Friedman Tax-Credit Reports Inaccurate and Unsubstantiated
Reports’ conclusions highly suspect, according to new review
EAST LANSING, Mi., June 22, 2009. – A recent series of reports focused on Georgia, Indiana and Montana conclude that programs awarding tax credits to donors funding private school vouchers will reduce government expenditures and make the finance system more efficient. A new review of the reports finds their conclusions highly suspect and sharply criticizes them for presenting unsubstantiated claims and failing to adequately consider short- and long-term costs of such tax-credit programs.
The reports are The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Montana and The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Georgia, and The Fiscal Impact of a Corporate & Individual Tax-Credit Scholarship Program on the State of Indiana. All three are published by the Friedman Foundation, a think tank which advocates free-market approaches to education. The three reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Luis Huerta of Teachers College, Columbia University.
Tax-credit voucher programs – sometimes dubbed neovouchers – provide a non-refundable tax credit to individuals or corporations contributing to non-profit corporations, which then distribute the money to students attending private schools. These neovouchers (often called “scholarships” in the state laws) now exist in six states—Arizona, Pennsylvania, Florida, Rhode Island, Iowa, and Georgia—and others, including Indiana and Montana, are considering them.
The three Friedman reports claim that implementing such programs would result in a net financial saving to the states. They base their conclusions, Huerta observes, on assumptions about the sensitivity of public school revenues and expenditures to enrollment declines, as well as assumptions about a pent-up demand for publicly funded private school choice and the nature and degree of supply and demand pressures. Huerta tests all these assumptions and finds them to be largely groundless and frequently at odds with established research.
In fact, Huerta notes that the reports’ use of research is largely confined to work from advocacy groups like the Friedman Foundation itself. He observes that this “insular approach further calls into question the validity of the new reports’ conclusions.” While the report on Indiana offers a “more thoughtful” approach to research, Huerta continues, the literature it cites is poorly used and doesn’t clearly support the report’s estimates and conclusions.
Huerta’s review hits particularly hard on the reports’ failure to consider key factors concerning private school supply and demand if neovoucher programs were to be implemented. Specifically, these factors are crucial to the reports’ analyses, and the review shows them to be highly problematic. Similarly, the reports fail to adequately account for the additional expenditures of a tax-credit program when it subsidizes families who were going to choose a private school anyway, making their expenditure calculations almost worthless.
“Policymakers should be cautioned to look beyond the seductive promises of increased fiscal savings and efficiency, which are unsubstantiated and inaccurately estimated in these reports,” Huerta concludes. “Instead, policymakers should seek more balanced and empirically robust assessments that would allow them to make informed decisions about how to proceed with effective school reform polices.”
Find Luis web at: www.greatlakescenter.org.
Showing posts with label Vouchers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Vouchers. Show all posts
Monday, June 22, 2009
Tuesday, May 19, 2009
More Flawed Research on Milwaukee Voucher Study
VOUCHER STUDY’S APPROACH AND OUTCOMES QUESTIONED
Review concludes that positive tests-score effects of voucher competition on Milwaukee public schools are very small at best
EAST LANSING, MI (May 18, 2009)—A recent report contends that competition from Milwaukee’s private school voucher program for low-income families has benefited Milwaukee public schools. A Think Twice review of that report raises a number of questions about its statistical methods and concludes that any positive effect of competition is very small, if it exists at all.
The report, The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools, was written for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University, an expert in the use of statistics and measurement in social science research.
Camilli points out that the largest competition benefit emphasized in the report was obtained with no controls, but also that these benefits were small from a practical perspective. Moreover, when statistical controls are used, no statistically or practically significant competition benefits were found. Those controls essentially account for whether there is in fact private school competition for a public school student (that is, the effects of grade and year are distinguished from the effect of competition).
Despite the questions Camilli raises about the report, he commends it for clearly and thoroughly presenting its findings and for presenting its methods and statistical models clearly.
Camilli concludes, “Before the results of this study can effectively inform the decision of whether to expand or reduce the size of the voucher program in Milwaukee, a number of issues need resolution. Most importantly, the use of uncontrolled estimates requires justification.”
