Archives for category: Research

Trump or Musk or a bunch of kids who work for DOGE decided that the U.S. doesn’t need to collect statistics or conduct research about the condition of education. So they wiped out the National Center for Education Statistics at the U.S. Department of Education. This is akin to closing down the Bureau of Labor Statistics. NCES is literally the only reliable, nonpartisan source of information about U.S. education. It is not partisan.

NCES is the heart of the U.S. Department of Education. Its purpose is to study “the progress and condition” of American education. It collects data and statistics about every aspect of American education. A bill was passed in 1867 to create an agency with that mission, and that was the beginning of NCES. At first, it was called the Department of Education, but two years later, it was renamed the Office of Education and placed in the Department of the Interior. In 1939, it was shifted to the Federal Security Agency, and in 1953 it became part of the newly created Departnent of Health Dducation and Welfare. In 1979, President Carter signed legislation creating the U.S. Department of Education, and in 1980, the Department began to function.

NCES has always been nonpartisan. It publishes an annual report called The Condition of Education, which is a valuable compendium of facts and trends that covers almost every aspect of education, from preschool through graduate studies. If you want to know the high school graduation rate over the past century, that’s the source. If you want to compare the graduation rates by gender or race, that’s there too.

NCES also oversees the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the federal testing program known as “the nation’s report card.” NAEP has a bipartisan governing board, which is appointed by the Secretary of Education and serves as a policymaking body.

During my time as Assistant Secretary of Education for the Office of Education Research and Innovation from 1991-93, NCES was in my domain. In 1998, Secretary Richard Riley appointed me to serve on the governing board of NAEP, which I did for seven years. There were parts of my domain that I might have offloaded, but with a scalpel, not a chainsaw.

Musk and his DOGE team just eviscerated not only the Department of Education by firing half its employees, but they laid waste to NCES.

Jill Barshay of The Hechinger Report has the story. The staff of NCES has been reduced from about 100 to 3. Three! I think that’s called a death certificate.

She began:

President Donald Trump promises he’ll make American schools great again. He has fired nearly everyone who might objectively measure whether he succeeds.

This week’s mass layoffs by his secretary of Education, Linda McMahon, of more than 1,300 Department of Education employees delivered a crippling blow to the agency’s ability to tell the public how schools and federal programs are doing through its statistics and research branch. The Institute of Education Sciences (IES) is now left with fewer than 20 federal employees, down from more than 175 at the start of the second Trump administration, according to my reporting. It’s not clear how the institute can operate or even fulfill its statutory obligations set by Congress. 

IES is modeled after the National Institutes of Health and was established in 2002 during the administration of former President George W. Bush to fund innovations and identify effective teaching practices. Its largest division is a statistical agency that dates back to 1867 and is called the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES), which collects basic statistics on the number of students and teachers. NCES is perhaps best known for administering the National Assessment of Educational Progress, which tracks student achievement across the country. The layoffs  “demolished” the statistics agency, as one former official characterized it, from roughly 100 employees to a skeletal staff of just three. 

“The idea of having three individuals manage the work that was done by a hundred federal employees supported by thousands of contractors is ludicrous and not humanly possible,” said Stephen Provasnik, a former deputy commissioner of NCES who retired early in January. “There is no way without a significant staff that NCES could keep up even a fraction of its previous workload…”

The mass firings and contract cancellations stunned many. “This is a five-alarm fire, burning statistics that we need to understand and improve education,” said Andrew Ho, a psychometrician at Harvard University and president of the National Council on Measurement in Education, on social media.  

Former NCES Commissioner Jack Buckley, who ran the education statistics unit from 2010 to 2015, described the destruction as “surreal.” “I’m just sad,” said Buckley. “Everyone’s entitled to their own policy ideas, but no one’s entitled to their own facts. You have to share the truth in order to make any kind of improvement, no matter what direction you want to go. It does not feel like that is the world we live in now.”

The deepest cuts

While other units inside the Education Department lost more employees in absolute numbers, IES lost the highest percentage of employees — roughly 90 percent of its workforce. Education researchers questioned why the Trump administration targeted research and statistics. “All of this feels like part of an attack on universities and science,” said an education professor at a major research university, who asked not to be identified for fear of retaliation. 

The future of NAEP is up in the air. The staff to oversee contracts for data collection, testing, and analysis of results is gone.

Please open the article and read it. This is a deliberate death-blow to the most important function of the U.S. Departnent of Education: the collection and dissemination of facts, data, statistics, and trends in the states and the nation.

Science magazine interviewed former leaders of the Institute for Education Sciences, where DOGE canceled scores of contracts. One thought it was great, the others thought it was alarming.

Science reports:

The sudden cancellation Monday of hundreds of millions of dollars of government contracts to collect information on the state of U.S. education will blind the government to important trends from preschool to college and beyond, according to education researchers angered by the move. The decision to terminate a reported 169 contracts at the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) follows other assaults on federal statistical agencies triggered by a slew of executive orders from President Donald Trump. It was orchestrated by the administration’s so-called Department of Government Efficiency led by Elon Musk, which said the cancellation affects $881 million in multiyear commitments.

