Archives for category: Vouchers

Charles Foster Johnson is a Baptist minister in Texas and founder of Pastors for Texas Children.

He wrote an op-ed in the Houston Chronicle about the threats that vouchers pose to religious liberty, and his specific concern that Brett Kavanaugh endangers religious liberty because of his hostility to the wall of separation, which protects the church from the intrusions of the state.

He writes, in part:

For nearly 150 years, our state Constitution has included a “no-aid” clause that protects the religious freedom of all Texans by ensuring that public funds are not used to support any private religious school or religious denomination. In fact, the Texas Constitution’s ironclad, explicit requirement for the Texas State Legislature to “make suitable provision for the operation and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools” was in direct reaction against Texas settlers’ taxes having to underwrite religious schools at the founding of our state.

Our message and movement to protect and preserve religious liberty by opposing private-school vouchers has now spread to Oklahoma, Tennessee and Kentucky and will soon launch in a number of other southern and midwestern states, where voluntary religious faith is so central. Simply put, we want the government to stay out of this intensely personal arena of our lives.

If Kavanaugh joins the Supreme Court, I fear it will strike down this “no-aid” clause and similar clauses that exist in 37 other state constitutions. This reversal would allow state money to flow to religious schools. A flurry of state-funded voucher programs would soon follow, putting both religious freedom and our children in peril.

At last, a gubernatorial candidate who wants to rebuild public education and throw out the profiteers, frauds, and grifters! Voters in Florida have a chance to clean the Augean stables and elect a great Governor for public education!

The Network for Public Educatuon Action Fund is thrilled to endorse Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida!

The Network for Public Education Action is proud to announce its endorsement of Andrew Gillum for Governor of Florida.

Andrew Gillum is a strong supporter of public education and he calls Florida’s corporate school reforms “a failure.” He has proposed a $1 billion increase in funding for public schools, which would include a minimum starting salary of $50,000 for teachers and an expansion of Pre-K opportunities.
Mr. Gillum believes that high-stakes testing reforms have failed our students and schools.

When it comes to charter schools and vouchers, Andrew Gillum had the following to say:

“Charter schools have a record of waste and unaccountability that we would never tolerate from public schools. Yet, our state’s education budget continues rewarding charter schools at the expense of public schools; for example, the 2018-19 budget allocates $145 million to charter school maintenance — three times the amount allocated to public schools. As a product of Florida’s public schools, I believe we make a promise to our state’s children to provide high-quality, accessible, public schools. We weaken that promise every time we divert taxpayer funds into private and religious education that benefits some students, but not all.”

On November 6, please cast your vote for Andrew Gillum.

The North Carolina Council of Churches has joined with parents and other supporters of public education to push back against the privatization movement in North Carolina.

“NC Faith Leaders for Public Education Training in Salisbury
9:30-11:30 a.m. Sept. 12
The Council has committed anew to support public schools in our communities and to advocate on behalf of public education in our state. In this two-hour session, learn to engage in both support and advocacy by joining NC Faith Leaders for Public Education, a network of faith leaders and community members committed to supporting public schools.
https://www.ncchurches.org/priorities/public-education/ to learn more about NC Faith Leaders for Public Education.”

Their help is desperately needed.

The barbarians are inside the gates.

Radical extremists gained control of the legislature in 2010 and enacted an agenda that will intensify inequality, restrict voting rights, and crush public education. The courts have repeatedly struck down their gerrymandered districts. The Tea Party legislature enacted charter schools, including for-profit charters; vouchers; online charter schools; replaced the highly successful North Carolina Teaching Fellows program (which prepared career educators) with Teach for America; and waged war on the teaching profession.

North Carolina was once the most progressive state in the South. No more.

The Grand Canyon Institute of Arizona audits the use of tax dollars that are spent for public and private schools. Under Governor Douglas Ducey, the state has been very generous to private, religious, and charter schools, but not with public schools.

