Josh Cowen, professor of education policy at Michigan State University, reviewed a new Ohio voucher report by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, a conservative think tank that has a very large influence over education policy in Ohio. People who already support vouchers will like it, but it won’t change minds, Cowen concludes. Fordham previously sponsored an independent review by David Figlio and colleagues that concluded that children who used vouchers in Ohio fell behind their peers in public schools.
Cowen’s summary:
A report considers the chief concerns associated with Ohio’s voucher program: the harm to public school student outcomes through competition, the affect on district financial resources, and increased racial segregation. Finding that Ohio vouchers have had few such harmful impacts, the report concludes that it has effectively dismissed the primary concerns of voucher critics. Yet, while the report is broadly methodologically sound for the narrow questions it poses, the questions it asks are out-of-date with respect to current issues raised by voucher critics, which focus on substantially decreased student achievement among students using vouchers. Thus, the report does little to assuage the primary concerns of those dedicated to serving children through community-based public education.
The overview:
BOULDER, CO (February 21, 2023)—A recent report from the Thomas B. Fordham Institute considers the impacts of vouchers as related to competition in Ohio public schools, increased racial segregation, and local district financial resources. It presents these three issues as the chief concerns of voucher critics and finds few harmful impacts.
In Michigan State University professor Joshua Cowen’s review of The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics, he finds that the questions it asks are far too limited. While the report is methodologically sound for the narrow questions it poses, Professor Cowen contends that they are outdated with respect to current concerns raised by voucher critics, which focus on substantially decreased student achievement among students using vouchers.
The report also relies on more permissive standards for statistical inference than peer-reviewed articles would typically allow. Moreover, the Foreword, written by Fordham staff, gives the clear impression that the report is merely an effort to provide new data for privatization advocates, rather than to respond to legitimate concerns raised by voucher critics. The Foreword dismisses criticisms as “Chicken Little” and “sky-is-falling” histrionics, and in doing so undermines the work of the authors it hired to write the study.
Ultimately, Professor Cowen concludes, those who are ideologically predisposed to embrace voucher policies will doubtless find much to appreciate in this report. It does little, however, to assuage the primary concerns of those dedicated to serving children through community-based public education, and thus has little value in the debate over the use of vouchers as a public policy tool to improve education.
Find the review, by Joshua Cowen, at:
https://nepc.colorado.edu/thinktank/edchoice
Find The Ohio EdChoice Program’s Impact on School District Enrollments, Finances, and Academics, written by Stéphane Lavertu and John J. Gregg and published by the Thomas B. Fordham Institute, at:
https://fordhaminstitute.org/sites/default/files/publication/pdfs/edchoice-impact-report-12-14-22-web-final.pdf
Diane Ravitch's blog 
“ideologically predisposed”, the fundamental problem killing our democratic republic. How do we overcome it when at least 45% of Americans are comfortable about making their decisions based known, accepted lies and distortions to suit their assorted bigotries against people and institutions?
I read a revealing comment online today written by a high school teacher in Georgia (Steven Havick). The problem he describes is just one of several reasons why so many people support vouchers and deeply distrust the K-12 public school establishment.
“I spent 2003-2008 as a graduate assistant working on my PhD in the College of Education at the University of Georgia, a top 20 public university in the country. While there, I taught courses to undergraduates who were preparing to become k-12 teachers and I personally supervised almost a hundred students in their internships at local public high schools. The professors and instructors that I worked with, including myself I am ashamed to admit, actively indoctrinated our students into all forms of critical theory. I remember having meetings with my colleagues where we talked explicitly about giving those students who resisted our indoctrination lower grades and bad job recommendations (a virtual career death sentence for a young teacher trying to find that first job). I’ll never forget my main professor encouraging me by saying, “This is important work we are doing. This is our form of activism.” So, even in schools and districts where there is not an explicit program of critical theory, you can bet that virtually every teacher under the age of 40 or so was indoctrinated in critical theory in their teacher education programs and were instructed to incorporate it into their pedagogy and therefore indoctrinate the next generation in the k-12 schools.”