Scientists opposed to the move say it promises to disrupt research on the problems in U.S. schools, including declining student mental health, the growing gap between low- and high-achieving students, and rising chronic absenteeism.

“In my view, the termination of these contracts is capricious and wasteful and cruel,” says sociologist Adam Gamoran, president of the William T. Grant Foundation, which supports research seeking to improve the lives of young people. “It’s taking a sledgehammer to what should have been a judicious process of evaluating those contracts, the vast majority of which are worth the investment…”

Education policy analyst James “Lynn” Woodworth led NCES during the first Trump administration and is now a research fellow at the Hoover Institution, a conservative think tank at Stanford University. Woodworth described to Science how the cancellations will affect nearly all federal education statistical efforts and the researchers who rely on the data.

Q: Why is ending these contracts such a big deal for NCES?

A: Unlike other federal statistical agencies, NCES can use only a tiny slice of the money IES gets from Congress to hire staff to carry out these duties. So it has to contract out almost all of its work. NCES has fewer than 100 employees, and more than 1000 contractors.

Q: What’s the immediate impact on the work now going on?

A: Some of these surveys are now in the field. For others, researchers are analyzing the data that’s been collected. All of that work is being stopped, immediately, which means all the money that’s been spent getting to that point is just wasted.

Q: What will happen to the data?

A: It’s not clear. NCES doesn’t have its own data center, because NCES has never been given the funds to set one up and hire people to run it. So the data are held by the contractors. And when their contract is terminated, is the money for data storage also being terminated?

Q: The Department of Education has said its decision won’t affect the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), dubbed the nation’s “report card,” a massive activity managed by NCES. But it relies on data from other NCES surveys that have now had their contracts terminated. What’s your take?

A: NAEP is based on the test results of a small but representative sample of U.S. students. To figure out which students or which school should be included in your sample, you need the data from the CCD [Common Core of Data, an NCES-managed database on students in U.S. public schools]. Another NCES survey, the PSS [Private School Survey], provides NAEP with the same data for private schools. Without the data from the CCD and the PSS [whose contracts are now terminated], you can’t select and create a proper sample. And that is true not just for NAEP. It will affect every researcher in the country who uses CCD as the frame for sampling and weighing of their survey population.

DOGE swept into the Institute of Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education and, following its advice, the Trump administration canceled $900 million in contracts. Bear in mind, this is the team of 20-somethings who knows a lot about software and coding. It’s unlikely that they know anything about education research.

This is the agency that I ran 30 years ago when I was Assistant Secretary of Education in the first Bush administration. At that time it was called the Office of Education Research and Improvement. I could have suggested some cuts, but certainly not $900 million!

What really bothers me is that this group of kiddies could not possibly know enough to judge the quality of the work they were canceling. Not in a day. Impossible. This was just a slash and burn operation.

ProPublica reported:

The Trump administration has terminated more than $900 million in Education Department contracts, taking away a key source of data on the quality and performance of the nation’s schools.

The cuts were made at the behest of Elon Musk’s cost-cutting crew, the Department of Government Efficiency, and were disclosed on X, the social media platform Musk owns, shortly after ProPublica posed questions to U.S. Department of Education staff about the decision to decimate the agency’s research and statistics arm, the Institute of Education Sciences.

A spokesperson for the department, Madi Biedermann, said that the standardized test known as the nation’s report card, the National Assessment of Educational Progress, would not be affected. Neither would the College Scorecard, which allows people to search for and compare information about colleges, she said.

IES is one of the country’s largest funders of education research, and the slashing of contracts could mean a significant loss of public knowledge about schools. The institute maintains a massive database of education statistics and contracts with scientists and education companies to compile and make data public about schools each year, such as information about school crime and safety and high school science course completion.

Its total annual budget is about $815 million, or roughly 1% of the Education Department’s overall budget of $82 billion this fiscal year. The $900 million in contracts the department is canceling includes multiyear agreements.

Heather Cox Richardson points out that Trump’s desire to cut the federal budgets threatens to undermine cancer research. Cutting cancer research? Yes. Is cancer research a “Marxist radical lunatic” or DEI activity?

Cancer research is important for all of us, regardless of our political views, or lack thereof. Why in the world would Trump want to cut its funding?

Yesterday the National Institutes of Health under the Trump administration announced a new policy that will dramatically change the way the United States funds medical research. Now, when a researcher working at a university receives a federal grant for research, that money includes funds to maintain equipment and facilities and to pay support staff that keep labs functioning. That indirect funding is built into university budgets for funding expensive research labs, and last year reached about 26% of the grant money distributed. Going forward, the administration says it will cap the permitted amount of indirect funding at 15%.

