Archives for category: Vouchers

The latest evaluation of the Florida voucher program showed that students in voucher schools made academic gains similar to their peers in public schools.

I am old enough to remember the old rhetoric:

Vouchers were going to “save” poor children from “failing” public schools.

Vouchers were going to “close the achievement gap.”

Vouchers were a panacea, all by themselves, for producing high academic achievement.

None of that is true.

If you read very, very carefully, you could find some tiny gains, but no panacea; no closing of the achievement gap.

When does all the high-flown rhetoric end?

Imagine if all those millions had been used to improve the public schools and to unite communities in common purpose.

This is from the report:

Test scores of program participants, 2010-11:
● The typical student in the program scored at the 45th national percentile in reading and
the 46th percentile in mathematics, about the same as in 2008-09 and 2009-10. The
distribution of test scores is similar whether one considers the entire program population
or only those who took the Stanford Achievement Test in the spring of 2010. The
Stanford Achievement Test is the most commonly administered test and is the test most
directly comparable to the FCAT.
● The mean reading gain for program participants is exactly 0 national percentile ranking
points in reading and -0.9 national percentile ranking points in mathematics. These mean
gains are indistinguishable from zero. In other words, the typical student participating in
the program gained a year’s worth of learning in a year’s worth of time. It is important to
note that these national comparisons pertain to all students nationally, and not just lowincome students.
● Test score gains for program participants are virtually identical to those of income-eligible non-participants remaining in Florida public schools. Participating students
gained slightly relative to comparable public school students in 2010-11, though this
difference is not statistically significant. It is important to recall that the participating
students differ from the income-eligible public school students in important ways – their
incomes are substantially lower and their previous test performance in public school
tended to be substantially lower. These differences make direct comparison of gain scores
more problematic. Because families can choose whether to participate in the program, it
is inappropriate to consider the differences in test score gains between FTC Program
participants and their public school counterparts to be caused by program participation.
It is, therefore, best to consider the fact that test score gains are extremely similar
between the public and private sector to be suggestive evidence of little difference in
average performance across the sectors, rather than causal evidence of differential
performance. That said, in past cohorts for whom there existed sufficient data to estimate
the causal consequences of program participation, there was evidence of positive effects
of participation in the FTC program, especially for math. Little has changed in terms of
test scores or factors influencing program participation across cohorts, indicating that one
might infer, albeit with caution, that positive effects found in prior cohorts continued to
the most recent application cohort.
● Recent statistical research has shown that the FTC Program has improved the
performance of Florida public schools to a modest degree. Therefore, the correct
interpretation of the findings in this report are that students participating in the program
have kept pace with the improvements in the public schools associated with the FTC
Program.

State Superintendent John White took a pounding when he showed up at a local school board and gave his stock speech. A local reporter wrote:

State Supt. of Education John White addressed the Tangipahoa Parish School Board Tuesday, giving the same insipid speech he gave about a month ago in Amite

For almost an hour, the board heard a stream of fast talk and hot air, similar to his boss, about the next layer of bureaucracy that is settling over the state’s education system that will supposedly lift Louisiana students out of the muck and mire of ignorance.

A teacher told White that if he and his staff were judged by the same standards applied to teachers, they would be rated ineffective.

When board members complained that the voucher program and the charters would drain their already strained budgets and that voucher students would be going to schools that teach creationism, White said he didn’t care about the financial stress for public schools as long as voucher students got an education. He didn’t explain why they would get a better education in the little denominational schools that teach creationism.

White said he saw no reason for teachers to be certified. A board member challenged him and said that was like going to a doctor who never went to medical school.

A large part of the Louisiana reform package bypasses local school boards and empowers the state education department. It’s fair to say they are no fans of John White or Bobby Jindal.

The radical privatization that Jindal and White are promoting is a run-through for the Romney agenda.

Louisiana is a playground for the education theories of the far right.

A reader comments on previous posts (see here and here) about Governor Corbett’s appointment of a voucher advocate to be the “chief recovery officer” for financially stressed Chester Upland, Pennsylvania. This is a district that allocates 1/3 of its scarce budget to a for-profit charter school that pays its owner a management fee of $16 million. Oh, and one other thing: First Lady Michelle Obama invited a teacher from Chester Upland to sit with her during the State of the Union Address earlier this year, presumably to acknowledge the staff’s decision to work without salaries while the district was in deep trouble.

Thanks for bringing the Chester Upland, Pennyslvania scandal to national attention. It is not accidental that this is happening in the poorest school district in the state, with the highest African American percentage in the state, with the worst test results of any district in the state, and where there has been an elected school board in control only two out of the last 18 years. Pity the children.