That’s odd. I worked at two prestigious university Ed schools, and I never heard anyone mention “critical theory.” They did teach critical thinking, meaning, don’t believe everything you read. That’s why I am doubtful that this grad student is speaking of “critical race theory,” which he never mentions.
He is obviously speaking of Critical Race Theory and other forms of critical theory – he used the term “critical theory”. Consider the date he wrote this long comment – today, when we’re in the midst of a contentious public debate over CRT. He uses the word “indoctrinate” and quotes a professor saying “This is our form of activism.” He didn’t include the word “race” but from the context Critical Race Theory and other critical theories are clearly what he means.
Becky,
I googled his name and could not find a source. Please supply the link to your source.
The opinion of one person is an anecdote, not evidence. Since Georgia is a state that twice elected Brian Kemp, I don’t think this alleged “indoctrination” was effective.
Since I believe in the validity of critical race theory, which identifies the sources of racism in law and policy, I fail to see the scandal here.
Don’t you think it is okay for graduate students to study the sources of racism?
One person is anecdote, but thousands of other teachers saying the same thing all across the country is a reasonable level of proof – that’s what has occurred. Steven Havick appears to be a now-retired high school teacher in Georgia. His name is uncommon enough that he is almost certainly the commenter on today’s Real Clear Education article.
https://opengovus.com/georgia-employee/steven-w-havick
Again, Becky, you are referring to a graduate-level course in critical race theory. Since Havick is retired, I assume he was in graduate school 30 or 40 years ago.
Critical race theory is a legitimate field of study. It certainly is useful and important today in understanding why Republicans are trying to indoctrinate students to believe that racism no longer exists today.
Newsbreak: racism permeated our society for hundreds of years. It exists today. If you wonder why, you are engaging in critical race theory.
If you think racism has magically disappeared, we live in different universes.
dianeravitch
Of course she is in a different Universe. 30 years ago I would bet there was not a Law School in the Country that taught the discipline . Probably not a Sociology Program on a Graduate School level that had specific course titles in the field. Which is not to say that race was not covered as part of other societal issues.
However I believe CRT was taught as part of teacher education program at the MTG school of Jewish Space Lasers
As some of my retired teacher friends have said “Lucky if we discussed race on MLK day. And that is in NY not Georgia.
CRT did not exist as a course of study 30 years ago. Lots of new disciplines have emerged, like environmental law.
I think CRT is a very important study, which is germane today in understanding the attacks on teaching honest history about the oppression of people of color. Also, CRT helps to explain how racists use MLK’s words about his children someday being judged “by the content of their character not the color of their skin” as a cudgel to oppose teaching Black history.
Joel, I personally have a Jewish Space Laser. Do you? I thought of using it to shoot down the Chinese spy balloon but decided to let the Air Force do the job.
Re-read the comment that Mr. Havick posted: he specifically refers to the time period 2003-2008, not 30-40 years ago. And he specifically refers to courses for future teachers going heavy on critical theory. He notes how students were effectively coerced into reciting the approved dogmas: “I remember having meetings with my colleagues where we talked explicitly about giving those students who resisted our indoctrination lower grades and bad job recommendations.”
Your last comment reflects once again the wild exaggeration that characterizes much of your writing these days: “…Republicans are trying to indoctrinate students to believe that racism no longer exists today.” I know a lot of Republican voters, both college-educated and not, and I read both conservative and liberal news and opinion outlets. I don’t know anyone who claims that racism no longer exists. In a huge country of 330 million people I’m sure there are some people like that, but the vast majority of people – including the vast majority of Republican voters – acknowledges that some racism still exists.
You take the far Left position on racial issues, a position that a solid majority of Black Americans doesn’t share. That’s your right in this free country. But there are many well-informed, non-racist people who don’t agree with you or with the extremes of CRT.
Becky,
I have read books about CRT.
Have you?
Please cite what you gave read and explain why you are afraid of a course that explores the origins of racism.
I knew Derrick Bell, the founder of CRT. He was not a Marxist or a leftist.
He was a highly respected lawyer and legal scholar.
Please explain why you find a graduate course in CRT frightening.
I think high school students and college students should debate CRT.
I also know Kimberlé Crenshaw, one of the best known authorities on CRT. She is brilliant, charming, thoughtful, fair-minded, and mellow. If you knew her, you would not be so frightened of ideas.