NIH is the nation’s primary agency for research in medicine, health, and behavior. NIH grants are fiercely competitive; only about 20% of applications succeed. When a researcher applies for one, their proposal is evaluated first by a panel of their scholarly peers and then, if it passes that level, an advisory council, which might ask for more information before awarding a grant. Once awarded and accepted, an NIH grant carries strict requirements for reporting and auditing, as well as record retention.

In 2023, NIH distributed about $35 billion through about 50,000 grants to over 300,000 researchers at universities, medical schools, and other research institutions. Every dollar of NIH funding generated about $2.46 in economic activity. For every $100 million of funding, research supported by NIH generates 76 patents, which produce 20% more economic value than other U.S. patents and create opportunities for about $600 million in future research and development.

As Christina Jewett and Sheryl Gay Stolberg of the New York Times explained, the authors of Project 2025 called for the cuts outlined in the new policy, claiming those cuts would “reduce federal taxpayer subsidization of leftist agendas.” Dr. David A. Baltrus of the University of Arizona told Jewett and Stolberg that the new policy is “going to destroy research universities in the short term, and I don’t know after that. They rely on the money. They budget for the money. The universities were making decisions expecting the money to be there.”

Although Baltrus works in agricultural research, focusing on keeping E. coli bacteria out of crops like sprouts and lettuce, cancer research is the top area in which NIH grants are awarded.

Anthropologist Erin Kane figured out what the new NIH policy would mean for states by looking at institutions that received more than $10 million in grants in 2024 and figuring out what percentage of their indirect costs would not be eligible for grant money under the new formula. Six schools in New York won $2.4 billion, including $953 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would allow only $220 million for overhead, a loss of $723 million.

States across the country will experience significant losses. Eight Florida schools received about $673 million, $231 million for indirect costs. The new indirect rate would limit that funding to $66 million, a loss of $165 million. Six schools in Ohio received a total of about $700 million; they would lose $194 million. Four schools in Missouri received a total of about $830 million; they would lose $212 million.

The Walton Family Foundation, which is the second largest funder of privately-run charter schools (first is the U.S. Department of Education, which dispenses $400 million a year to charters), wanted to create positive press about charter schools in Alaska. So they commissioned a study by two charter advocates, who produced the positive results Walton wanted.

Beth Zirbes teaches math and statistics in a high school in Fairbanks, Alaska. With her friend Mike Bronson, she reviewed the data in the state records and reached a different conclusion: charter schools are no better than neighborhood public schools, even though the charter students are more advantaged. Their article, with a link to their study, was published by the Anchorage Daily News.

What’s impressive about this study is that a high school math teacher bested a Harvard professor of political science. It just goes to show: Don’t be overly impressed by the author’s academic credentials. And, never believe any charter or voucher research funded by foundations that fund charters and vouchers.

Would you believe a study claiming that cigarettes do not cause cancer if the study was funded by Philip Morris or some other tobacco vendor?

Zirbes and Bronson wrote:

The governor has claimed in several newspaper pieces that Alaska charter schools are more effective than neighborhood schools, and that the charters should be modeled more widely. He’d seen reports by Paul E. Peterson and M. Danish Shakeel, sponsored by the Walton Family Foundation, showing that Alaska charter schools held top rank academically among other states on a federal test.

We value the good performance of many charter school students, but we were skeptical that charter schools were necessarily more effective at lifting students up. So we looked at state data to find out how much of the charter schools’ better scores might be attributed to the schools themselves versus what the students bring to the schools. Read our full report here.

The state’s data showed the governor’s takeaway was incorrect. He was wrong that Peterson’s study showed the superior effectiveness of Alaskan charter schools over neighborhood schools. First, Peterson’s study did not even look at neighborhood schools. Second, after we accounted for numbers of students poor enough to be eligible for reduced-price or free lunches, we found that charter schools and neighborhood schools did not statistically differ in their English language proficiency scores. Instead, the percentage of proficient students in both charter and neighborhood schools was closely related to family income.

Alaska charter schools, on average, are distinguished by high proportions of white students, higher family income and fewer English language learners. Alaska charter school student bodies, in general, don’t even resemble Lower 48 charter schools, let alone Alaskan neighborhood schools. Unfortunately, Alaskan charter students do resemble other Alaskan public schools in that a majority of them score below the state standards in reading and math.

The graph shows a decline in percentages of third to ninth-grade participating students who scored proficient or better on the state’s 2019 PEAKS assessment of English language arts with increasing school percentages of students poor enough to be eligible for free or reduced-priced lunch, in other words economically disadvantaged. Each point shows a public school in Alaska school districts having charter schools. Neighborhood schools are considered non-charter, brick-and-mortar schools including alternative and lottery schools managed by a school district. Data are from the Department of Education and Early Development.

One of the sure signs of an authoritarian regime is a passion to censor unwanted information, research, ideas, and history. The Trump administration is busy deleting scientific research at the Centers for Disease Control. Any studies that include data about LGBT+ people, women, or others whose existence is anathema to Trump and his Merry Band of Bigots is being purged. During the first Trump term, research about climate change was given the heave-ho, and scientists rushed to archive their work. Again, climate change is being buried in the archives of the EPA. Now the new Enemy of the State is DEI.

