More bad news for the voucher advocates.
Another study reports that students in Indiana who used vouchers lose ground academically.
The authors are R. Joseph Waddington and Mark Berends.
Here is the abstract:
This paper examines the impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program on student achievement for low‐income students in upper elementary and middle school who used a voucher to transfer from public to private schools during the first four years of the program. We analyzed student‐level longitudinal data from public and private schools taking the same statewide standardized assessment. Overall, voucher students experienced an average achievement loss of 0.15 SDs in mathematics during their first year of attending a private school compared with matched students who remained in a public school. This loss persisted regardless of the length of time spent in a private school. In English/Language Arts, we did not observe statistically meaningful effects. Although school vouchers aim to provide greater educational opportunities for students, the goal of improving the academic performance of low‐income students who use a voucher to move to a private school has not yet been realized in Indiana.
This study was published on the same day that Patrick Wolf of the University of Arkansas (funded by the Walton Family Foundation) posted an article at the conservative Education Next site (funded by the Hoover Institution) saying that vouchers have not been discredited by a recent article in the prestigious Education Researcher by Robert Pianta and Arya Ansari (which demonstrated that private schools do not get better results when demographics are controlled). You remember Patrick Wolf. He was the “independent” evaluator of school vouchers in Milwaukee and in D.C. Maybe he will review the multiple studies of vouchers from Ohio, Louisiana, D.C., and Indiana, all reaching the same conclusion: Vouchers do not help poor kids.
From Politico Morning Education:
UPDATED STUDY BEARS BAD NEWS FOR INDIANA VOUCHER PROGRAM: The final version of a high-profile study of Indiana’s private school voucher program finds that voucher students saw a drop in math scores and those losses persisted “regardless of the length of time spent in a private school.”
— That finding is markedly different from an earlier version of the study released last year, which found initial drops in math scores, but students who remained in private schools for three or four years made up “what they initially lost relative to their public school peers.”
— The study was conducted by Joseph Waddington of the University of Kentucky and Mark Berends from the University of Notre Dame. They released an early version last year after Chalkbeat obtained a copy through a state public records request. The early findings prompted voucher opponents to slam the drop in math scores while supporters touted the improvements students made over time
— But amid rounds of revision with the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management — where the research published this week — Waddington said they revised their statistical approach. More students who participated in the voucher program over the first four years were included in the analysis and as a result, researchers said they were able to estimate the effects of the program with a greater degree of precision. And that meant bad news for the program’s overall effect on student achievement.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Research does not seem to trump ideology, especially in the short run. The aggrandizement of scores on math and ELA tests as the be-all and end-all of what matters in education has distorted the civic mission of schools, narrowed the curriculum, led to the intimidation of students and teachers, and is just one facet of the campaign to destroy public education. Hardly anyone mentions that an estimated 69% of teachers having assignments that are not tethered to scores on standardized tests. In this respect the research so often cited as if authoritative for judging the performance of students, teachers, and schools is wrong, and arguably unethical.
“In this respect the research so often cited as if authoritative for judging the performance of students, teachers, and schools is wrong, and arguably unethical.”
No, not “arguably unethical”. It is UNETHICAL!
As usual excellent comment Laura.
“has not YET” .. disgusting. Driven by a desire for more oligarch funding?
Selective time frames and limited populations are methods of choice for biased research.
So are flawed statistical models (Rogoff and Rhinehart?)
It would reflect a new low if researchers let the funder write the research foreword which made a claim that competition from school choice produces better outcomes, despite no evidence of it in the paper. We would have a first row seat to intellectual prostitution if the foreword writers distorted the results, in the same manner to media. Oh right, it already happened in a different voucher paper that didn’t turn out the way it was hoped for.
It’s not enough that the rich buy an echo chamber to spread false propaganda about the benefits of privatization from an ideological standpoint, they can’t resist distorted data and distorted claims when they don’t like the results.
Look at the list of funders for Chalkbeat. Big names’ spending in excess of $1,000 each. But, Chalkbeat’s projects are limited to just a few states? Highly unusual?
Other ed related groups have the usual few suspects as funders. Or, a group like NPE would identify a preponderance of low dollar individual contributors.
Chalkbeat’s work referenced in the post was beneficial to truth but there’s no group that understands the need for skepticism more than those fighting for America’s most important common good. What the hand giveth, the hand can take away.
Elimination of vouchers (a distraction), while a full court press for charters takes place?
I was pleased to see this. It’s really heartening to see that every college and university in the country hasn’t climbed aboard the ed reform cheerleader bandwagon.
Bravo, for bucking the crowd and daring even to study this in the current anti-public school political climate.