Bruce Baker offers his comments on the latest study of vouchers.

As usual for him, he raises provocative questions about what the study says and doesn’t explain at all.

 

The Wall Street Journal has an odd article today trumpeting “A Generation of School Voucher Success” by voucher advocate Paul Peterson of Harvard and Matthew Chingos of the Brookings Institution.

The article is based on a study of a privately funded voucher program in New York City and its effects on college enrollments of those who received vouchers.

The study concluded that “Overall, no significant impacts are observed.”

However, there were statistically significant gains in the college enrollment rates of black students, and statistically insignificant gains for Hispanics.

Why the difference? It’s not clear, but consider what the study says about the two groups compared:

African American and Hispanic students differed from one another in a number of respects. Although students in the two ethnic groups had fairly similar baseline scores, African American students were more likely to be male, have a parent with a college education, come from one-child families (but are also more likely to come from families with four or more children), and, not surprisingly, come from a family in which English is spoken in the home. 

But overall, the study produced “no significant impacts.”

If you read the study, check out p. 12, “Results,” which begins:

“The offer of a voucher is estimated to have increased college enrollment within three years of the student’s expected graduation from high school by 0.6 percentage points—a tiny, insignificant impact”

This somehow got spun in the WSJ article into “A generation of school voucher success!”

This study does not delve into test scores. One can only guess what the study would say if there were big test score gains.

The D.C. voucher program, the Cleveland voucher program and the Milwaukee voucher program have not produced any evidence of gains in test scores.

This is from the final evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program:

There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement. On average, after at least four years students who were offered (or used) scholarships had reading and math test scores that were statistically similar to those who were not offered scholarships (figure ES-2). The same pattern of results holds for students who applied from schools in need of improvement (SINI), the group Congress designated as the highest priority for the Program. Although some other subgroups of students appeared to have higher levels of reading achievement if they were offered or used a scholarship, those findings could be due to chance. They should be interpreted with caution since the results were no longer significant after applying a statistical test to account for multiple comparisons of treatment and control group members across the subgroups.

Voucher students in DC saw no test score gains, but were more likely to graduate from high school:

The graduation rate based on parent-provided information was 82 percent for the treatment group compared to 70 percent for the control group. 

Studies comparing voucher schools and public schools in Milwaukee and Cleveland have not detected any differences in test scores.

Earlier studies of the NYC private school voucher program showed no gains in test scores, which the study notes:

The original study of the New York City voucher experiment identified heterogeneous impacts. Although no overall impacts in reading and math achievement were detected, positive private-sector impacts were observed on the performance of African Americans, but not of Hispanic students (Howell and Peterson 2006, 146-52; Mayer et al. 2002, Table 20). 

When vouchers are celebrated, the subject of test scores is irrelevant. When public schools are condemned, the subject is always test scores. Truly, a double standard.

Wonder why.

Josh Greenman of the New York Daily News writes today that President Obama has been terrific on education reform issues: he has challenged teachers’ unions, pushed for merit pay, encouraged the expansion of charter schools, and used billions of dollars in stimulus funds (via Race to the Top) to promote an agenda that either President Bush would envy. In its editorials, the Daily News has stridently defended charters, testing, and accountability, and has led the charge against the teachers’ union. The billionaire owner of the Daily News, Mort Zuckerman, is on the board of the Broad Foundation, which avidly promotes school closings and privatization.

So imagine Josh’s disappointment that the President is now kowtowing to those teachers unions and saying that more money will solve the problems. He writes, “So count me disappointed that Obama is campaigning for reelection with education rhetoric that is ripped right out of a dusty old Democratic Party playbook.” Wow. A Democratic President actually sounding like a Democrat on education.

Josh wonders why the President doesn’t stick up for his strong testing-and-accountabiilty and school choice agenda. Why doesn’t he boldly admit that his program is not all that different from Romney’s? (There are two big issues where they differ: Romney supports vouchers, Obama doesn’t; Obama wants to help students with their crushing student loans, Romney doesn’t.) UPDATE: (One other major difference: Romney thinks anyone should be allowed to teach, without any certification or standards, and you can bet that he will continue the Republican assault on teachers’ unions.)

Josh implies that the President is reaching out to teachers and their unions and supporters of public education because–guess what?–it is an election year. With a few more eloquent speeches, maybe he can persuade them that his agenda has some resemblance to the traditional Democratic view that schools should have adequate resources, that teachers have a right to bargain collectively, that the federal government has a responsibility to promote equity (not competition), and that school choice is the rightwing plan to privatize the public schools.

Well, it is good to hear the rhetoric. That’s a change. We can always hope that he means it. But that, of course, would mean ditching Race to the Top and all that absurd rightwing rhetoric about how schools can fix poverty, all by themselves.