The Washington Post wrote about the censorship at the CDC here:

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention removed or edited references to transgender people, gender identity and equity from its website Friday, racing to meet a late-afternoon deadline imposed by the federal Office of Personnel Management.

Whole pages about HIV testing for transgender people, guidelines for use of HIV medication and information on supporting LGBTQ+ youth health were no longer available late Friday.
The material removed or edited includes extensive sets of data collected and used by researchers around the world, according to two employees who spoke on the condition of anonymity out of fear of retaliation. The data’s removal will have implications for researchers who have relied for decades on the comprehensive material collected by the vaunted public health agency.

One example of a set of data taken down was a survey by the Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System, conducted every two years to assess the health behaviors of high school students. The landing page for data about the survey was dark Friday afternoon and read: “The page you’re looking for was not found…”

Agency staff members were given a list of about 20 words and phrases to be used as a “guide,” according to a screenshot shared by one employee. The words include: gender, transgender, pregnant person, pregnant people, LGBT, transsexual, nonbinary, assigned male at birth, biologically male, biologically female, he/she/they/them. All references to DEI and inclusion are also to be removed.

The new regime is moving fast to obliterate inconvenient science writes TCinLA at his Substack blog, which is called “That’s Another Fine Mess.”

There is a scene toward the end of Act Two in “Rollerball” (the first release, starring James Caan, the one worth watching) in which “Jonathan E” is allowed to go to Geneva, where the computer that runs the world is housed, to ask questions of it. He finds that the computer is systematically “losing” history and data. The Librarian tells him that “He’s already lost the entire Twelfth Century.” Jonathan E realizes that there will never be a way to rebel against the corporate overlords who run the world in which he lives, because the people will never know any other alternative.

Or as George Orwell put it in “1984″: “Who controls the past, controls the future; who controls the present, controls the past.” In that novel – which it seems some people are adapting now as a user’s manual – the information Big Brother’s government didn’t want people to access ended up in “the memory hole.”

As bad as we thought things would be with the second coming of Cletus J. Dumbass’s Maladministration, the reality is far worse. We are only at day 12 of this maladministration, and the assault on historical knowledge and information is well underway.

The Theocrats who created Project 2025 know what Orwell knew, what the screenwriter of Rollerball knew, what those who study authoritarian movements know: if people do not have access to information, they have no way to separate lies from truth. They can then be ruled without fear of revolt.

Information at the Centers for Disease Control is disappearing as you read this. The agency has already removed all scientific data from public view.

On Thursday night, word began to spread through the scientific community that researchers should go to the CDC website and download their data immediately, because such data was about to disappear from the website, or be altered to comply with Maladministration II’s ongoing plan to remove from federal agencies any mention of gender, DEI, or accessibility. Scientists were up throughout the night, working to download information they needed for their continued work on such crucial issues as tracking viral outbreaks. (Remember back in 2020, at the outbreak of the pandemic, when Cletus said he wished they would stop testing people and reporting the results because “It doesn’t look so good for me”?)

Already, the data from the CDC’s Youth Risk Behavior Surveillance System has disappeared. The data from the Agency for Toxic Substances and the Disease Registry’s Social Vulnerability Index and the Environmental Justice Index are gone. The landing page for HIV data has vanished. The AtlasPlus tool, which holds 20 years of CDC surveillance data on HIV, hepatitis, sexually transmitted infections, and tuberculosis, is no longer available. The new “leaders” at the CDC have directed employees to scrub any mention of “gender” from the data it shares at the website, replacing it with “sex.”

The purge’s full scope is still unclear. The Atlantic obtained a document that revealed the government – as of Thursday evening – planned to target and replace several “suggested keywords” – including “pregnant people,” “transgender,” “binary,” “non-binary,” “gender,” “assigned at birth,” “cisgender,” “queer,” “gender identity,” “gender minority,” and “anything with pronouns” These terms represent demographic variables researchers collect when tracking the ebb and flow of diseases and health conditions across populations. If they are reworded, or even removed entirely from data sets to comply with the Executive Order issued the night of Enshittification Day, researchers and health-care providers will have a much harder time figuring out how diseases affect specific communities.

The legislative “explicit purpose” of CDC data is to guide researchers to places and people who most need attention. It is hard to understand how this decision benefits health, but it does benefit an ideological decision to delete the entire topic of transgender.

When questioned about this today, an HHS spokesperson said that “all changes to the HHS website and HHS division websites are in accordance with President Trump’s January 20 Executive Orders” on gender and DEI.

The government understands these changes could have scientific implications since the document directing a review of CDC content suggests some work could be altered without “changing the meaning or scientific integrity of the content;” any such changes should be considered “routine.” Changing other content, would require review by an expert since any alterations would risk scientific integrity.

However, the document does not specify how data would be sorted into the two categories, or who would make such decisions.