It’s a real measure of the anti-public bias in ed reform that the assumption was private schools would be better than public schools. No one outside of the echo chamber assumes this. Our local private school is under-enrolled and has limped along for 25 years. The teachers don’t stay either- they are underpaid. They do one or two years at the private school and then transfer to the public school, where they can make a living wage.
Biased assumption made by biased people who are pushing an agenda.
Take a 2nd look at what Diane wrote. By happenstance, the day a negative report was made public, a happy report coincided in publication. (2) What provoked a state public records request for the paper? (3) The paper originally indicated that over time vouchers created improvement? (4) Did the Journal for Analysis and Management identify flaws and bring them to the attention of the researchers?
(5) Did the Journal want corrections, prior to its willingness to publish? (6) If there were errors, what was the explanation- too small a cohort, used as the sample? If that’s it, what is the explanation? (7) The revisions negate the finding that there were improvements over time?
Notre Dame and the University of Kentucky are where the researchers work. What are the schools’ policies aimed at assuring researcher fidelity to truth/objectivity? While the schools may have been involved in the referenced process, there is no indication of it in the post. If the post accurately reflects the details of the chronology, IMO, the editors of the Journal of Analysis and Management, deserve praise.
Voucher lobbyists should stop telling parents that a voucher means they can “choose any school”
The vouchers are low value. They obviously don’t cover the cost of “any school”.
The US Department of Education pushes this line and it’s a flat-out lie. A 5k to 7k voucher will NOT put anyone on an even playing field with private schools that cost 15 to 30k. It’s nonsense.
Every voucher promotion should include the value of the voucher. They are deliberately misleading people.
Some years ago, the Army Corp of Engineers decided to build a dam on the New River in northwestern North Carolina. It was finally defeated in congress and declared a wild and scenic river. One guy who fought it told me that the opposition forces took the figures of the Army Corp and proved that they were greatly exaggerating the economic benefits of the dam.
I am reminded of this when I read that researchers using test scores are building a case against privitazation. Remember, it was test scores that were used to get the privatization ball rolling, and test scores continue to drive debate in education. I really never thought that it would be possible to build an argument based on test scores. After all, figures do not lie, but liars figure. Now it seems that even the proponents of charters and vouchers have lost the last leg of the shaky testing stool.
The lesson of the opponents of the dam mentioned above was that logic was not good enough. Ultimately, a complex web of legal maneuvering and protest and letter writing was necessary before political leaders acted. So while I applaud the studies that are hoisting school reform by its own petard, I am pessimistic of changing anything without other means.
To the polls! Throw out the machine!
Yet another “paper” (Asset Prices and Wealth Inequality) shows
regardless of the length of time spent in a school, private or otherwise,
racial wealth inequality prevails.
“Income disparities today are as big as they were in the pre-civil rights era. In 1950, the income of the median white household was about twice as high as the income of the median black household. In 2016, black household income is still only half of the income of white households. The racial wealth gap is even wider and is still as large as it was in the 1950s and 1960s. The median black household persistently has less than 15% of the wealth of the median white household. The overall summary is bleak. We document that over seven decades, next to no progress has been made in closing the black–white income gap. The racial wealth gap is equally persistent and a stark fact of postwar America. The typical black household remains poorer than 80% of white households.”
It’s not enough that the rich buy an echo chamber to spread false propaganda.
The categorisation by “score” echo chamber, spreds false consciousness, as well.
I tell you I am shocked. Waddington’s CV shows a $999,024 (odd number) grant/award from the Spencer Foundation. At Inequality Org, Paul Buckheit wrote, “The Spencer Foundation and Public Agenda reported there was very little evidence that charter and traditional schools differ meaningfully in average impact…” Buckheit continues, But, there is in fact “lots of data that leans worse rather than better”.
From the Spenser Foundation website, “All of the Spenser dough was earned (?) improbably through education.” (Lyle Spenser was into education publishing.) Improbable, no. The Gates/Zuckerberg schools-in-the box venture is a scheme to make a similar claim.
And, Waddington received a sub award via Spencer of $144,000
Spencer Foundation is highly reputable.
Linda,
Spencer is not part of the rightwing cabal.
According to Chalkbeat (June 26), the researchers presented findings prior to peer review “to academics and school choice advocates”. Did they present to NPE? “The Impact of Indiana Choice Scholarship Program” was cited in a CAP paper (March 2018). CAP is pro charter. On its board sits a co-partner in Bain Capital. “Bain Capital spending big on charter schools” (Huffpo 2017)
Those spending billions on ed topics all describe themselves as independent, non-partisan, non-ideological, no dog in the race, just there for the kids, for the betterment of the economy, equality…Some have reputations for providing objective information and then have divisions within that have political agendas (Pew).