Imagine a governor rushing to the aid of a financially distressed public school district by naming a voucher advocate to run it.

Imagine that this new manager–with unprecedented power to determine the future of the district–has worked as a consultant to the big charter school in the district.

Imagine that the district pays one-third of its budget to that same charter school.

Imagine that the very wealthy owner of the charter school collects $16 million a year in “management fees” from the charter school budget.

Imagine that this same businessman who owns the charter and collects $16 million a year is also the single biggest contributor to the governor.

What, you can’t imagine such a thing could happen?

Neither could I.

It’s too improbable, too outrageous.

Why the national press would be all over this story, wouldn’t they?

Imagine that.

I have often been struck by the uneven playing field that policymakers and legislators establish for charter schools and public schools. The public schools are increasingly strangled by regulations and by high-stakes testing and punitive evaluations, at the same time that the charter schools are exempt from most of the strangulation. I have heard many times from principals who say that they want to turn their public school into a charter so they can escape the tentacles of regulation that are wrapped tight around their school. And I have wondered whether the purpose of “reform” was to make public schools fail while the deregulated charter schools increase and thrive.

Here is another take on the current corporate reform movement, inspired by an earlier post about stagnant ACT scores:

The more conversations I have about the entire “reform” movement, the more convinced I am that it’s really about disbanding teacher unions so that the majority of education programs will eventually be part of a private industry thus paving the way for the privatizing of all public systems.

The evidence just keeps mounting to show that standardized testing is a flawed way to judge the efficacy of the public schools, and the mere fact that charters and private/parochial schools do not have the same “rigorous” standards as public schools points to the idea that “standards” are not really important at all to the reformers who push for these kinds of alternate schools.

Utilizing standardized tests that the reformers know are flawed is a tactic to devalue the people who teach in public schools so that they can be fired and a private interest can take over.

It’s as if these policy-makers have found a way to rig the game: Create new rules that make for impossible goals and then watch a good system that serves the public fail under these new rules. They have set up the game so that the players will fail no matter what–IF you believe the rules are sound.

It’s pretty evident that the main goal is to disband two of the largest public unions in the country using children as pawns. Once the AFT and the NEA are toppled, so they must think, the rest will follow, and the privatization of public systems in America will ensue.

I would not put it past our policy-makers to be trying to sell the public a bill of goods by pretending they care about the children at all, when in reality, they care about getting rid of union teachers and privatizing education so their buddies can “invest” and continually get rich.

This isn’t about parent choice (unless legal segregation is what they’re after), this isn’t about success, and this isn’t about getting rid of “bad” teachers. It’s about getting rid of unions and privatizing. To me, the evidence points to these intentions no matter how anyone else wants to spin it.

The annual Phi Delta Kappa-Gallup poll on education was released today.

The sponsors characterize public opinion as split, which is true for many issues.

We must see this poll in the context of an unprecedented, well-funded campaign to demonize public schools and their teachers over at least the past two years, and by some reckoning, even longer.

The media has parroted endlessly the assertion that our public schools are failures, they are (as Bill Gates memorably said to the nation’s governors in 2005) “obsolete,” and “the system is broken.” How many times have you heard those phrases? How many television specials have you seen claiming that our education system is disastrous? And along comes “Waiting for ‘Superman'” with its propagandistic attack on public education in cities and suburbs alike and its appeal for privatization. Add to that Arne Duncan’s faithful parroting of the claims of the critics.

That is the context, and it is remarkable that Americans continue to believe in the schools they know best and to understand what their most critical need is.

Here are the salient findings:

1. Americans have a low opinion of American education (how could they not, given the bombardment of criticism?): only 18% give it an A or B. And here is the real accomplishment of the corporate reformers: Those who judge American education as a D or F have increased from 22% to 30% in the past 20 years. Actually, their success in smearing U.S. education is even greater, because in 2002, before the implementation of NCLB, only 16% judged the nation’s schools so harshly. So the reform campaign has doubled the proportion of Americans who think the nation’s schools deserve a D or F.

2. When asked to evaluate the schools in their own community, 48% give them an A or B, which is the highest rating in 20 years.

3. When asked to evaluate the school their oldest child attends, an astonishing 77% give it an A or B. This is the highest rating in 20 years. Only 6% give it a D or F. This question elicits the views of informed consumers, the people who refer to a real school, not the hypothetical school system that is lambasted every other day in the national press or condemned as “obsolete” by Bill Gates.

4. When asked whether they have trust and confidence in teachers, 71% said yes. Americans continue to respect and admire teachers, despite the nonstop public bashing of them in the media.