Find Gregory Camilli’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Review concludes that positive tests-score effects of voucher competition on Milwaukee public schools are very small at best
EAST LANSING, MI (May 18, 2009)—A recent report contends that competition from Milwaukee’s private school voucher program for low-income families has benefited Milwaukee public schools. A Think Twice review of that report raises a number of questions about its statistical methods and concludes that any positive effect of competition is very small, if it exists at all.
The report, The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools, was written for the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Gregory Camilli of Rutgers University, an expert in the use of statistics and measurement in social science research.
Camilli points out that the largest competition benefit emphasized in the report was obtained with no controls, but also that these benefits were small from a practical perspective. Moreover, when statistical controls are used, no statistically or practically significant competition benefits were found. Those controls essentially account for whether there is in fact private school competition for a public school student (that is, the effects of grade and year are distinguished from the effect of competition).
Despite the questions Camilli raises about the report, he commends it for clearly and thoroughly presenting its findings and for presenting its methods and statistical models clearly.
Camilli concludes, “Before the results of this study can effectively inform the decision of whether to expand or reduce the size of the voucher program in Milwaukee, a number of issues need resolution. Most importantly, the use of uncontrolled estimates requires justification.”
Find Gregory Camilli’s review on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
Flawed Research: Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice-Vouchers
Why are we presented with biased polling to push the voucher agenda? Perhaps it is because in Oklahoma, years of polling on vouchers shows the opposite, with 74% of Oklahomans opposed to vouchers.
Another interesting area in the 2008 Survey dealt with funding where 87.7% of Oklahomans believe the legislature doesn't provide adequate funding for education.
Review finds Pro-voucher Polls Plagued by Biased Questions and Sampling Problems
EAST LANSING, Mi., (December 2, 2008)—A series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states claims that state political candidates could increase their electability if they support school vouchers and other school-choice measures. A Think Twice review of the reports, however, finds that the polls on which they rely contain poorly worded, biased questions and suffer from sampling problems.
The states surveyed thus far are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, and the reports were published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a think tank that promotes school-choice proposals, including taxpayer-funded private-school vouchers. They were reviewed by professors Jon Lorence and A.Gary Dworkin, both of the University of Houston.
The 10 reports conclude that voters view public schools as performing unsatisfactorily, that they prefer private over public schools, that public funds should be available so parents can send their children to private schools and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who back school choice proposals such as vouchers.
Lorence and Dworkin note that none of the reports cite any other surveys or research literature regarding opinions on vouchers or on public, private, or charter schools. By comparison, the reviewers cite a series of Gallup polls, conducted annually for Phi Delta Kappa, that include questions measuring public support for private-school vouchers and for public education in general. Those surveys consistently find less support for voucher proposals than shown by the Friedman surveys. In fact, the Gallup surveys consistently show that more Americans oppose vouchers than support them.
In addition, the reviewers point to a number of other factors which might explain why the Friedman surveys yielded more favorable results for school choice proposals.
First, they note that that the population samples surveyed might not represent the voting populations of their states nor the population of parents for whose children school vouchers are intended. Information to establish sampling accuracy is largely missing from the reports, and in at least one of the three instances where sufficient data were provided, the low response rate raises a red flag about possible sample bias.
Additionally, Lorence and Dworkin found repeated instances in which the wording of questions appeared likely to bias the results. These questions appeared to be worded in ways to encourage respondents to favor private-school funding. The reviewers use the corresponding Gallup questions to highlight these problems with wording. Additionally, the survey questions in some instances used terms not widely understood, such as questions about proposals to grant tax credits to companies that finance private school scholarships (vouchers).
“Had the respondents been presented more neutral questions about tax credits and vouchers, the findings may have been less favorable towards these issues,” the reviewers write.
Lorence and Dworkin observe that the 10 papers reviewed are aimed at driving a pro-school-choice agenda through the promotion of tax credits, vouchers, and charter schools. They conclude that the reports should not guide policy and recommend that policymakers avoid relying on, “public opinion surveys that present beliefs as fact,” and encourage them to, “examine research investigating whether charter schools and vouchers actually increase student achievement and other important outcomes.”
Find the review by Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin on the web at:http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Another interesting area in the 2008 Survey dealt with funding where 87.7% of Oklahomans believe the legislature doesn't provide adequate funding for education.