Here is its latest report:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Contact:
Dave Wells, Research Director
dwells@azgci.org, (602) 595-1025 Ext. 2
Amy Pedotto, Communications Manager
apedotto@azgci.org, 602-595-1025, Ext. 3

State pays $10,700 subsidy for private school students;
75 percent more than their public school peers

Phoenix — According to a new policy paper, Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs cost the state $10,700* on average per regular education student who would not otherwise have enrolled in private school. This imposes an additional $62 million expense on the state’s General Fund.

Published by the non-partisan think tank the Grand Canyon Institute (GCI), the policy paper $10,700 Per Student: The Estimated Cost of Arizona’s Private School Subsidy Programs looks at how the state’s two private school subsidy programs — private school tuition tax credit scholarships and Empowerment Scholarship Account (ESA) vouchers — have impacted private school enrollment and then estimated a per student cost to taxpayers. The paper looks at regular education students; it does not include students with disabilities because of the significant cost differences in providing their education.

The study’s findings also include that:

The estimated cost per subsidized private school student has increased $700 in the two years since GCI first analyzed the cost of the subsidy programs in Arizona.

On average, taxpayer-funded private school subsidies cost an additional $4,700 or 75 percent more per student than the $6,000 the state pays to educate a regular education public school student when paid entirely from state funds.

In 2015-16, private school subsidies cost Arizona’s General Fund a total of $141 million, nearly a 50-fold increase from $3 million in 1999-2000.

In 2015-16, GCI estimates that 13,170 students who used the taxpayer-subsidized program would have attended public school if the scholarships and vouchers were not available.

Private school as a percentage of total student enrollment has declined from 5.9 percent to 4 percent since Arizona first introduced a private school subsidy in the late nineties. An increase in the percentage of private school enrollment would have occurred if the programs were more effective.

“GCI’s research of academic studies found that lower income families using similar subsidy programs in other states frequently had negative academic impacts compared to public school peers,” Wells says. “The study raises questions about the efficacy of private school subsidy programs as voters are asked to expand Arizona’s ESA voucher program with Prop. 305 this November.”

George Cunningham, GCI’s board chair and former state legislator, commented, “Arizona can’t afford fiscally irresponsible private school subsidies that siphon money away from its public education system. These subsidy programs are placing an increasing burden on the state’s General Fund meanwhile research shows they provide no academic benefit when comparing demographically similar students attending public and private schools.

“Given these facts, it is appropriate to ask why our state government would continue tuition tax credit scholarships and seek to expand ESA vouchers to the general education population. At a minimum, it is strongly recommended that the total amount in tuition tax credit scholarships a student can receive be limited to the amount paid by the state for regular education public school students similar to ESA vouchers.”

What are Arizona’s two private school subsidy programs?

Tuition tax credit scholarships were introduced two decades ago. They divert individual and corporate taxpayer dollars from the state’s General Fund, providing donors a dollar-for-dollar reduction in taxes owed while decreasing the state’s revenue. GCI’s research found that in many cases students are receiving more than one tax credit scholarship by applying for funding from multiple School Tuition Organizations (STOs), the private organizations that accept tuition tax credit donations and distribute them to students.

ESA vouchers were introduced in 2011. Distributed by the state’s Department of Education and financed from the General Fund, ESA vouchers allow certain categories of students to attend private schools such as those with disabilities, students from D and F rated public schools, foster children and children of veterans. GCI’s paper did not include vouchers used by students with disabilities in its analysis due to the significant cost differences in meeting their needs. In November 2018, Prop. 305 will give Arizona’s voters the opportunity to decide whether ESA vouchers should be made available to all students, a significant expansion to the program.

Click here to read the full report.

*Methodology:

First, GCI’s analysis estimated that 13,710 out of 46,252 regular education students attending private school in Arizona did so because of the state’s private school subsidies. The ratio of Arizona to US private school enrollment as a portion of all students (0.45) was the dependent variable used in the regression analysis to control for any factors outside of Arizona that impacts private school enrollment such as recessions or economic growth. All of these factors impact private schools generally and would not have a separate impact on Arizona’s private schools. The analysis’ independent variables were the state’s enrollment growth of charter schools and private school subsidies because in both cases Arizona far exceeds the national average.