The fear among researchers is that entire data sets could be taken down, reappearing with demographic variables removed or altered to conform with the DEI restrictions, losing entire sections of data. Since the Executive Order defines sex as binary, this means transgender people and nonbinary people could be erased. Such data could include facts such as gay men have higher rates of STIs, but lower rates of obesity and that transgender women have higher rates of HIV, but lower rates of prostate cancer, or how various demographic subsets of Americans are most at risk from conditions including adolescent depression, STIs, and sex-specific cancers

At this time, groups of researchers are rushing to archive the CDC website in full.
An example of what is at stake: Mpox – popularly known as “Monkey Pox” – affects people differently, with men who have sex with men being the primary group likely to be infected with the disease. Possessing that knowledge allowed medical authorities to more efficiently allocate resources, including vaccines, bringing the epidemic under control before it affected Americans more widely.

Scrubbing data such as this would change how the government allocates funds for long-standing threats to public health; this will widen health-equity gaps, or reverse progress in combating such diseases. The rates of STIs have recently started to plateau in the U.S., after decades of steady increase. Altering data that focus interventions on transgender populations, or men who have sex with men, would undo those gains. If there is no data to prove a health issue is concentrated in a particular community, that gives the government justification to cut funding.
Since much of the data on the CDC website comes from states, once it becomes known this data-scrubbing is happening, some states (blue states) may become reluctant to share information with the federal government while other states (red states) might not collect that important information at all. This would make what information the government does have unreliable, creating a skewed picture of reality.

It is shocking to realize how Project 2025 amounts to a war against modern society. Those reading this who are older than 75 can remember what life was like without the polio vaccine, without the measles and mumps vaccines. I escaped polio, but I came down with both measles and mumps before age 5, and I can still remember how difficult dealing with those was. The only thing I can compare those events to was coming down with COVID two years ago, which I survived only because I immediately obtained Paclovid for early treatment. Knowing to do that was because information about the disease and its effect on older people was made public by the CDC. Without that information, I and a lot of other older people who came down with COVID then would literally not be here now.

Maladministration II has to be seen as the all-out attack on modern society that it is. It has to be opposed by all means available. These Enemies of America are a minority. Every poll shows that significant majorities – over 66% – of Americans oppose every single action Project 2025 plans to take in this assault.

I admit that in my wildest nightmares of this coming to pass, I didn’t think of such things as an all-out attack on modern science, as is happening now. But this clearly demonstrates the nature of the threat we face. They are The Enemy. In all things, in all ways.

Winston Churchill warned his people in a speech given on June 18, 1940 that they were threatened by “a new Dark Age made more sinister, and perhaps more protracted, by the lights of perverted science.” We actually face that situation now.

The one fortunate thing is that, so far, the enemy has proven themselves largely incompetent to carry out successfully their plans to destroy modern civilization. That doesn’t make them less dangerous, but we can resist them.

We have to.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is one of the premiere government agencies responsible for research in medicine and public health. NIH is the largest biomedical research institution in the world. Maintaining its scientific integrity is important for the U.S. and the world.

Trump appointed a leading opponent of vaccines to lead the NIH. Others in the medical profession have considered his views to be “fringe,” “extreme,” “out of the mainstream.” Of course, Trump’s choice of Robert Kennedy Jr. to be Secretary of Health and Human Services, which oversees NIH, has garnered many critics, who refer to him as an unqualified and dangerous quack. And then there is Dr. Oz, the hawker of vitamins on TV, as director of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. He is said to be a proponent of privatizing Medicare by pushing Medicare Advantage plans owned by private companies.

Why is Trump unleashing his fury on the nation’s public health services? If you know, please share.

Our esteemed reader, who posts under the name, “New York City Public School Parent,” has researched Trump’s nominee to lead the NIH.

She wrote:

Bhattacharya, like Bondi, like William Barr, gets a pass by a liberal media that ignores the worst of their political hackery and their history of dishonesty. Instead of characterizing their actions as corrupt, or demonstrating the utter lack of integrity these folks have, the so-called liberal media instead normalizes their worst actions and mischaracterizes those worst actions as simply “something that rabid partisans on the other side don’t like.” 

When the so-called liberal media was helping the right wing media amplify Bhattacharya’s hyped “evidence-based findings” – that covid was no more deadly than the flu, in spring of 2020, a real journalist, Stephanie M. Lee at Buzzfeed, was reporting on this “evidence” – the very problematic Santa Clara antibody study – financially supported by an airline owner who wanted the public flying again – where Bhattacharya’s doctor wife was caught lying to recruit affluent parents at her kids’ school to participate in a “random” study. Unlike the rest of the journalistic establishment, Lee did more than act as a stenographer, and in 2022 won the Victor Cohn Prize for Excellence in Medical Science Reporting. From their press release:

“She investigated a study by John Ioannidis and his colleagues [Bhattacharya and another hack] at Stanford that made a splash early in the coronavirus pandemic when it claimed to show COVID-19 was no more dangerous than the flu. Lee uncovered serious flaws in the study; her stories also showed that Ioannidis had organized an effort to lobby the White House against pandemic lockdowns before collecting any data and that the study had been secretly funded by David Neeleman, the founder of JetBlue and a vocal lockdown opponent.”

