Why have #schoolvouchers programs persisted and expanded despite a more lopsided base of objective evidence against them than nearly any other current #edpolicy#education initiative?
A few reasons 🧵🪡
1/
First is that today #schoolvouchers activists are directly part of the larger #trump-style revanchist and anti-democratic turn in American politics since Obama’s second term.
Politically their success is intertwined. 2/
But as a policy matter too we see #schoolvouchers linger around even as #education research has tried to place itself in an #evidencebased position to inform policy.
If evidence were all that informed #edpolicy then vouchers would have been dead a decade ago.
3/
There are plenty of political progressives in #education#research that see the same data I do and still give #schoolvouchers a break in ways almost no other programs get.
I think this is partly because the intellectual root for vouchers comes from #economics
4/
And quantitative #edpolicy researchers are overly susceptible to Econ theory (even bad theory like Friedman) as they mostly borrow metrics.
An #economics link is seen by some as code for “rigor.” As if mathematical elegance is the same thing as empirically grounded.
5/
That willingness to assume “mixed” results when really they’re pretty one-sided against #schoolvouchers—especially over the last decade—becomes a vacuum that activists fill with their own “studies.” But mostly promises.
That in turn affects media coverage and public debate.
6/
Mostly I think it comes down to decades of withering attacks on #publiceducation and the false promises plans like #schoolvouchers sell.
#Publicschools are so ingrained with American society that they’re like a family member we love but are so close we see their flaws…
7/
Those flaws provide enough fertile ground for extremists to sow doubts and pitch a seemingly hot new alternative—except this #schoolvouchers paramour will leave you desperate and broke.
8/
The reality is #schoolvouchers/privatization are simply updates of old anti-governmental schemes dating back to massive resistance to civil rights in the 50s/60s: ideas that leverage both latent and apparent white affluent desire for separateness.
With one new pathetic twist: 9/
That twist is exploiting parent-investors who imagine themselves better off in a speculator’s Edu-market than what a public good can provide. Like giving up defined benefits for wildly unstable crypto-markets.
That’s it in a nutshell. #schoolvouchers persist because they fuse older anti-government, Christian-nationalist social ideas with a new crypto-bro mentality that everyone is better off on their own—and taxpayer $$ for #publiceducation are just there to loot and hoard.
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.
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/
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/
First up in @EEPAjournal: in “Life After Vouchers” we show low-income and Black students exit #schoolvouchers at higher rates and DO BETTER once returning to Milwaukee Public Schools @DianeRavitch
Next up in @aerj_journal in “Going Public” we deep dive into those kids who give up #schoolvouchers and show they are historically underserved and come from “pop up” voucher schools founded to take tax $
The folks I mention here are already pushing back on this piece @DianeRavitch so in lieu of direct social media battles I’m going to just “reply all” with a new point:
Let’s talk “peer review.” The #schoolvouchers crowd has made use of this fuzzy term for years.
“Peer review” can mean a lot of things. For example this paper by Corey DeAngelis in something called the “Journal of Free Enterprise” is “peer reviewed.”
Sorry but that’s just not JPAM or AEJ: Policy or EEPA and anyone credible knows that. 🤦♂️
2/
And a number of “peer reviewed” studies come from the working paper series at UArk that Jay Greene founded, which—at least when I reviewed for them years ago—paid $250-500 a pop.
#Reading is going to be the new wedge issue to pitch #schoolvouchers /ESAs to parents understandably frustrated at #scienceofreading issues but who were turned off by the voucher culture war pitch.
Just days before writing this Fox column and citing #reading as a reason states need #azed style #schoolvouchers Bush was honoring voucher hero @DougDucey at the annual ExcelInEd meeting
#schoolvouchers advocacy organizations stand up parents of these kids like other Right-wing groups go plaintiff-shopping in legal cases. Promising them vouchers as a cure-all.
2/
The name of the game for political #schoolvouchers activism is to build coalitions of support based on false promises, when the reality delivered will be a narrow constituency of families already in private school.