I've previously stated my strong support for the DC voucher program and derided the Secretary's use of what I believe to be the weakest argument against the program. However, in recent days several reputable outlets have gone farther, charging that the Department did something underhanded, putting its thumb on the scale during the debate over the program's continuation.
The accusation is that the Secretary and his top brass knew that the Institute of Education Sciences final evaluation of the program was finished (showing positive results) but sat on the report, not releasing it until after the debate was over and Congress had effectively killed the program.
From my time on the inside, I find this charge unlikely. Here's why:
IES is a largely autonomous research entity, not an arm of the Secretary's office. In a number of cases, like this one, it is charged by Congress with conducting independent evaluations of important initiatives.
When it is finished with a study, IES leaders typically brief the leadership of the Department on the findings and then the report is released directly. It may take days to do so, maybe even a week or so, but I'd be very surprised if months elapsed between the Secretary's being made aware of the final results and its public distribution.
Furthermore, this report was expected this spring, not earlier. Previous iterations of the study (the interim versions) were released in the spring. Last year, while at the White House, I was dying to know the results of the last preliminary version (the ???????impacts after two years ??????? edition), but we didn't get notice until just before its public release.
Finally, sitting on this report for months would've gone beyond dirty pool; it would've been risky. Had IES believed that its independent work was being delayed for political reasons, it could've leaked the study. Also since this was a congressionally mandated evaluation, delaying its release and presentation to Congress would've gotten the Department in hot water.
I can't speak to the other related charges being made????????that the Department was avoiding the WSJ's requests for comment or that departmental staffers were forbidden to discuss the report. And there is of course the possibility that I'm wrong and that the report was inappropriately buried. If that were the case, we'd be within our rights to seethe.
But at this point, I think that's unlikely, and until we have clear evidence of the Department's misbehavior, let's argue this case on the merits.