Bhattacharya is so lacking in integrity that he made Lee’s life hell for daring to report the truth — he accused her of going after his family (directly causing her to be threatened) because she told the truth – that his doctor wife had improperly solicited parents at her kids’ affluent school to be part of her husband’s “random” antibody study to help prove that covid was no more dangerous than the flu.

He also has a lot in common with Emily Oster – two economists guilty of unprofessionally hyping their very flawed data and getting lots of publicity because they were willing to use that flawed data to make claims that just coincidentally happened to support a dishonest Republican narrative. In both cases, far more credible researchers were correctly pointing out how problematic their “evidence” was – but the media ignored critics and amplified these two folks who were more than happy to hype the lie that indisputable evidence and data supported the Republican narrative about covid being no big danger. 

Later, quietly, these political hacks would make revisions to their data, because their critics were correct that they had hyped flawed data that supported right wing narratives.

Despite the fact that no credible researcher would have ever made the claims of certainty (their “data” proves it!), these two never lost an ounce of credibility despite their errors. 

Typical double standard – if you are helping the Republican narrative, your improper actions are barely mentioned and always spun as irrelevant, thus your reputation as a widely respected truth-teller remains intact in the liberal media. If you are telling the truth and the truth doesn’t support the right wing narrative, the so-called liberal media (in the interest of “balance”) will scrutinize your actions to find some misstep they amplify into a major scandal that suggests you should never be trusted.

Lee now writes for the Chronicle of Higher Education. Bhattacharya is still disparaging her for not acting like the more prominent reporters in the so-called liberal media who specialize in uncritically rewriting press releases amplifying the undisputed “data” and “evidence” supporting right wing narratives.

The media also hyped the Great Barrington Declaration, which had very few credible researchers in epidemology, medicine or science among their signees, but included fake doctors and doctors who were also dead serial killers.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/oct/09/herd-immunity-letter-signed-fake-experts-dr-johnny-bananas-covid

This morning the Network for Public Education released a new study called “Doomed to Fail” that examines charter school closures from 1998-2022. This is the first time that anyone has performed a comprehensive study of charter school failures.

The charter lobby has created a mythology that charter schools are more successful than public schools. As the study shows, the mythology is not true. What parent would choose a school that is likely to close in a few years?

Parents want to know if they can depend on a school being there not only when their children start but also when they finish. Based on a marketplace model with fewer regulations, the charter school sector is far more unstable than local public schools. 

While the fate of each school cannot be predicted, we can show trends.

Doomed to Fail: An analysis of charter school closures from 1998-2022 uses data from the Common Core of Data, the primary database on non-private elementary and secondary education in the United States, to determine charter school closure rates and the number of students affected when closures occur. The report analyzes charter school closures from 2022 to 2024 to determine the reasons why schools close and how much notice families receive. 

Charter schools come with no guarantees. And, as this report shows, in far too many cases, these schools were doomed to fail from the very start.

Here are some of the key findings of the report:

       -By year five, 26% of charter schools have closed

       -By year ten, nearly four in ten charters fail, rising to 55% by year twenty.

       -More than one million students have now been stranded by charter closures

       -Eight states have closure rates that exceed 45%. 

        -The inability to attract and retain students is the primary reason for failures.

     -The second most frequent reason is fraud and gross mismanagement.

     -Forty percent of closures are abrupt, giving insufficient warning.

      -School operators, not authorizers, initiate the majority of closures (blowing a hole in the “accountability” myth.. 

The report includes some pretty startling examples of charter shutdowns during the last two years, exposing corruption, mismanagment, and operators who did not bother to tell parents the school would be closing until just before it happened. There is also a section written by Gary Rubenstein on the failure of the Tennessee Achievement District. The report can be found here and the Executive Summary here.  

Scholars at Brown University and Stanford University recently released a study concluding that spending more on schools reduces child mortality.

The paper is titled “Priceless Benefits: Effects of School Spending on Child Mortality.”

The authors are: Emily Rauscher of Brown University; Greer Mellon, Postdoctoral Research Associate, Brown University; Susanna Loeb, Stanford University.

The authors’ summary:


The academic and economic benefits of school spending are well-established, but focusing on these outcomes may underestimate the full social benefits of school spending. Recent increases in U.S. child mortality are driven by injuries and raise questions about what types of social investments could reduce child deaths. We use
close school district tax elections and negative binomial regression models to estimate effects of a quasi-random increase in school spending on county child mortality. We find consistent evidence that increased school spending from passing a tax election reduces child mortality.