Next, GCI determined the cost of private school subsidies to the state, for those regular education students that chose private school because of the subsidy programs. This amount was calculated based on the total value of subsidies allocated for regular education students ($140,874,776) divided by the number of students that opted for private school due to the subsidies (13,710). GCI determined that subsidies cost the state an average of $10,700 per regular education private school student for those that would have attended public school if the private school subsidy programs weren’t available.

Finally, Arizona’s private school subsidies cost $140,874,776 for regular education students who would not have otherwise attended a private school. For this analysis, GCI uses the cost of educating a charter school student ($6,000) for comparison because the state government uses this amount to determine the value of ESA vouchers for a regular education student. The cost of educating a charter school student is used in GCI’s analysis because they are completely state funded, whereas the cost of educating a public district school student varies per district based on a state and local funding. (This provides a more conservative comparison because the average cost of educating a regular education student in a district school is less than a charter school.) Arizona would have spent $82,260,000 to educate taxpayer-subsidized private school students if they had attended a charter school instead. Therefore, Arizona’s private school subsidies increased the cost of educating these regular education students by $4,700 each or $62 million in total.

If information like this matters to you, please consider a tax deductible donation to the Grand Canyon Institute to support our continuing work.

This morning, the Network for Public Education Action has published a major report on the role of Big Money in buying elections to control education and undermine democracy.

“Hijacked by Billionaires: How the Super Rich Buy Elections to Undermine Public Schools” examines several districts/states where the super-rich have poured in money from out-of-state to buy control of school boards and buy policy, with the goal of advancing privatization.

The case studies include: Denver, Los Angeles, Newark, Minneapolis, Perth Amboy, N.J., Washington State, New York City, Newark, Rhode Island, and Louisiana.

This carefully documented report deserves your attention. It names names.

The rich use their money to steal democracy and local control.

Their only idea is privatization. They use their vast wealth to take away what belongs to the public.

Read it. Share it with your friends and colleagues. Post it on social media.

If you want to help the Network for Public Education and the Network for Public Education Action Fund continue its work to support public education, sign up, donate, come to our annual meeting in Indianapolis on October 20-21.

The Washington Post has a new national education writer, Laura Meckler. She published an excellent article yesterday about the big-time failure of Betsy DeVos to accomplish anything in D.C. as Secretary of Education.

Despite Republican control of Congress (for now), her budget proposals have fallen flat. She arrived with Trump’s promise to transfer $20 Billion from other federal programs to create a federal school choice program for charters, vouchers, and online schools. That went nowhere. She has repeatedly proposed a $1 Billion plan for school choice. Congress rejected it.

Her only victory was to get a big increase in charter school funding, now up to $450 Million. This despite the GAO report in 2016 warning of waste, fraud, and abuse in the charter industry.

DeVos has helped to galvanize the opposition to school choice and to energize supporters of public schools, who now recognize that charters and vouchers take money away from public schools, a traditional community institution whose doors are open to all.

She is such a toxic figure, her contempt for public schools is so evident, her arrogance and snobbishness so transparent, that she has alienated even some Republicans. Many rural Republicans treasure their local public schools. As Meckler shows, conservatives are divided over the DeVos effort to create a federal school choice plan. Libertarians fear (rightly) that federal funds will be accompanied by federal regulations.

From our point of view, as supporters of public education, DeVos has been the gift that keeps on giving. She remains deeply uninformed about education policy. Her solution to everything is School Choice. She is a champion of charters, stripping away their thin progressive veneer. She wants to roll back civil rights protections for everyone but accused rapists. She has removed protections for students defrauded by for-profit “colleges,” while stopping federal efforts to regulate the institutions that defraud students.

In short, if you care about public schools and civil rights and the ability of students to get a good education, she is a disaster on all fronts.