Review finds Pro-voucher Polls Plagued by Biased Questions and Sampling Problems
EAST LANSING, Mi., (December 2, 2008)—A series of reports based on public opinion polls in 10 states claims that state political candidates could increase their electability if they support school vouchers and other school-choice measures. A Think Twice review of the reports, however, finds that the polls on which they rely contain poorly worded, biased questions and suffer from sampling problems.
The states surveyed thus far are Arizona, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Montana, Nevada, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, and the reports were published by the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, a think tank that promotes school-choice proposals, including taxpayer-funded private-school vouchers. They were reviewed by professors Jon Lorence and A.Gary Dworkin, both of the University of Houston.
The 10 reports conclude that voters view public schools as performing unsatisfactorily, that they prefer private over public schools, that public funds should be available so parents can send their children to private schools and that potential voters are more likely to support candidates who back school choice proposals such as vouchers.
Lorence and Dworkin note that none of the reports cite any other surveys or research literature regarding opinions on vouchers or on public, private, or charter schools. By comparison, the reviewers cite a series of Gallup polls, conducted annually for Phi Delta Kappa, that include questions measuring public support for private-school vouchers and for public education in general. Those surveys consistently find less support for voucher proposals than shown by the Friedman surveys. In fact, the Gallup surveys consistently show that more Americans oppose vouchers than support them.
In addition, the reviewers point to a number of other factors which might explain why the Friedman surveys yielded more favorable results for school choice proposals.
First, they note that that the population samples surveyed might not represent the voting populations of their states nor the population of parents for whose children school vouchers are intended. Information to establish sampling accuracy is largely missing from the reports, and in at least one of the three instances where sufficient data were provided, the low response rate raises a red flag about possible sample bias.
Additionally, Lorence and Dworkin found repeated instances in which the wording of questions appeared likely to bias the results. These questions appeared to be worded in ways to encourage respondents to favor private-school funding. The reviewers use the corresponding Gallup questions to highlight these problems with wording. Additionally, the survey questions in some instances used terms not widely understood, such as questions about proposals to grant tax credits to companies that finance private school scholarships (vouchers).
“Had the respondents been presented more neutral questions about tax credits and vouchers, the findings may have been less favorable towards these issues,” the reviewers write.
Lorence and Dworkin observe that the 10 papers reviewed are aimed at driving a pro-school-choice agenda through the promotion of tax credits, vouchers, and charter schools. They conclude that the reports should not guide policy and recommend that policymakers avoid relying on, “public opinion surveys that present beliefs as fact,” and encourage them to, “examine research investigating whether charter schools and vouchers actually increase student achievement and other important outcomes.”
Find the review by Jon Lorence and A. Gary Dworkin on the web at:http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Tuesday, September 30, 2008
Flawed Research:Vouchers & the Friedman Foundation
“Evidence-Based” Report on Vouchers Lacks Evidence
Review finds that report claiming Ohio vouchers improve public schools is riddled with flaws
EAST LANSING, Mi. (Sept. 8, 2008)— A new report from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice claims to find evidence that Ohio’s private-school voucher program spurs public schools to improve achievement. A review of the report finds numerous flaws that seriously undermine the research.
The report, “Promising Start: An Empirical Analysis of How EdChoice Vouchers Affect Ohio Public Schools,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois, a nationally recognized expert on school choice research.
“Promising Start” examines Ohio’s EdChoice program, which offers vouchers of $4,375 or more to allow up to 14,000 students enrolled in “chronically under-performing” public schools to instead attend private schools at taxpayer expense. The report asserts that there is empirical support that the voucher program, by fostering competition with public schools, improves those public schools’ performance, thereby providing an indirect benefit to those students who remain in the public schools. In particular, it claims that in EdChoice’s first year, students experienced substantial academic gains at public schools exposed to the possibility of losing students to vouchers.
“Despite being presented as scientifically rigorous, the report suffers from serious methodological shortcomings,” Lubienski writes. “The analysis uses weak variables and an incorrect approach to measuring academic gains, and it tries to make claims based on cherry-picking uneven results.”
“Instead of being empirically based, the report’s assumptions appear to be more statements of belief based in a rudimentary and simplistic view of economic behavior in markets for education,” Lubienski writes. “The Friedman report selectively focuses on studies—no matter what the quality—that appear to support its agenda. In doing so, it leaves out much high-quality research, much of it peer-reviewed that seriously questions the assertion that the threat of losing students has a positive impact on public schools.”