Districts that narrowly passed a proposed tax increase spent an additional $243 per pupil, mostly on instruction and salaries, and had 4% lower child mortality after spending increased (6-10 years after the election). This increased spending also reduced child deaths of despair (due to drugs, alcohol, or suicide) by 5% and child deaths due to accidents or motor vehicle accidents by 7%. Estimates predicting potential mechanisms suggest that lower child mortality could partly reflect increases in the number of teachers and counselors, higher teacher salaries, and improved student engagement.

Suggested citation: Rauscher, Emily, Greer Mellon, and Susanna Loeb. (2024). Priceless Benefits: Effects of School Spending on
Child Mortality. (EdWorkingPaper: 24-1008). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University:
https://doi.org/10.26300/s7t7-j992

Emily Rauscher
Professor of Sociology
Brown University
Box 1916
Providence, RI 02912
emily_rauscher@brown.edu


Greer Mellon
Postdoctoral Research Associate
Population Studies and Training Center and Annenberg Institute
Brown University
greer_mellon@brown.edu


Susanna Loeb
Professor of Education
Stanford University
482 Galvez Mall
Stanford, CA 94305
sloeb@stanford.edu

Jon Valant and Nicolas Zerbino of the prestigious nonpartisan Brookings Institution examined the Arizona voucher program and were surprised to find that it was a giveaway to the richest families in the state.

Voucher advocates did not like their findings and tried to discredit their analysis.

They responded here.

In May, we released a short Brookings report showing which families are most likely to get voucher funding through Arizona’s now-universal Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) program. The analysis isn’t complicated, and the results couldn’t be much clearer. A highly disproportionate share of Arizona’s ESA recipients come from the state’s wealthiest and most educated areas. That’s an important finding, even beyond Arizona, since this program is at the forefront of a wave of universal voucher initiatives that’s currently sweeping across red states (and some purple states). What happens with Arizona’s program could foreshadow what’s to come in many parts of the country.  

These universal (or near-universal) programs are much more threatening to public education systems than the smaller, more targeted voucher programs that preceded them. They raise concerns about fundamental issues such as civil rights protections and the separation of church and state. Early research and reporting points to ballooning state budgetswasteful spending, and tuition increases from opportunistic private schools. Meanwhile, hardly anything in the academic literature suggests that universal ESA programs will improve student performance. And yet, the push to remake the U.S. education system in the form of universal school voucher programs continues.  

Having entered the fray with our own analysis of a universal ESA program, we’ve gotten a close look at the information environment surrounding these recent initiatives. Suffice to say, it isn’t healthy, at least if we hope for a functional policymaking process. A network of pro-voucher interest groups, think tanks, funders, and politicians are filling an information vacuum with misleading data, faulty or disingenuous arguments, and advocacy that masquerades as research.  

Here, we’ll respond to four critiques we’ve heard from that crowd. Part of our goal is to show why their specific critiques of our work are baseless, misleading, or just kind of odd. In doing so, we also hope to illuminate how dangerous the information environment surrounding universal ESAs has become now that many state leaders are dragging their education systems into uncharted territory based on little more than ideology, political calculation, and a fingers-crossed hope that the voucher advocates aren’t leading them astray.  

Here are the critiques: 

Critique 1: We got our analysis wrong because someone else found something different  

Our main results are probably best summarized by Figure 1, below, which appeared in our original post. 

FIGURE 1

The Arizona ZCTAs (ZIP codes, basically) with the lowest poverty rates have the highest share of school-age children who received an ESA. The ZCTAs with the highest poverty rates have the lowest rates of ESA take-up. It’s an extremely straightforward analysis, and we provide a detailed description of what we did in the piece

Before we published our post, an organization called the Common Sense Institute (CSI) of Arizona—a “non-partisan research organization” with several staff members from former governor Doug Ducey’s administration—looked into a similar question. CSI’s chart, below, tells a completely different story from our chart. 

A misleading chart on ESA particicpation

CSI makes it look like relatively few wealthy families in Arizona get ESAs. So, why the discrepancy?  

It’s because CSI presented an apples-to-oranges comparison that’s bound to tell that story. The data issue is subtle, but they present ZIP code-level data for ESA recipients (blue bars, on the left) and household-level data for families (red bars, on the right). Many households in Arizona make $150,000 or more, so the far-right, red bar is quite tall. However, few ZIP codes have enough households earning more than $150,000 that the median household income rises above that threshold. As a result, many ESA recipients who earn more than $150,000 aren’t included in the $150,000+ category in this chart. Instead, these households—which earn more than $150,000 themselves but live in ZIP codes where the median income is below $150,000—are included in one of the other blue bars.  

Maybe that’s an innocent mistake, but it’s certainly not an accurate representation of which Arizona residents are getting ESAs. 

Critique 2: We didn’t place Arizona’s ESA program in the proper context of its other school choice programs 

Education Next published an article from Jason Bedrick of the Heritage Foundation that accuses us of omitting key context that, if presented, would markedly change the takeaways from our analysis. Bedrick points out that Arizona’s universal ESA program exists alongside several tax-credit scholarship programs (true) and that families are prohibited from participating in the ESA and tax-credit scholarships simultaneously (also true). He then shares a few numbers, does some hand-waving, and concludes that our “fatally flawed” analysis is deeply misleading because of this omission. 