Becky,
You still haven’t given us a list of the “accepted dogmas” that you are so upset about.
You say you believe racism still exists, yet you want to censor any teacher from mentioning that racism still exists because you believe that white students and certainly their white parents would feel too badly if they learned that.
What are these “accepted dogmas” of CRT that you want to ban?
I find that when people have to write out what it is that they are so afraid of, they disappear because they know how racist they look when they insist that it is a “scandal” that a teacher who teaches that racism doesn’t exist should not be rewarded and promoted.
Will Becky Maganz give any details about the supposed “indoctrination” or are we just supposed to imagine the worst because she has no idea herself what that means?
Many anti-CRT advocates believe it is “indoctrination” to teach students that racism still exists. It’s very possible that Becky Maganz agrees with that, and that’s what she wants to censor all teachers from mentioning in class.
It’s disappointing but not surprising that you resort to personalizing this discussion: “Please explain why you find a graduate course in CRT frightening.” That’s not the point that this retired teacher was making in his comment. It’s forcing critical theory into the heads of future teachers as the only accepted viewpoint on race in America, and penalizing studenta who resist that theory. As for the teacher’s comment, click on the link and scroll down the comments; it’s within the first ten comments. That teacher was easily located on a Google search.
https://www.realcleareducation.com/articles/2023/03/01/can_the_right_make_a_long_countermarch_through_the_institutions_110833.html
Becky,
My comment was not ad hominem. It was not about you. It was about my experience over 50 years in prestigious Ed schools: Teachers College, Columbia University, and the NYU Steinhardt School. Never once did I hear a faculty member speak of “indoctrinating” students. I find it hard to believe that faculty members in Georgia were indoctrinating their students. As I said before, CRT is a study of the roots of racism. Scholars in the field disagree and debate. The effort to delegitimize the study of racism is itself racist.
Maybe Steven believed in The Lost Cause theory of the Civil War. Few scholars do.
dianeravitch
I was such a bad Jew, I was denied access to the space laser. But if I had been given one I might fry a few golf courses.
Diane,
I also did not make an ad hominem attack.
Becky Maganz is the one who posted what a Georgia teacher she trusts named Steven Havick said, which is that Steven “confessed” to indoctrinating teachers and his students.
Steven’s “confession” reads like a Communist show trial. What did Steven “confess” to? “Indoctrinating!” What kind of indoctrination? “CRT” What does that mean? “How dare you ask me to explain! ” “Indoctrination” is used multiple times. But there are ZERO examples of what Steven considers “indoctrination”. Since Steven intentionally avoids giving any specific examples of the thousands of times he “indoctrinated” others, Becky Maganz may be admiring a man who watches Fox News and is really angry that teachers have been “indoctrinated” from telling their students that Biden stole the election from Trump, the rightful president.
What makes Steven Havick a very untrustworthy reference for Becky Maganz to embrace is that he never provides any examples of what this supposedly dangerous “indoctrination” was. “CRT”? “Voter Fraud?” “Racism”? “Covid”? We are expected to simply accept that whatever it was is bad.
Remember, someone “confessing” to indoctrinating others about “election security” or “Covid” or “CRT” without giving specific examples could be an election-denier or a covid conspiracy theorist or a neo-Nazi. They could believe the earth is flat and be angry that they were “indoctrinated” into teaching that the earth isn’t flat. One should always be suspicious when those “confessing” to participating in indoctrination processes can’t actually tell you anything except that very dangerous indoctrination occurred!
Correct.
Becky limits her sources to those that are right wing. RealClear is one of them.
Two days max.
A questionable one-sided, suspicious anecdote from an allegedly disgruntled source who seems to be very difficult–to put it charitably–to identify. But it’s taken as gospel by the “contributor” despite volumes of actual evidence from people who are not afraid to hide their identities nor footnote their arguments clearly. In other words, “fake news” to at least 45% of Americans who couldn’t give a rat’s patoot about little things like the scientific method, apparently another form or communism…or socialism…or wokeism…and whatever isms await being unveiled soon.