“In view of the announced advocacy mission of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice regarding vouchers, and the notable flaws on this report, it is better read as a statement of belief than as an empirical analysis,” Lubienski writes.
Find Christopher Lubienski’s review and a link to the Friedman report on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Review finds that report claiming Ohio vouchers improve public schools is riddled with flaws
EAST LANSING, Mi. (Sept. 8, 2008)— A new report from the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice claims to find evidence that Ohio’s private-school voucher program spurs public schools to improve achievement. A review of the report finds numerous flaws that seriously undermine the research.
The report, “Promising Start: An Empirical Analysis of How EdChoice Vouchers Affect Ohio Public Schools,” was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Professor Christopher Lubienski of the University of Illinois, a nationally recognized expert on school choice research.
“Promising Start” examines Ohio’s EdChoice program, which offers vouchers of $4,375 or more to allow up to 14,000 students enrolled in “chronically under-performing” public schools to instead attend private schools at taxpayer expense. The report asserts that there is empirical support that the voucher program, by fostering competition with public schools, improves those public schools’ performance, thereby providing an indirect benefit to those students who remain in the public schools. In particular, it claims that in EdChoice’s first year, students experienced substantial academic gains at public schools exposed to the possibility of losing students to vouchers.
“Despite being presented as scientifically rigorous, the report suffers from serious methodological shortcomings,” Lubienski writes. “The analysis uses weak variables and an incorrect approach to measuring academic gains, and it tries to make claims based on cherry-picking uneven results.”
“Instead of being empirically based, the report’s assumptions appear to be more statements of belief based in a rudimentary and simplistic view of economic behavior in markets for education,” Lubienski writes. “The Friedman report selectively focuses on studies—no matter what the quality—that appear to support its agenda. In doing so, it leaves out much high-quality research, much of it peer-reviewed that seriously questions the assertion that the threat of losing students has a positive impact on public schools.”
“In view of the announced advocacy mission of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice regarding vouchers, and the notable flaws on this report, it is better read as a statement of belief than as an empirical analysis,” Lubienski writes.
Find Christopher Lubienski’s review and a link to the Friedman report on the web at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Monday, June 23, 2008
Flawed Research:Vouchers & Special Education
Another piece of flawed research for you to pass on to your teaching peers and refute arguments by voucher supporters.
Florida Voucher Report Too Flawed to be Valuable
Review criticizes report’s conclusion that vouchers have positive impact on special education outcomes
A recent Manhattan Institute report claims Florida’s program of publicly funded, private-school vouchers for special education students improves outcomes for special education students who remain in public schools. A Think Twice review of the report, however, concludes that research design problems and weaknesses in data analysis and interpretation render the report of little value to policy makers.
“The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,” was written by Jay P. Greene and Marcus Winters and published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. It was reviewed by Professor John T. Yun of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program provides vouchers for special education students to attend private schools. The scholarship program is open to any Florida student classified as having a learning disability. As of the 2006-2007 school year, about 4.5% of Florida’s special education students received these vouchers though The Manhattan Institute analysis appears to cover an earlier period, from school years 2000-2001 through 2004-2005, during which time the program enrolled fewer students.
The Manhattan report is based on statistical analyses that, its authors conclude, shows that the McKay program spurred public schools to improve achievement for those special education students who remained in public schools during that time. The report presents relatively small effect sizes (a small competition benefit), but asserts that these results are probably understated.
Yun’s review finds the evidence weak. He points out that any contributions the report may make are, “outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations and unsubstantiated assumptions about the direction of possible selection bias.”
Yun concludes that the report offers policymakers little guidance: “Any attempt to use this report for decision-making or policy evaluation, prior to validation using different methods and more robust approaches, should be viewed with extreme skepticism.”
Find John Yun’s review and the The Manhattan Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Florida Voucher Report Too Flawed to be Valuable
Review criticizes report’s conclusion that vouchers have positive impact on special education outcomes
A recent Manhattan Institute report claims Florida’s program of publicly funded, private-school vouchers for special education students improves outcomes for special education students who remain in public schools. A Think Twice review of the report, however, concludes that research design problems and weaknesses in data analysis and interpretation render the report of little value to policy makers.
“The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program,” was written by Jay P. Greene and Marcus Winters and published by the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. It was reviewed by Professor John T. Yun of the University of California at Santa Barbara.
Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program provides vouchers for special education students to attend private schools. The scholarship program is open to any Florida student classified as having a learning disability. As of the 2006-2007 school year, about 4.5% of Florida’s special education students received these vouchers though The Manhattan Institute analysis appears to cover an earlier period, from school years 2000-2001 through 2004-2005, during which time the program enrolled fewer students.
The Manhattan report is based on statistical analyses that, its authors conclude, shows that the McKay program spurred public schools to improve achievement for those special education students who remained in public schools during that time. The report presents relatively small effect sizes (a small competition benefit), but asserts that these results are probably understated.
Yun’s review finds the evidence weak. He points out that any contributions the report may make are, “outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations and unsubstantiated assumptions about the direction of possible selection bias.”
Yun concludes that the report offers policymakers little guidance: “Any attempt to use this report for decision-making or policy evaluation, prior to validation using different methods and more robust approaches, should be viewed with extreme skepticism.”
Find John Yun’s review and the The Manhattan Institute’s report at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Thursday, June 19, 2008
DC Vouchers
Tell Congress: End the DC voucher experiment!
Congress will soon consider funding legislation that could include provisions to extend the problem-ridden DC voucher experiment. This ill-advised program, set to expire this September:
*Has not demonstrated a positive impact on student achievement.
*Diverts $14 million per year from public education and is opposed by three-fourths of DC's own residents.
*Pays tuition for students to go to private schools with unqualified teachers - some do not have even bachelor's degrees.
Urge your elected representatives to put an end to the unproven, poorly managed DC voucher program.
Contact your representatives in Congress TODAY! Tell Congress the DC voucher experiment deserves to die on schedule this September.
Congress will soon consider funding legislation that could include provisions to extend the problem-ridden DC voucher experiment. This ill-advised program, set to expire this September:
*Has not demonstrated a positive impact on student achievement.
*Diverts $14 million per year from public education and is opposed by three-fourths of DC's own residents.
*Pays tuition for students to go to private schools with unqualified teachers - some do not have even bachelor's degrees.
Urge your elected representatives to put an end to the unproven, poorly managed DC voucher program.
Contact your representatives in Congress TODAY! Tell Congress the DC voucher experiment deserves to die on schedule this September.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Thursday, March 27, 2008
Legislative Update & SW D
Yesterday I had the opportunity to do this year's delegate training with the members from our Southwest D region. We went over the issues the Assembly will be addressing and also the bills in the legislature that we need to take action on by being a part of a lobby day scheduled for April 1st.
For OEA members, the briefing will begin at 8:30 a.m. at the OEA Headquarters (323 E. Madison, Oklahoma City, OK).
The main piece of legislation OEA, CCOSA, USSA, OPTA, and the School Board's Association and other members of the Oklahoma Education Coalition will be addressing is SB 2093, which would allow for school vouchers in Oklahoma. It will be presented in the House Revenue and Taxation Subcommittee at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 1.
It will be imperative that we let our voices be heard. Public education is facing attacks from a number of different fronts – from charter districts to merit pay to vouchers. This is a great opportunity to address your concerns with your elected leaders.
For OEA members, the briefing will begin at 8:30 a.m. at the OEA Headquarters (323 E. Madison, Oklahoma City, OK).
The main piece of legislation OEA, CCOSA, USSA, OPTA, and the School Board's Association and other members of the Oklahoma Education Coalition will be addressing is SB 2093, which would allow for school vouchers in Oklahoma. It will be presented in the House Revenue and Taxation Subcommittee at 10 a.m. Tuesday, April 1.
It will be imperative that we let our voices be heard. Public education is facing attacks from a number of different fronts – from charter districts to merit pay to vouchers. This is a great opportunity to address your concerns with your elected leaders.
Wednesday, March 19, 2008
Legislative Update: Be Aware & Make a Difference
Because of legislator short-sightedness, there is a tremendous lack of revenue to fund our schools. Because of this, the legislature is attempting to pass anything they can dealing with schools to look like they are addressing public education. Sadly, they aren't seriously taking into account the wishes and beliefs of Oklahomans and the impact these measures have on our kids, schools and teachers.