5. When asked whether standardized test scores should be used to evaluate teachers, opinion split 52-47 in favor. Considering that the public has heard nonstop endorsements of this bad idea from President Obama, Secretary Duncan, and most other political figures–and very limited dissent–it is surprising that opinion is almost equally divided. How did so many Americans manage to figure out that this idea is problematic at best?

6. When people were asked to describe the teachers who had the greatest influence in their lives, they used words like caring, compassionate, motivating, and inspiring. Interesting that few remembered the teachers who raised their test scores.

7. There has been a big change in what the public sees as the biggest problems facing the schools today. Ten years ago, the biggest concerns were about discipline (fighting, gangs, drugs, lack of discipline, overcrowding). Today, the biggest problem that the public sees, by far, is lack of financial support. 35% chose that option. Among public school parents, it was 43%. Concerns about discipline almost faded away in comparison to concerns about the lack of financial support for the schools.

8. On the subject of vouchers, there was a surprising increase in the proportion who would support “allowing students to choose a private school at public expense.” It increased from 34% to 44%, which is a big jump. I recommend that future questioning ask about support to allow students “to choose a private or religious school at public expense.” That would be closer to the reality of voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, D.C., Louisiana, Ohio, and Indiana.

9. On the subject of charters, public opinion dipped, from an approval rating of 70% in 2011 to 66% in 2012. It will be interesting to see where this number goes as the public begins to understand more about charters in their own communities.

10. A question about the parent trigger was so vacuous as to be misleading. The question was “Some states are considering laws that allow parents to petition to remove the leadership and staff at failing schools. Do you favor or oppose such laws?” 70% favor, 76% of public school parents favor. This is a misleading question, however, as the parent trigger is not a matter of simply allowing parents to sign a petition, but of allowing parents to take control of a public school and hand it over to private management. My guess is that the public doesn’t know much about the parent trigger concept and hasn’t heard a discussion about the pros and cons. So, I don’t put much stock in the response–after all, why shouldn’t parents have the right to sign a petition to change the staff at their school? It does show how clever the corporate reformers are in framing issues that advance privatization and doing it in ways that are deceptive and alluring.

11. In a series of questions about the Common Core standards, most people believe they are a good thing and that they will make the nation more competitive globally; about half think they will improve the quality of education while 40% think they will have no effect. These answers exemplify why polls of this kind must be viewed with caution. I am willing to bet that the majority of respondents has no idea what the Common Core standards are; and willing to bet that 98% have never read them.

In future versions of the poll, I hope that questions will be asked about for-profit schools, privatization, and vouchers for religious schools. These are big issues today, and the poll should ask about them.

My takeaway from the 2012 poll is that the corporate reform movement has succeeded in increasing support for vouchers, but that the American public continues to have a remarkably high opinion of the schools and teachers they know best despite the concerted efforts of the reformers to undermine those beliefs. This is an instance where evidence trumps ideology. The reformers have not yet been able to destroy the bonds between the American people and their community’s schools.

 

 

Reformers constantly deny any evidence that contradicts their narrative.

They insist that our public schools are failing, despite the clear evidence in the national assessments that test scores have never been higher for every group tested.

They insist that merit pay is necessary, even though it has never “worked,” in any sense of the word, not in raising test scores or in making teaching more attractive as a profession.

They insist that charters are better than public schools, even though study after study shows this is not true.

They insist that vouchers will “save” poor children, even though this has not happened in any of the districts that have vouchers (Milwaukee, Cleveland, D.C.).

Their goal is privatization.

Their goal is to push schools into a market-system despite any evidence that such a system makes any sense for anyone except those selling stuff to schools or wanting to take over schools and make a profit by cutting costs (teachers).

They are deniers.

This reader sees the denial strategy as part of a larger pattern:

They will not stop denying it [the evidence about charters], and they will continue to get promotion and protection from both silent support from fundraising and legislative action groups, and open PR/policy forwarded by elected officials. Truth is moot or arbitrary to them, and once light is shed on one false narrative (see “cake walk”, “shock and awe”, “shared sacrifice”, “lavish salaries…) they scurry for the shadows to gnaw away at another spot.

    Right now the narrative is that public schools are the burden fueling the poverty cycle, as opposed to the truth-that the poverty cycle burdens families and students, hampering academic success. The genius of the jokers driving the reform agenda is they have turned the struggling classes upon each other, fully intending to further dis-empower them all economically, and politically. Siphoning of the easiest to educate; protecting their own in gated communities and private schools others will never see; cementing a caste system that will entitle some to the education and knowledge they can afford, relegating the rest to street vendor markets or tech-support phone banks.