I mean seriously folks. Consider: “I remember having meetings with my colleagues where we talked explicitly about giving those students who resisted our indoctrination lower grades and bad job recommendations.” Does this not sound like an SNL sketch that didn’t make it to air? How many teachers out there have had meetings where teachers have openly criticized students who “resisted our indoctrination”? Unreal.
Yes, Greg, I too found the language suspicious and absurd. I spent 50 years in academia and never once did I hear any Professor boast about or recommend “indoctrinating” students. That guy must be a rightwinger who loves Trump.
Yeah, there is a kind of “litter boxes in classrooms for students who identify as cats” fraudulence about her remarks.
GregB,
I agree, except there is not even an anecdote!
The totally low bar that “evidence” cited by anti-CRT folks has to meet is outrageous.
“I confess to indoctrinating students” does not even qualify as anecdotal evidence!
We don’t even have any idea what that means!!
Saying “I confess to indoctrinating students” without providing an anecdote to support it is just like what happens when some crazy guy walks into the police station and confesses to killing Marilyn Monroe. The police don’t take him seriously and they don;’t cite as “anecdotal evidence” someone’s vague confession of wrongdoing.
If they thought the man might be telling the truth, the first thing the police would do is get more details and information from the guy making the confession.
If they knew already the guy was lying, they would not waste their time getting details.
It seems like Becky Maganz must actually believe this teacher is lying just like police know a crazy guy making a confession is lying, because she would want more details if she believed him. Which means that she is very likely a racist troll posting lies.
Would you care to adduce, you know, the silly formality of solid evidence to support these contentions? I wouldn’t let my students get away with nonsense like your wild and utterly unsubstantiated comments. Are you sure you’re in the right place? Your rhetorical style screams NewsMax of Fox News, not a scholarly forum like this one. Also, “Critical Theory” is a term of art from the Frankfurt School and is not the same thing as “Critical Race Theory.”
How can anyone believe vague comments like “I actively indoctrinated our students into all forms of critical theory” without even ONE example of it.
For all we know, Steven Havick (and Becky Maganz) believe that telling white students that slavery was wrong is “indoctrinating them”.
For all we know, Steven Havick (and Becky Maganz believe that teaching white students that whites are not superior is “indoctrinating” them.
We do know that the anti-CRT crowd wants white and black students to learn that the real victims of racism are white people.
The vagueness of the post is very suspicious.
This comment, Ms. Maganz, makes ZERO sense. The term “critical theory” refers to, taken as a whole, the modern approaches to literary criticism. There are literally thousands of books on critical theory, or crit lit, or simply theory, and these differ dramatically from one another. Here, a summary of some of the major schools of critical theory:
Three things: First, I thought we were talking about vouchers, and when comments veer off topic into inciting argument about anecdotes, it’s usually considered trolling. Second, what’s the problem with teaching about race? Professors have academic and otherwise freedom of speech. Third, if anyone is saying that voucher schools don’t indoctrinate students, that would be incorrect.
LCT, good points.
The important thing to remember about religious schools is their main purpose is indoctrination into the faith. The purpose of public schools is to help young people grow into independence and find their purpose.
It’s pretty sad that Becky Maganz cites a piece from right-wing writer, who lies incessantly, and the rabid right-wing responses to that article as some kind of authoritative and accurate depiction of Critical Race Theory.
It isn’t. The piece is a right-wing diatribe followed by bitter – and dangerous – right-wing lies. Some examples:
“Our K-12 system stands as a monstrous edifice to totalitarianism and “central planning” – the enemy of Liberty. Burn it to the ground.”
“We who believe in free speech, the rule of law, the constitution and other pillars of traditional America need to fight back, hard, against the nasty, vicious, intolerant left, which as the author says, have poisoned almost every institution in America with their evil hatred of white people and America itself.”
“add vouchers to the mix, and expand the number of charter schools. And then sit back and watch the Marxists scream bloody murder.”
This is all stupid and toxic stuff. But Becky Maganz seems to revel in it.
Unhealthy, Becky.
Isn’t it the Fordham report that is being faulted, not the NEPC report.