Charter district bill passes senate
We need you to express your opposition to Senate Bill 2100 that threatens your local association's right to negotiate a contract. The bill would allow the State Board of Education to establish a Charter District Pilot Program and create another level of bureaucracy. Ten school districts in Oklahoma could apply for the pilot program and function similar to charter schools. SB 2100 would allow school districts to:
*Not follow all state regulations, only a select few.
*Eliminate contract negotiations.
*Reduce standards for teacher certification.
*Eliminate due process.
This bill passed the senate and is headed to the house. It is up to you to slow the momentum of this very dangerous bill. Contact your house member to voice your opposition against this bill.
Tax credits and voucher bill passes senate
Senate Bill 2093 will provide a tax credit for any taxpayer who donates money to a scholarship program for low-income children to attend private schools. The bill would allow:
*Money for the tax credits to be taken from the state's general revenue fund, reducing the amount of money available for public education, further crippling our under-funded schools.
*Cherry-picking students to attend private schools while reducing funding for public schools is not the solution. Contact your local representative today to oppose this bill. The bill heads to the House.
Common education fund short $42 million
Please contact your legislators and encourage them to approve $42 million in supplemental funding immediately. Cuts to your local budget will be made this month if the funding is not received soon. Each district will have to compensate for the reduction in state aid.
Many districts have already suspended spending. What can your district afford to sacrifice? Call your senate and house member today.
Charter district bill passes senate
We need you to express your opposition to Senate Bill 2100 that threatens your local association's right to negotiate a contract. The bill would allow the State Board of Education to establish a Charter District Pilot Program and create another level of bureaucracy. Ten school districts in Oklahoma could apply for the pilot program and function similar to charter schools. SB 2100 would allow school districts to:
*Not follow all state regulations, only a select few.
*Eliminate contract negotiations.
*Reduce standards for teacher certification.
*Eliminate due process.
This bill passed the senate and is headed to the house. It is up to you to slow the momentum of this very dangerous bill. Contact your house member to voice your opposition against this bill.
Tax credits and voucher bill passes senate
Senate Bill 2093 will provide a tax credit for any taxpayer who donates money to a scholarship program for low-income children to attend private schools. The bill would allow:
*Money for the tax credits to be taken from the state's general revenue fund, reducing the amount of money available for public education, further crippling our under-funded schools.
*Cherry-picking students to attend private schools while reducing funding for public schools is not the solution. Contact your local representative today to oppose this bill. The bill heads to the House.
Common education fund short $42 million
Please contact your legislators and encourage them to approve $42 million in supplemental funding immediately. Cuts to your local budget will be made this month if the funding is not received soon. Each district will have to compensate for the reduction in state aid.
Many districts have already suspended spending. What can your district afford to sacrifice? Call your senate and house member today.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
Flawed Research: Vouchers and Florida Schools
REPORT OVERSTATES CLAIMS FOR FLORIDA’S A+ ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM
Reviewer says report presents strong analysis of Florida’s system, but wrongly implies vouchers can be singled out as a cause of school improvement
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 15, 2008) – A new study from the Urban Institute’s CALDER center examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools led to improved student achievement. The report concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. A new review of the study praises its comprehensive analysis of data, but identifies several key instances where the report overstates its case.
The CALDER report,“Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” was authored by Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio.
The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Damian Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
In their report, the authors seek to understand the extent to which accountability sanctions and incentives impact school practices and student achievement. Based on statistical analysis of the lowest performing schools, the authors conclude that, in Florida, schools receiving a grade of “F” in the state’s A+ Plan for Education actually did alter their teaching practices, leading to higher test scores.
Though Betebenner commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that the most prominent shortcoming of the report is its overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains though there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists.
Betebenner adds, “Moreover, even if it is true that the Florida policy of vouchers plus other accountability provisions did lead to the changes in policy and practice, nothing in this new research allows a policy maker to single out either vouchers or other accountability provisions (or a combination) as having such an effect.”
Betebenner concludes that the Urban Institute report does offer reason to believe that one or more elements of Florida’s accountability systems “may offer … a lever” to improve student achievement. But he continues, “because changes in school policy and practice can occur for many reasons, this research should not be read to show that the accountability system ‘led to’ or ‘caused’ the student achievement increases. Nor does the new report consider whether the accountability levers in Florida are the most effective means of quickly and beneficially transforming the policies and practices of schools in a way that leads to increased student achievement.”