The fact that she became a national figure at the very time that Research converged on the negative effects of vouchers was fortuitous. Similarly, the growing national recognition that the charter industry is rife with waste, fraud, and abuse undermines her cause.

Now our goal must be to convince members of Congress, especially Democrats, to stop acting as the biggest funder of charter schools, whose aggressive expansion hurts public schools, you know, the schools that enroll 85% of America’s students.

Jeb Bush has been promoting school choice and disparaging public s hoops for years. Betsy DeVos was a member of the board of his Foundation for Excellence in Education until Trump chose her as Secretary of Education.

Jeb Bush invented the nutty notion of giving a letter grade to schools.

Jeb Bush zealously believes in high-stakes standardized testing and VAM. In Jeb’s Odel, Testing and letter grades are mechanisms to promote privatization.

Who funds his foundation?

See the list here.

The biggest donors in 2017 were Gates, Bloomberg, and Walton, each having given Jeb more than $1 Million for his privatization campaigns.

Trump’s nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court Brett Kavanaugh—like his first nominee Neil Gorsuch—is good news for voucher advocates. He is the linchpin to achieving Betsy DeVos’s dream of sending public money to religious and private schools, despite the fact that many teach creationism as science, exclude LGBT students and staff, and teach bizarre doctrines. When Democrats regain control of the institutions of government, they should be sure to establish strict government regulations that establish strict accountability for private and religious schools that take public money so that they are held to the same standards of curriculum, testing, teacher qualifications, and non-discrimination as public schools.

The New York Times reports on his record of challenging the “wall of separation” between church and state.

“Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, in a speech last year, gave a strong hint at his views on taxpayer support for religious schools when he praised his “first judicial hero,” Justice William Rehnquist, for determining that the strict wall between church and state “was wrong as a matter of law and history.”
Mr. Rehnquist’s legacy on religious issues was most profound in “ensuring that religious schools and religious institutions could participate as equals in society and in state benefits programs,” Judge Kavanaugh, President Trump’s nominee to succeed Justice Anthony M. Kennedy on the Supreme Court, declared at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative research organization.

“Words like that from a Supreme Court nominee are breathing new life into the debate over public funding for sectarian education. Educators see him as crucial to answering a question left by Justice Kennedy after the Supreme Court ruled it unconstitutional for the state of Missouri to exclude a church-based preschool from competing for public funding to upgrade its playground: Can a church-school playground pave the way for taxpayer funding to flow to private and parochial schools for almost any purpose?

“Over his decades-long legal career, Judge Kavanaugh has argued in favor of breaking down barriers between church and state. He has filed friend-of-the-court briefs in support of school prayer and the right of religious groups to gain access to public school facilities. He was part of the legal team that represented former Gov. Jeb Bush of Florida in 2000 when he defended a school voucher program that was later ruled unconstitutional. The program had used public funds to help pay the tuition of students leaving some of the state’s lowest-performing schools for private or religious schools.

“School voucher champions see Judge Kavanaugh as a critical vote in overturning longstanding constitutional prohibitions, often called Blaine Amendments, that outlaw government funding of religious institutions in more than three dozen states. The amendments have been used to challenge programs that allow taxpayer funding to follow children to private and parochial schools, and are seen as the last line of defense against widespread acceptance of school voucher programs.”

Someone is trying to pull a fast one on the people of Florida. Voters are supposed to consider an amendment to the State Constitution that bundles several different proposals into a single amendment, to the utter confusion of voters, who will not be able to vote individually on the proposed changes.

The former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Florida filed a brief to the panel of his former colleagues, asking that they either seek justification for this bundling or toss it off the ballot.

How can it be possible to justify an effort to mislead and trick voters?

One member of the Constitutional Revision Commission was Patricia Levesque, who heads Jeb Bush’s foundation; she said that the state constitution was obsolete because it did not contemplate the creation of charter schools, online education or other innovations of the current era. Another Commission member is a charter school founder, who claimed that the current wording in the state constitution was designed to protect the “education monopoly.”

Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead has asked his former panel to require justification for why six proposed constitutional amendments including Amendment 8 should remain on the November ballot, or to toss them out.

Anstead, joined by former Florida Elections commissioner Robert Barnas, contend in their filing to the state Supreme Court that the six proposals from the Constitution Revision Commission are unconstitutionally bundled, preventing voters from making a simple “yes” or “no” decision on them.

They challenge Amendment 8, which includes three ideas collectively grouped under education, as well as amendments 6 (rights of crime victims), 7 (first responder and military survivor benefits), 9 (offshore oil drilling and vaping), 10 (state and local government structure), and 11 (property rights).

Their key argument:

“Petitioners submit herein that each and every one of the foregoing proposed revisions bundles independent and unrelated proposals in a single ballot question in a manner that requires a voter to vote ‘yes’ for a proposal that the voter opposes in order to vote ‘yes’ for an independent and unrelated proposal the voter supports and to vote ‘no’ for a proposal the voter supports in order to vote ‘no’ for an independent and unrelated proposal the voter opposes. This is logrolling and a form of issue gerrymandering that violates the First Amendment right of the voter to vote for or against specific independent and unrelated proposals to amend the constitution without paying the price of supporting a measure the voter opposes or opposing a measure the voter supports.”

The plaintiffs recognize the CRC’s ability to propose a comprehensive revision of the state constitution. However, they argue, this would require several discrete amendments and not a single overarching one.

The CRC has instead bundled independent and unrelated items, they argue: “All are beyond the power the Constitution has bestowed upon the Constitution Revision Commission and must be removed from the ballot.”

Additionally, regarding Amendment 8, they specify that the proposal does not clearly state its intent.

“This ballot language is clearly and deceptive misleading because it does not disclose to the voter that the proposed amendment to Article IX § 4(b), adding the language ‘established by the district school board,’ eliminates the constitutional requirement in Article IX § 1(a) that Florida have a uniform …system of free public schools, which has been a continuous constitutional imperative in Florida beginning with the Constitution of 1868. This measure seeks sub silentio to subvert decisions such as Bush v. Holmes, 919 So. 2d 392 (Fla. 2006),” they write. “This subterfuge must not be perpetuated upon Florida voters.”

One senses the hand of Jeb Bush in this subterfuge.

Never forget: Dark money never sleeps.

This is a quote from the first link, dated August 14, 2018:

Retired Florida chief justice Harry Lee Anstead has asked his former panel to require justification for why six proposed constitutional amendments including Amendment 8 should remain on the November ballot, or to toss them out.

Anstead, joined by former Florida Elections commissioner Robert Barnas, contend in their filing to the state Supreme Court that the six proposals from the Constitution Revision Commission are unconstitutionally bundled, preventing voters from making a simple “yes” or “no” decision on them.

They challenge Amendment 8, which includes three ideas collectively grouped under education, as well as amendments 6 (rights of crime victims), 7 (first responder and military survivor benefits), 9 (offshore oil drilling and vaping), 10 (state and local government structure), and 11 (property rights).

Their key argument:

“Petitioners submit herein that each and every one of the foregoing proposed revisions bundles independent and unrelated proposals in a single ballot question in a manner that requires a voter to vote ‘yes’ for a proposal that the voter opposes in order to vote ‘yes’ for an independent and unrelated proposal the voter supports and to vote ‘no’ for a proposal the voter supports in order to vote ‘no’ for an independent and unrelated proposal the voter opposes. This is logrolling and a form of issue gerrymandering that violates the First Amendment right of the voter to vote for or against specific independent and unrelated proposals to amend the constitution without paying the price of supporting a measure the voter opposes or opposing a measure the voter supports.”

The plaintiffs recognize the CRC’s ability to propose a comprehensive revision of the state constitution. However, they argue, this would require several discrete amendments and not a single overarching one.

The CRC has instead bundled independent and unrelated items, they argue: “All are beyond the power the Constitution has bestowed upon the Constitution Revision Commission and must be removed from the ballot.”

