math. The parents were upset because their children had received such good grades in the parochial school. I don’t know whether this disconnect was due to low expectations, standards or one size fits all instruction, but it took the students some time to adjust to the public school curricula.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ed reformers are really ramping up voucher promotion. It’s amusing how they dropped “improving PUBLIC schools” and moved directly to subsidizing private schools.
It’s ludicrous to deny that is about privatization of public education at this point. They really have a duty to tell voters they promote privatization.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sadly, many, MANY voters will have no idea why privatization might hurt them. In days of say-anything politics, many will be nosily led to the idea that the privatization of public institutions it is the only way to solve our educational/economic problems.
LikeLike
Here’s The 74 pushing vouchers with an “article” that is basically an advertisement for vouchers.
“Just like charters push public schools to become better and offer more magnet and choice programs, education savings accounts will push charters, he said. “There will be competition, yes, definitely. It’s not going to always be friendly, but it’s going to be competitive.”
I love the blanket assertions and SURENESS on how fabulous privatization will be.
Actually the Best and Brightest have no earthly idea how any of this will play out. We’re all an experimental population for their ideological theories.
https://www.the74million.org/article/74-interview-state-senator-scott-hammond-on-the-rise-of-nevadas-esa-program-and-the-challenges-ahead
I know public schools are unfashionable, but do any of these publicly-paid employees ever feel any duty to put in any work towards existing public schools?
Even if they’re ideologically (and personally) opposed to our schools and hope to eradicate them they are aware “public schools” are part of their job description,right?
LikeLike
This matter is delved into at great length in U of lllinois educators Chris and Sarah Lubienski’s 2014 book The Public School Advantage: Why Public Schools Outperform Private Schools. — Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
LikeLike
Looks like Ohio’s “charter reforms” were vastly oversold:
“ODE spokesperson Brittany Halpin dismissed the report as “partisan politics” and said the state’s controls over charter schools improved with the passage of House Bill 2, a significant reform of charter school law last year.”
All criticism will be summarily dismissed as “political” and ignored.
I actually don’t think it will work. State media are finally on to them.
This isn’t going away 🙂
http://www.cleveland.com/metro/index.ssf/2016/05/feds_gave_30_million_in_grants_to_charter_schools_that_have_closed_or_never_opened_report_says.html
LikeLike
Hi Ms. Ravitch,
Have you heard about the new voucher study reported by the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas. It shows “statistically significant” improvement in math and reading test scores for those studying with vouchers. The researchers looked at 19 studies covering 11 voucher programs. The studies were chosen as they met the “gold standard” as they had a “treatment group” — the voucher kids and a “control group” the non voucher kids and most importantly the control group kids all applied for vouchers but did not get them. In other words both sets of kids came from interested parents.
LikeLike
Tom,
I have not yet seen it.
I take anything from the “Department of Educational Reform” at the University of Walton with a big dose of skepticism. It is not an impartial source. It was funded by the Waltons to prove that choice works.
I will invite a choice e pert to write a review.
Two principles converge here:
Follow the money
Consider the source
LikeLike
Thank you Ms. Ravitch and all the others who found time to comment negatively on my post about the University of Arkansas study that found vouchers given to students help the students do better in voucher aided schools than the control group of students did in public schools.
I really fear for the future of America as not one of the negative comments focused on improving the education of the student.
What is your plan to improve on the education of American children? The latest results from “America’s Report Card” show that only 37% of high school seniors are prepared for college and thus 63% are not and would require remedial work to do their first year of college. How shameful. We hear a lot about how the rich are trying to take over the education system but the only ones getting rich at this time are those earning a salary and pension in the public school system.
LikeLike
Tom,
Don’t believe the propaganda you read. That 37% refers to students who score proficient, which is the equivalent of an A. Many students who score “basic” go to college and don’t need remedial work.
Vouchers provide the opportunity to go to a church school with unaccredited teachers and to learn the Biblical version of science and history.
What makes you think that this is good for students.
The answer that most of the readers of this blog would give you is that the way to improve education is to reduce class sizes, make sure every school is adequately funded, develop programs to support and retain teachers. and give each child a full education. Vouchers don’t do that.
Did you know that not a single high performing school system in the world has vouchers or charters?
LikeLike
Thank you for taking the time to respond, Ms. Ravitch.
In North Carolina over 50% of freshman in 2 or 4 year colleges require remedial work.
North Carolina schools have about 18 to 20 students per class. The sad thing is that a public high school with excellent funding and reputation, Chapel Hill High in Chapel Hill for example, has over 80% of the whites passing their EOC tests while less than 30% of blacks and 50% of Hispanics are passing. That is a problem that only a dedicated school — via vouchers or charters — can correct.
Remember the key requirement is break the cycle of failed kids. There can be no excuses — not uninterested parents, not poverty, not “no books in the house”. If one demands that all kids go to public schools then one has the obligation to teach them and we don’t have that commitment at this time. If one does not want to commit to teaching each child then the child should be set free to go to a school that will the child.
By the way, lots of kids learn at Catholic schools and they do not suffer a Biblical based science or history curriculum.
Thanks again.
LikeLike
Tom,
No high performing nation in the world has vouchers and charters. What do they know that we don’t know? Public education is a cornerstone of our democracy. Privatization of public services leads to segregation and lower quality services.
LikeLike
http://www.uaedreform.org/category/department-of-education-reform/working-papers/
Of course there are dualling narratives on vouchers. The citation above comes from the Walton funded Department of Educational Reform at the University of Arkansas a pro- voucher department in the extreme.
