The National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado invited scholar Chris Lubienski of Indiana University to review a recent publication of EdChoice (the new name of the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation), which summarizes what voucher advocates believe about the efficacy of vouchers. The publication is titled “The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice Programs, 2023 Edition.”
Not surprisingly, EdChoice concludes that vouchers are effective. Lubienski, however, is critical of the studies they include and those they exclude. In short, EdChoice engages in cherry-picking to bolster its cause.
While the report confidently asserts that school choice works, Lubienski says that the authors ignore recent studies that show the opposite to be true. For many students, vouchers are harmful.
If your district or state is under pressure to endorse vouchers, be sure to read this review.
Diane Ravitch's blog 
Thank you, NEPC, for calling out this propaganda masquerading as a “study.” The conclusion in the summary explains, “It suffers from study-selection issues, a mis-weighting of studies of varied value, and, most importantly, a simplistic and often misleading design that serious researchers consider “crude, flawed, and worthless.”
NEPC found that the longer students stayed in voucher schools, the academic outcomes worsened. Not all choice is a good choice. Some choices are worthless like vouchers. Vouchers are terrific for the ultra-wealthy as they compel the working class and senior citizens to help pay for the education of the children of affluent families, but for poor students vouchers are a pathetic substitute for an legitimate public education.
TRUE!
“But this means that the report sacrifices accuracy and integrity in favor of a comic-book-lev- el presentation which just happens to put in a more positive light a policy that has been shown to be hurting, and not helping, participants—by eye-opening levels—in every recent and large study. Certainly, even the admission of any negative impacts is itself notable, be- cause many choice advocates had previously claimed that there was no evidence that these programs hurt student learning.25 Indeed, earlier versions of EdChoice studies highlight- ed positive test scores without concern about their usefulness.26 However, the report now spends some three pages explaining to readers why they should not pay much attention to newer, rigorous research showing huge relative losses in learning—what it tries to wave away as simply achievement “test scores”—despite the expectation for higher test scores that EdChoice itself used as “one of the talking points that helped school choice pick up steam.”27 Such dismissals of achievement measures are not apparent in earlier EdChoice reports on positive test score outcomes.”
This is just another example of an organization try to use studies and statistics to mislead people into believing what the organization wants them to believe. This is no different then Trump and his minions still telling the lies that the election results were faults and that he actually one. If a lie is told enough times then it becomes the truth. This is exactly what EdChoice is doing. Telling lies based on faulty data and reports.
Yes, this item should be shared with school districts that are being overwhelmed by charter schools and their advocates. This item should also be shared at the state levels. In some states charter schools are authorized at the state level and taken out of the hands of the local districts where the charter school eventually end up.
The problem is that too many charter school authorizers do not read all the reports and statistics available for them to read about charter schools and the lack of actually student success. All they get to read or hear about is what the charter school advocates throw in front of them at the time of charter school application. All they get is the lies and misrepresentation of the actually facts based on quality verified statistics and reports.