This is the second, published April 16, 2018:

Despite calls to treat each idea separately, the Florida Constitution Revision Commission has sent a proposal to voters that would set school board member term limits, require civic education in public schools, and allow for the creation of a state charter school authorizer.

Commission member Roberto Martinez, a former State Board of Education chairman and key legal adviser to Jeb Bush, pressed the panel Monday to unbundle the package [P 6003].

The portion to give control of some public schools to an entity other than a local school board would be a “game changer” that would radically alter public education governance, Martinez argued. Voters should have a clear understanding of the proposal and then decide on its own merits — not because it’s tied to another concept, he said.

“These are three separate issues,” former state senator Chris Smith said in agreement. “I don’t even realize how I’m going to vote. I’m strong on some of it. I’m against some of it.”

The opposition reflected a growing drumbeat across Florida, where several organizations have raised concerns about the “power grab” they suggested Republican government leaders are attempting. They had a coordinated campaign in newspapers over the weekend, signaling this could likely be a most challenged ballot item, and wrote a letter to CRC chairman Carlos Beruff asking for each proposal to be taken up independently.

Beruff was among the 22 members to vote against unbundling the proposals, and among the 27 to support placing the package on the November ballot. A proposal needed 22 votes to advance.

Unlike those who suggested the measure would decimate local control of public education, supporters of the initiative said the ideas “absolutely” belong together because they are all part of Article IX.

They contended it would unshackle the Legislature in any future efforts to come up with new ideas to improve the system.

The current constitutional language of Article IX authorizes local school boards to operate, supervise and control all free public schools within their jurisdiction. The amendment would limit that authority to the schools “established by the district school board.”

That has been read by many observers as a method to allow creation of an unelected state charter school approval system, which in the past has been rejected in court because of this section of the constitution.

Commission member Patricia Levesque, who heads Jeb Bush’s education foundation, argued that a state charter authorizer is not spelled out in the proposal. Rather, Levesque said, the idea is to upgrade 50-year-old language written when Florida’s population was less than half of what it is now.

Floridians did not contemplate charter schools, online education, dual enrollment or other ideas that have emerged since. Levesque contended that new concepts face political hurdles because of the constitution, and called for the change.

Commission member Erika Donalds, a Collier County School Board member and charter school founder, said the constitution needs to be forward looking.

“When these reforms run their course, will [lawmakers] be able to respond?” asked Donalds, who is attempting to open charter schools outside Collier County.

The time has come, she suggested, to get rid of the “unfair, antiquated” wording that is used to “protect the education monopoly,” and to give parents more opportunities for school choice.

“It is our duty to take the hogtie off the Legislature,” said Donalds, whose husband serves in the state House and recently sponsored a measure to create a private school scholarship for students who claim to be bullied in public school.

Commission member Frank Kruppenbacher, a longtime lawyer for district and charter schools, rejected that the Legislature cannot make any education reforms it wishes.

“What it needs is the leadership to do it,” he said, noting all the initiatives that have been implemented over the years.

Kruppenbacher was among the 10 members to vote against the proposal. The others were Martinez, former Florida Bar president Hank Coxe, state Rep. Jose Felix Diaz, State Board of Education members Tom Grady and Marva Johnson, former state Sen. Arthenia Joyner, state Sen. Darryl Rouson, Indian River County Commissioner Bob Solari, and Florida education commissioner Pam Stewart.

The ballot measure would require 60 percent voter approval to become effective.

One other education proposal, which would allow high-performing school districts to avoid certain portions of the state education code similar to charter schools, is to be considered separately. Commission Style and Drafting chairman Brecht Heuchan explained that the fourth proposal could not fit with the others and meet the wording limitations for amendments.

UPDATE: The “innovation school districts” proposal failed 13-23.

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.

http://go.politicoemail.com/?qs=832a19f54909219487d02e78b3286cc1c5f3b1968ec5aa734f4702a216b21e75bcb010c9f51bd8956bfe967801535814