Shouldn’t the headline read “Ohio: New FORDHAM Report Faulted for Cherry-picking Data”
or
“Ohio: New NEPC Report Faults FORDHAM for Cherry-picking Data
You are right and I am correcting the title
Fixed it.
If the following, taken from internet pages is inaccurate, I welcome the opportunity to retract.
Gregg’s cv indicates 11 work years with Archbishop Carroll High school, a year with a charter school and a year with the Alliance for Catholic Education at Notre Dame. He is a graduate of Notre Dame and Xavier. He is a PhD student (Levantu, his advisor?)
Levantu’s cv shows under the heading, “Funding,” the 3 most recent, 2019-2022, are Fordham. The 5 next older on the list, indicate other sources dating from 2015 and earlier.
One of the paper’s peer reviewers has co-authored papers with Patrick J. Wolfe (University of Arkansas) and JP Greene (the Koch’s Heritage Foundation). The grants section of the reviewer’s cv shows about $600,000 from the Walton Family Foundation, $12,000 from the National Alliance of Charter Schools, $30,000 from AEI.
For you, Linda. Not sure whether to laugh or cry:
https://crooksandliars.com/2023/03/theyre-grooming-kids
The guy who speaks in the video seems marginal.
It appears that he is responding to the natural instinct to want to be part of something bigger than oneself. Unfortunately, he chose not to be discerning or is incapable of finding a worthy cause. Tucker Carlson, Moms for Liberty and, people like them prey on those people.
Fordham writes white papers to support whatever position, however ludicrous, is taken by the folks who write the checks to it. Call it what it is:
The Fordham Institute for Securing from Oligarchs Big Paychecks for the Officers of the Fordham Institute for Securing from Oligarchs Big Paychecks for the Officers of the Fordham Institute for . . .
ad infinitum, ad nauseam
So, whenever, say the Billy Gates Foundation for Trashing U.S. Education issues a proclamation (we need small schools; advanced degrees for teachers don’t matter; class size doesn’t matter; the Common Core is Holy Writ; Bill Gates is the greatest educational theorist in the history of the universe; districts need merit pay systems keyed to test scores; grass is pink and the sky is made of marmalade), you can count on Fordham cranking up the white paper generation machine to parrot the nonsense. And pretend that it’s being scientific. Though they don’t go to a lot of trouble, there. In general, what they produce is transparently B__sh___.
A few points-
Should Fordham’s campaign be viewed in the context of the receptiveness of the state’s top government- right wing Catholic? As a political strategy, does divorcing Fordham’s privatization push in Ohio, from its primary beneficiary, Catholic schools, work for public school advocates? It’s apparent that the omission tactic is employed by the right wing, should their opponents buy-in to the same strategy? And, when they do, what is the cost?
Very little is written about the Koch connections to the right wing church. However, the National Catholic Reporter provided the following for its readers. “John and Carol Saeman raised eyebrows when they penned a Wash. Post op ed, ‘For us promoting limited government alongside the Kochs is…heeding (the Pope’s) call to love and serve the
poor.’ ” The article’s author describes, “Catholic social teaching…motivates…their (the Saeman’s) financial support for Freedom Partners, a non-profit funded by David and Charles Koch.” (NCR on-line, “Napa Institute gathers US Church’s well heeled and high ranking devout”)
The Saemans are prominent in the Denver Legatus (Tim Busch’s organization) chapter. Reportedly, the Saeman’s fund the Susan B Anthony List.
The work of conservative Catholic, Paul Weyrich, who co-founded ALEC, the Heritage Foundation and the religious right was funded by the Koch’s. Weyrich had great success. Taxpayers have made Catholic organizations the nation’s 3rd largest employer. Weyrich’s training manual introduced the idea of parallel schools as a means to undermine public education.
The Washington DC -based right wing religious organization, EPPC, led by a conservative Catholic, posted a statement at its site against CRT. The paper was described as delivered, “to the Ohio Legislature.”
My knowledge about WW II history is limited. I came across the name Charles Maurras for the first time recently. Reportedly, one of Maurras’ fans is Steve Bannon.
https://www.cleveland.com/news/2023/03/backpack-bill-universal-school-vouchers-could-cost-up-to-11-billion-a-year-according-to-state-estimate.html