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/
Also the Forward is snarky and dismissive even by Edu-Right standards, calling real concerns by #publiceducation advocates “chicken little sky is falling.”
4/
The report fails to mention the earlier devastating impacts on student outcomes for students who use #ohied#schoolvouchers —even though it cites other findings from the same earlier Figlio report.
5/
Finally, on funding: the new Fordham #schoolvouchers report shows that as EdChoice took students/state aid away from struggling districts, local districts spend more of their own local $$ per kid who stays public.
6/
It’s on that result the Fordham report rests its claim that #schoolvouchers bring more $$ to public schools. I’ll say that again:
To Fordham, forcing struggling districts to pay more out of pocket for remaining students is a good thing.
7/
Because, they say, since fewer students are served with the same rate, this is a rising tide lifting all boats.
No discussion of actual cost per kid, funding weights, etc.
8/
Net net, the Fordham report was written by contracted out researchers who use valid and reasonable statistical methods to find a whole lot of nothing. Which Fordham is spinning today as a win for #schoolvouchers.
9/
Today’s Fordham report is a great example of now typical pro-#schoolvouchers advocacy research: set up a straw man based on the worst predictions of critics, and claim anything less than “the worst” as a positive finding! @DianeRavitch@palan57@StephenODyer@carolburris
The actual researchers clearly say their results are due to changes in student composition—with #schoolvouchers by design drawing more lower income students (ie also lower ave test scores) away from districts.
So districts didn’t actually improve #education due to vouchers 2/
They just lost lower scoring kids.
“But wait!” #schoolvouchers activists may say, “that shows vouchers are admitting poorer kids!”
True enough but there’s no evidence voucher programs know how to *serve* those kids.
For example there is vastly more and stronger evidence that funding public schools has substantial and long-term effects that dwarf the tiny “competitive effects” on public schools that some #schoolvouchers studies find #schoolfinance@SchlFinance101@dsknight84
2/
And Fordham glaringly ignores its own previous study showing that students who actually use #schoolvouchers had test score drops ~ 4x the test gains by competition in the new study @Network4pubEd@OhioPEP@PV4PS
🤑 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.
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/