Curiously, Bedrick doesn’t show the relative size of the ESA and tax-credit scholarship programs in Arizona. Here’s the obvious chart to illustrate that comparison—one that EdNext maybe could have requested before publishing yet another round of Heritage Foundation talking points on ESAs:  

FIGURE 3

These tax-credit scholarship (TCS) programs are small relative to a large-and-growing universal ESA program that’s projected to exceed $900 million this year. On top of that, most TCS dollars are going to recipients above 185% of the federal poverty level—the threshold for reduced-price lunch eligibility. (One note: the most recent numbers available for the ESA program come from FY24, while the most recent numbers available for TCS programs come from FY23.)   

In other words, this critique—which really isn’t about the universal ESA program we analyzed in the first place—doesn’t even point to context that meaningfully changes the interpretation of our data.  

It’s important to emphasize, too, that our analysis was primarily about the high-income households that are obtaining a disproportionate share of Arizona’s ESAs. In that post, we tried to present data in the most straightforward, defensible way possible. If our goal had been to present the most damning data possible, there’s more we’d have said.  

Here’s a doozy of an example. According to U.S. Census Bureau data, Arizona has 300 ZCTAs with at least 250 children under age 18. (The other 60 ZCTAs are smaller, which makes them difficult to analyze.) Of those 300 ZCTAs, the one with the single-highest take-up rate for ESAs (236 of every 1,000 children) is the one with the single-highest median household income (about $173,000).  

Critique 3: Arizona’s ESA program is too new to assess who will participate 

Maybe the most peculiar response we’ve seen is from Mike McShane of EdChoice, who published an op-ed in Forbes.  

McShane appeals to Everett M. Rogers’ “diffusion of innovation” theory, which suggests that new technologies and ideas are adopted sequentially by different groups (from early adopters to laggards). McShane asserts that we should expect wealthier and more educated families to be the early adopters of a universal ESA program. He implores us to “think of the first people to own a personal computer, or a cell phone. They started with tech nerds and the wealthy, and eventually worked their way to everyone else.”  

Let’s play a game of “one of these things is not like the others” with personal computers, cell phones, and a universal ESA program. Yes, we’d expect wealthier families to be the first to buy computers and cell phones. Those things cost a lot of money. A universal ESA program gives you money. We might expect poorer families—with fewer resources and potentially worse public-school options—to jump first at that opportunity. Even the usual dynamic of uneven information diffusion is complicated in this context, as the ESA program was available to families with children in low-rated schools long before it became universal.  

Regardless, there’s reason for concern that vouchers will be more exclusively adopted by the wealthy over time. Jason Fontana and Jennifer Jennings studied the early implementation of a universal ESA account in Iowa. They found that private schools responded to ESA eligibility by increasing their tuition. If this response continues to play out, we might see desirable private schools becoming unaffordable to low-income families that cannot cover a growing gap between the value of their voucher and cost of enrollment. In the long term, this creates a risk of extreme stratification across the public and private sectors.  

Chile may provide a glimpse of that potential future. In a 2006 paper in the “Journal of Public Economics”, Chang-Tai Hsieh and Miguel Urquiola analyzed a universal voucher program in Chile. They found suggestive evidence that “the main effect of unrestricted school choice was an exodus of ‘middle-class’ students from the public sector… [which] had a major effect on academic outcomes in the public sector.” These patterns, along with widening achievement gaps between rich and poor, led Chile to drastically modify that program.   

Critique 4: We’re targeting ESA programs when the real villains are public schools 

A fourth set of critiques presents more conceptual arguments about education reform. Perhaps the most data-infused of these comes from The Goldwater Institute, which notes that Arizona spends a great deal of money to “subsidize public school instruction” for wealthy families. It accuses us (and/or others) of a double standard in how we object to using government funds to pay for wealthy students’ private schooling but not public schooling.  

We think this critique reveals just how far the rhetoric surrounding universal ESAs has drifted from Americans’ traditionally held views about education. Americans have long accepted—in fact, embraced—a double standard for public and private schools. Our public education system, with all its flaws, has been a foundational institution for supporting the country’s economic, social, and democratic well-being. Americans have found a rough consensus on how to approach K-12 education: provide free public schooling to everyone (including the wealthy!), allow families to pay for private education if they’d like to opt out of the public system, and maybe create a few opt-out opportunities via school choice policy for those unable to pay. 

We’ve entered a period in which conservative lawmakers are confronted with legacy-defining decisions about whether to abandon that long tradition and embrace universal vouchers at the risk of kneecapping their states’ public education systems. Worse, they’re doing it in a polluted information environment that has plenty of loud voices but hardly any credible research to guide or support their decision-making. Now that a few states—including Arizona—have taken that risky leap of faith, the least we can ask of other state leaders is to wait and see what happens