🤑 long-standing #privateschool parents cashing in—far the largest group
🤔 voucher-curious kids leaving soon after (most of the rest)
😵💫 some stray sorters—often susceptible to recruiting
2/
There is NO evidence that #schoolvouchers give long-term “lifelines” out of so-called failing schools. They’re a tax-giveaway to parents already sending kids private…
…and for the rest a crypto-like short-term gamble that they usually back out of soon after enrolling.
First and most important: the study presents a ton of zero impacts and tiny effects. Mostly this is #schoolvouchers report about statistical noise, packaged as a win. The beauty of null results is one can see what one wants.
2/
But in what’s become a trend for Fordham, its house-written Forward makes way more of the externally done results than it should.
Basically the argument goes
“#schoolvouchers” critics say vouchers hurt but we find no evidence of vouchers doing anything! Critics are wrong!”
3/
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.
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