One thing is obvious – no amount of research will confirm to oligarchs and their elected officials and their appointees that public schools are the foundation for democracy and the economies of Main Street and the nation, the preventive to feudalism, and a crucial unifier for the nation. Nor, will they acknowledge that charters result in corruption of state and national politicians, destroy communities and exploit taxpayers…The first funder of education research who stands on a pulpit and says ENOUGH, no more squandering of money on research that is open to sabotage and not used to guide decisions, will have an unassailable reputation.
The endless cycles of research function to thwart democracy, by distracting and making it appear as if that which is intuitively obvious, is not.
For years, Patrick Wolf—the independent evaluator of the Milwaukee and D.C. voucher programs—was described in the media as nonpartisan. He did his doctoral work at Harvard under the mentorship of Paul Peterson, a choice zealot and editor of Education Next. Peterson frequently writes articles for the Wall Street Journal defending vouchers. Now, Wolf openly advocates for choice, including vouchers. Wolf found that vouchers had no impact on test scores in D.C. but the graduation rate was higher. He did not explore the high attrition rate of voucher students, who returned to public schools nor explain whether their attrition boosted the graduation rate. Subsequent D.C. evaluations by Mark Dynarski found that vouchers have a negative impact on students’ test scores.
School choice revisionist history?
In 2011, and prior, Vanderbilt University had a National Center FOR School Choice. Did it morph into the National Center ON School Choice, because that is the name of a organization that is there now.
So, if a researcher receiving almost $1,000,000 from Spenser, has on his CV, a directorship/assistant directorship of Vanderbilt’s School Choice organization from 2004-2011, should that employment reference identify the name, National Center FOR School Choice?
Researchers linked to campuses can get big bucks, what criteria do the wealthy patrons use to pick scholars? I have an idea based on Roland Fryer and the Gates Foundation.
Fryer was funded to the tune of at least $6 million by Broad, who hoped to get academic legitimacy for his whims. It’s not working out so far.
Not sure of the name of the school choice center at Vanderbilt.
The federally funded National Center for Research on School Choice was awarded $10million a couple of weeks ago, ironically on the same day it released a report praising the total privatization of New Orleans.
The $10 mil. award to that group is taxpayer abuse.
Vanderbilt’s involvement makes the case that no federal tax dollars should go to legacy admission colleges.
Berends’ cv shows $999,024 from Spenser (2015-18), $240,159 from Walton (2015-18), $299,425 from Walton (2014-17) and, $1,340,000 from Walton (2009-15).
Berends and Waddington availed themselves of the opportunities provided by public universities. Citizens created public universities so that students could attend affordable quality institutions instead of being limited to high priced, legacy admission schools. It doesn’t take a Rhodes scholar to extrapolate from the privatization of K-12 to the rejection of funding for public universities. Pulling up the ladder behind you, after you climbed.
What difference do realistic studies mean to this administration? They do not believe 98% of the world’s best scientific minds when the proof is all around us. “Do not confuse me with facts, my mind is already made up?.
AND
money speaks LOUD!!!!! Who cares about people when money is made by destroying the things that make life possible as well as those that make people/s lives livable?
“. . . researchers said they were able to estimate the effects of the program with a greater degree of precision. And that meant bad news for the program’s overall effect on student achievement.”
How does one “estimate the effects of the program with a greater degree of precision” when the data (standardized test scores) is COMPLETELY CORRUPT AND INVALID to begin with as proven by Noel Wilson in his never refuted nor rebutted 1997 treatise “Educational Standards and the Problem of Error” found at: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/577/700
There’s a saying that goes “crap in, crap out”. And that saying describes exactly these types of studies and conclusions. Oh sure, one can do all kinds of statistical manipulations on the variables and come up with all kinds of conclusions, none of which will be valid and mean anything rationo-logically speaking when using COMPLETELY INVALID DATA to begin with.
And as far as that vaunted and oh so holey* grail of the education world “student achievement”?? Don’t give a damn about that, never did as a parent for my children nor as a public school teacher for 21 years, especially if that “student achievement” was based on standardized test scores.
For those who believe in this utter nonsense of standardized testing and student achievement I can only say “Insane is as inane does.” Unfortunately that describes 99% of the current public school teachers and administrators who willingly GAGA** and implement those malpractices that harm all students.
*not misspelled
**GAGA = Go Along to Get Along
The Institute for Educational Initiatives at Notre Dame has the following in its, “About the Institute” tab (one of the voucher paper’s authors is a Fellow). (There is) “…a special-though not exclusive- call ” for Institute Fellows and affiliates, “…to sustain and strengthen ….Catholic schools.”