Without mentioning the source of this study claiming to be a meta-analysis of voucher programs, the Wall Street Jounal today featured this study in the Opinion section with the title ” Vouching for Achievement.”
The study examined 11 voucher programs’ including a couple in Delhi, India. The most important news, according to the opinion editors, is that vouchers gave the students “several months of additional learning” compared to the non-voucher kids. This “months of learning” metric is a statistical invention with no clear meaning, since there is no standardized measure of days, weeks, or months of learning. It is a fiction and in this case used to report very small differences in math and reading test scores.
I looked over the study. The authors are keen to note that many vouchers are going to religious schools (circa p.25) and they invent equivalences for missing data: math scores were conveniently made into proxies for reading scores and the reverse.
Of course, this is not a peer reviewed study.
The Wall Street Jounal opinion piece begins with a tribute to Milton Friedman and the 26 states with voucher program, thirteen of these in the last five years. It ends with a curious observation that the limited outcomes in this meta-analysis are probably the result of publically funded voucher programs which “cover a larger share of the costs of attending private schools.” That is an amazing, and perhaps unintended admission that vouchers tap public funds that should go to public schools, and that the amount of money might make a difference.
The editorial throws in the usual insults to teacher unions and “their” public schools.
“The Arkansas results aren’t likely to change union minds because vouchers are a moral threat to their public school monopoly. But for for anyone who cares about how much students learn, especially the poorest kids, the Arkansas study is welcome news that school choice delivers.”
In other words, unions own public schools. Public schools are a monopoly. Teachers are of one mind about unions and they do not care about HOW MUCH students learn, especially the poorest kids. This is the voice of Wall Street and its journal of record. They like junk science along with tax-subsidized private and religious schools.
LikeLike
The ivory tower hallucinations of Friedman’s ignorance rebutted. http://horacemannleague.blogspot.com/2013/01/asymmetric-information-parental-choice.html
LikeLike
“The editorial throws in the usual insults to teacher unions and “their” public schools.”
No one in real life talks as much about “teacher unions” as ed reformers do.
25 years as a public school parent. I have yet to meet the parent who is as obsessed with labor unions as these people are.
They probably need unions. If it wasn’t for union-hatred, the only thing they’d have to talk about is testing and test scores.
LikeLike
Laura H. Chapman: jumped out at me from your comments—
1), “11 voucher programs’ including a couple in Delhi, India.”
2), “‘months of learning’ metric is a statistical invention with no clear meaning, since there is no standardized measure of days, weeks, or months of learning.”
3), “that many vouchers are going to religious schools (circa p.25) and they invent equivalences for missing data: math scores were conveniently made into proxies for reading scores and the reverse.”
So let me get this straight: highly paid rheephorm experts scoured the world to find [only?] 11 voucher programs that suited their purposes, compared apples to orangoutangs then turned apples INTO orangoutangs (and/or vice versa), and slapped numbers on apples and orangoutangs and other things like peach blossoms, and through the magic of rheephorm math made them all seem like the same thing (hence, directly comparable). And I’m not even going to bring up the religious schools issue or how cultural differences can play havoc with interpreting standardized test score results.
From some of the leading “thought leaders” and experts in “data analytics” of corporate education reform!
If this wasn’t coming directly from the rheephorm establishment itself, it would be attacked as a hideous and vicious parody of same by such soft-spoken folks as Peter Cunningham and Whitney Tilson and Campbell Brown.
Perhaps a little perspective from an old dead French guy:
“Ridicule dishonors a man more than dishonor does.” [François de la Rochefoucauld]
What would he have said about self-ridicule?
😎
LikeLike
I will PST a review of the Arkansas report next week
LikeLike
Were “elite” private schools included in the comparisons? Was the pressure to increase income/attendance due to underfunding issues examined? Were endowments, reserve funds and daily operating budgets between “elite” and parochial schools considered? Between private and public schools? The change in school demographics and family incomes? Curriculum? Proximity/travel issues as a demographic filter? What about any differences in the professional development activities/requirements of teachers between school types? Physical condition of the schools themselves and other learning environment factors? Discipline policy differences? Recess time? Support staff? It seems that the seven blind men couldn’t agree on elephant or not here since most of them were absent from the discussion. I’m cringing too much to do more than just type Value Added Modeling???? (sardonic laughter….)
My takeaway from this is that the disruption/destruction of reform, in this case vouchers, has made any comparison between schools and school types even more fraught with inaccuracies than they were before. Notwithstanding the selectivity of charters, the increasing homogenization of schools due to vouchers and other sources of churn further negates the already questionable value of any possible comparisons between schools and types of schools, well beyond what the false metric of test scores has alleged to provide. (HT Mr. Swacker!).
The obvious irony of this anti-choice dynamic due to increasing demographic homogenization is stunning. Could this be the birth of Charters vs. Vouchers??
Reform has created an environment that directly favors the growth of wealth and influence obtained by unscrupulous, fraudulent actions, a mindset that produces the lowest quality products that can be successfully defended by plausible deniability and disinformation. It’s an operating environment that strongly disadvantages and thereby destroys all moral, ethical behaviors and their resulting higher quality products.
Those who not just forget, but ignore history: http://www.theresilientfamily.com/2012/02/greshams-dynamic/
LikeLike
You should also critique this report on vouchers http://www.edchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2016-5-Win-Win-Solution-WEB.pdf
LikeLike