One reason #schoolvouchers are still described as having “mixed” outcomes is the success of advocates propping up shoddy studies to flood the zone and offset quality evaluations showing dreadful impacts.
But it’s also because few people know what “mixed” truly looks like.
1/
But it’s also because few people know what “mixed” truly looks like.
1/
https://twitter.com/palan57/status/1599597163192778752
But another reason is non-researchers don’t know what “mixed” truly looks like. #SchoolVouchers outcomes are mixed compared to a standard of “all results show bad outcomes.”
Most do—and all recent do—but not all studies ever show negative.
2/
Most do—and all recent do—but not all studies ever show negative.
2/
But that’s not the question. Relative to other #edpolicy questions #schoolvouchers research over the last decade is entirely one-sided.
I could tell a data-driven story on either side of many #edpolicy questions. Where you have to decide the general tendency not an absolute
3/
I could tell a data-driven story on either side of many #edpolicy questions. Where you have to decide the general tendency not an absolute
3/
Not so with #schoolvouchers. A fair review of that research for say a grant proposal or new report would say what this new @CLub_edu graph shows intuitively:
4/
4/
Aka “after early evidence 1998-2003 from largely one research team showing positive #schoolvouchers impacts in small pilot programs, since 2010 results in at-scale programs are almost all negative.”
It’s that simple.
5/
It’s that simple.
5/
And we just don’t normally get #edpolicy research results on other questions so steadily and easily one-sided as we do the last decade of #schoolvouchers work.
Studies showing money matters to #education are also following that pattern.
6/6
Studies showing money matters to #education are also following that pattern.
6/6
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