Find the complete review by Damian Betebenner.
Reviewer says report presents strong analysis of Florida’s system, but wrongly implies vouchers can be singled out as a cause of school improvement
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 15, 2008) – A new study from the Urban Institute’s CALDER center examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools led to improved student achievement. The report concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance. A new review of the study praises its comprehensive analysis of data, but identifies several key instances where the report overstates its case.
The CALDER report,“Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure,” was authored by Cecilia E. Rouse, Jane Hannaway, Dan Goldhaber, and David Figlio.
The report was reviewed for the Think Twice project by Damian Betebenner of the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
In their report, the authors seek to understand the extent to which accountability sanctions and incentives impact school practices and student achievement. Based on statistical analysis of the lowest performing schools, the authors conclude that, in Florida, schools receiving a grade of “F” in the state’s A+ Plan for Education actually did alter their teaching practices, leading to higher test scores.
Though Betebenner commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that the most prominent shortcoming of the report is its overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains though there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists.
Betebenner adds, “Moreover, even if it is true that the Florida policy of vouchers plus other accountability provisions did lead to the changes in policy and practice, nothing in this new research allows a policy maker to single out either vouchers or other accountability provisions (or a combination) as having such an effect.”
Betebenner concludes that the Urban Institute report does offer reason to believe that one or more elements of Florida’s accountability systems “may offer … a lever” to improve student achievement. But he continues, “because changes in school policy and practice can occur for many reasons, this research should not be read to show that the accountability system ‘led to’ or ‘caused’ the student achievement increases. Nor does the new report consider whether the accountability levers in Florida are the most effective means of quickly and beneficially transforming the policies and practices of schools in a way that leads to increased student achievement.”
Find the complete review by Damian Betebenner.
Thursday, January 10, 2008
Flawed Research: Vouchers & Dropout Rates
REPORTS CLAIMING VOUCHERS CAN REDUCE DROPOUT RATES FOUND TO BE OF POOR QUALITY
Reviewer says the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation reports are flawed and untrustworthy
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 9, 2008) – A series of five reports released over the past two years asserts that dropout rates can be reduced by implementing private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives.
The five reports, each specific to a given state – Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina – follow a parallel structure and were written by Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.
The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida.
Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports:
-largely ignore existing research on dropping out and school competition;
-present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out;
-improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and
-ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs.
According to Dorn, “the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out and the factors that shape educational attainment.” As a result, “each report obscures other program options that policymakers could consider.” These other options include preschool programs, intervention in middle and high school grades, changes in child labor laws, reduction in class sizes and modification of exit-exam requirements.
Dorn notes that dropping out is a serious problem which deserves serious rather than superficial analysis. He concludes by advising state policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and instead seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in the review.
Find the complete review by Sherman Dorn as well as a link to the Friedman Foundation reports at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Reviewer says the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation reports are flawed and untrustworthy
EAST LANSING, Mich. (Jan. 9, 2008) – A series of five reports released over the past two years asserts that dropout rates can be reduced by implementing private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives.
The five reports, each specific to a given state – Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina and North Carolina – follow a parallel structure and were written by Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.
The reports were reviewed for the Think Twice project by Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida.
Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports:
-largely ignore existing research on dropping out and school competition;
-present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out;
-improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and
-ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs.
According to Dorn, “the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out and the factors that shape educational attainment.” As a result, “each report obscures other program options that policymakers could consider.” These other options include preschool programs, intervention in middle and high school grades, changes in child labor laws, reduction in class sizes and modification of exit-exam requirements.
Dorn notes that dropping out is a serious problem which deserves serious rather than superficial analysis. He concludes by advising state policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and instead seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in the review.
Find the complete review by Sherman Dorn as well as a link to the Friedman Foundation reports at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org.
Wednesday, November 07, 2007
Vouchers Crushed in Utah
The citizens of Utah defeated a voucher proposal in a state-wide referendum vote. The Utah Education Association was the leader and partner in a group that led the fight against vouchers.
For more on the vote go to http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_7392263.
For more on the vote go to http://origin.sltrib.com/ci_7392263.
Thursday, May 24, 2007
Flawed Research Department-Voucher Savings Grossly Exaggerated
This isn't a surprise to anyone against vouchers.
EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT PURPORTED VOUCHER SAVINGS
Even if questionable findings are accepted, they represent only miniscule reductions in public school costs.
EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation claims that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have, cumulatively over 15 years, “saved” taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars. But a new review of that report concludes the claims of savings are misleading, oversimplified and, even if accurate, insignificant – less than 1/100th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Further, the Friedman report does not address the issue of school quality, which is a large part of determining true cost savings.
The report, “School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006,” was written by Susan Aud. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas.
In her report, Aud studied twelve programs that offer public subsidies for students who attend private schools in ten states and the District of Colombia. She compared the per pupil cost of public financing (state and local) for a student attending a public school to the public financing of a student using a voucher to attend a private school. Based on this, she found a cumulative savings of $444 million over a 15-year period nationwide.
In his review, Baker points out that expenditures and costs are not the same thing and that the report confuses “cost savings” with “government expenditure reduction.” “Typically,” he explains, “cost savings are defined in terms of achieving similar or better quality of outcome or output with lower investment. Cost necessarily assumes a level of product quality. Further, when one accounts for the cost of producing a product of specific quality, one must account for all resources that went into production, not just the small portion that was government subsidized.”
The bottom line, Baker concludes, is that even if state and local governments were, in fact, able to reduce instructional expenses by $444 million over 15 years, this is a miniscule figure. The small number is in part because publicly financed vouchers are only used by 100,000 students which represents 0.2 percent of 2005 U.S. public school enrollment. Using 2004-05 public education spending amounts, Baker calculates the purported savings to be the equivalent of less than 1/100th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year.
Aud’s evidence, Baker concludes, “does not make a sufficient case to informed policymakers for the positive fiscal impact of vouchers and tuition tax credits. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite – that fiscal gains are trivial at best.”
Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Contact: Teri Battaglieri (248) 444-7071 (email) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org
Bruce Baker (785) 864-9844 (email) bbaker@ku.edu
EVIDENCE DOESN’T SUPPORT PURPORTED VOUCHER SAVINGS
Even if questionable findings are accepted, they represent only miniscule reductions in public school costs.
EAST LANSING, Mich. – A recently released report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation claims that school choice programs which subsidize private school attendance with public funds have, cumulatively over 15 years, “saved” taxpayers nearly half a billion dollars. But a new review of that report concludes the claims of savings are misleading, oversimplified and, even if accurate, insignificant – less than 1/100th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year. Further, the Friedman report does not address the issue of school quality, which is a large part of determining true cost savings.
The report, “School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs, 1990-2006,” was written by Susan Aud. It was reviewed for the Think Twice think tank review project by Professor Bruce Baker of the University of Kansas.
In her report, Aud studied twelve programs that offer public subsidies for students who attend private schools in ten states and the District of Colombia. She compared the per pupil cost of public financing (state and local) for a student attending a public school to the public financing of a student using a voucher to attend a private school. Based on this, she found a cumulative savings of $444 million over a 15-year period nationwide.
In his review, Baker points out that expenditures and costs are not the same thing and that the report confuses “cost savings” with “government expenditure reduction.” “Typically,” he explains, “cost savings are defined in terms of achieving similar or better quality of outcome or output with lower investment. Cost necessarily assumes a level of product quality. Further, when one accounts for the cost of producing a product of specific quality, one must account for all resources that went into production, not just the small portion that was government subsidized.”
The bottom line, Baker concludes, is that even if state and local governments were, in fact, able to reduce instructional expenses by $444 million over 15 years, this is a miniscule figure. The small number is in part because publicly financed vouchers are only used by 100,000 students which represents 0.2 percent of 2005 U.S. public school enrollment. Using 2004-05 public education spending amounts, Baker calculates the purported savings to be the equivalent of less than 1/100th of one percent of annual public school spending, or about 60 cents per child per year.
Aud’s evidence, Baker concludes, “does not make a sufficient case to informed policymakers for the positive fiscal impact of vouchers and tuition tax credits. In fact, it suggests quite the opposite – that fiscal gains are trivial at best.”
Find the complete review by Bruce Baker as well as a link to the report published by the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation at: http://www.greatlakescenter.org/.
Contact: Teri Battaglieri (248) 444-7071 (email) greatlakescenter@greatlakescenter.org
Bruce Baker (785) 864-9844 (email) bbaker@ku.edu
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
