The Education Gadfly Weekly

With a $20 billion federal educational choice program now a real possibility under the Trump Administration and Republican-led Congress, the media spotlight has turned to the voucher research. The discussion often revolves around the question of participant effects—whether students are better off when they use a voucher to transfer to a private school. In recent days, voucher naysayers have pointed to the negative participant findings from recent studies in Louisiana and Ohio in order to attack the idea. (I oversaw the latter study as the Thomas B. Fordham Institute’s Ohio research director.)

These cursory analyses are misleading for a number of reasons. The Ohio study, led by respected Northwestern University professor David Figlio, came with a number of caveats that are often glossed over. Figlio was only able to credibly examine a small sample of voucher participants. To do an apples-to-apples comparison using a “regression discontinuity” approach, he had to focus on voucher students who came from marginally higher performing public schools (akin to a “D” rated school). As a result, voucher participants who left the most troubled public schools in the state—the “Fs”—were not studied. It’s possible that these students benefited from the program (or perhaps not), but there was no trustworthy way to find out.

In addition, the Ohio analysis uses state test scores, which are “high stakes” for public schools but not for private ones. Thus, public school students might have been encouraged to try harder on these tests than their voucher counterparts. Had evaluators been able to use a more neutral test, like the SAT-9, it’s possible that voucher student performance would have looked more impressive. Earlier studies, which found significant positive effects for voucher participants, used such neutral tests.

Meanwhile in Louisiana, State Superintendent John White notes that the implementation of his state’s voucher program is still in its infancy—just a few years in. White goes on to explain how private schools needed time to adjust to the new program. Among them include: adapting instruction to different expectations, ensuring academic supports for new pupils, and securing the talent needed to staff an excellent school. Though still in negative territory, voucher students’ test scores were on the upswing in year two, with new data on the horizon. At the very least, it’s premature to render a clear verdict in Louisiana based on just a couple years of early results.

Skeptics, however, make a more serious error when they omit the competitive effects of school choice. This piece of the research puzzle examines whether the introduction of vouchers leads to higher outcomes for pupils remaining in public schools. Stiffer competition, so the theory goes, should nudge improvements in district-run schools, which traditionally enjoy monopolies over the delivery of K–12 education.

In Ohio, the findings were positive: The introduction of voucher competition modestly improved the outcomes of students who remained in their public schools—in the range of one-eighth of the magnitude of the black-white test-score gap. In Louisiana, Anna Egalite of North Carolina State found similar results. Though some of her estimates were null, she found positive test score effects for students attending public schools facing the strongest voucher competition. 

It’s hardly surprising to see anti-voucher—and often pro-union—pundits skip the research on competitive effects. It undermines one of their major charges against vouchers: That they harm public-school pupils “left behind” because of a loss of funds. But as the Ohio and Louisiana studies indicate, the research lends little credence to this line of thought. Public schools students aren’t harmed; in fact, we find evidence that they reap academic benefits due to competition.

In heated debates like those over vouchers, solid empirical research remains an important guide. As opponents assert, the participant results from Louisiana and Ohio—caveats and all—are troubling and point to the need for improvements to existing choice programs. But they are wrong to suppress from public view studies on voucher competition simply because the findings don’t match their policy agenda. As state and federal policy makers consider private-school choice programs, they should heed research on both participant and competitive effects. 

With Donald Trump in the White House and long-time school choice advocate Betsy DeVos installed as his education secretary, arguments for and against vouchers and scholarship tax credits are burning white hot.

A New York Times report and subsequent editorial claimed that "three of the largest voucher programs in the country, enrolling nearly 180,000 children nationwide, showed negative results." Choice advocates fired back, disputing the methodology of those studies and insisting that the vast majority of "gold standard" research has found that school choice produces "equivalent or superior academic results, usually for a fraction of what is spent on public schools," in the words of the Cato Institute's Neal McCluskey.

Who's right? Who's wrong?

Wonky battles over research studies can be illuminating. They can also be irrelevant or premature. While McCluskey and other advocates are correct that the preponderance of evidence tends to favor school choice, this entire debate puts the cart before the horse. When we look to test-based evidence—and look no further—to decide whether choice "works," we are making two rather extraordinary, unquestioned assumptions: that the sole purpose of schooling is to raise test scores, and that district schools have a place of privilege against which all other models must justify themselves.

That's really not what choice is about. Choice exists to allow parents to educate their children in accordance with their own needs, desires and values. If diversity is a core value of yours, for example, you might seek out a school where your child can learn alongside peers from different backgrounds. If your child is a budding artist, actor or musician, the "evidence" that might persuade you is whether he or she will have the opportunity to study with a working sculptor or to pound the boards in a strong theater or dance program. If your child is an athlete, the number of state titles won by the lacrosse team or sports scholarships earned by graduates might be compelling evidence. If faith is central to your family, you will want a school that allows your child to grow and be guided by your religious beliefs. There can be no doubt that, if you are fortunate enough to select a school based on your child's talents or interests or your family's values and traditions, the question of whether school choice "works" has already been answered. It's working perfectly for you.

Deciding whether or not to permit parents to choose based solely on test-based evidence is presumptuous. It says, in effect, that one's values, aspirations and priorities for one's child amount to nothing. Worse, our evidence-based debate presumes that a single, uniform school structure is and ought to be the norm, and that every departure from that system must justify itself in terms of a narrow set of outcomes that may not reflect parents' – or society's – priorities. Academic outcomes matter, of course, but so do civic outcomes, character development, respect for diversity and faith and myriad others. "These outcomes shouldn't be placed in a framework that begs the question of whether [a single school system] is the right structure," notes Ashley Berner, Deputy Director of the Johns Hopkins Institute for Education Policy.

The question is not whether academic outcomes matter, but when they matter. Evidence should be used to influence school choice program and policy designs, not to decide whether or not choice should be permitted in the first place. The desirability of school choice and educational pluralism is a values-driven question, not an evidence-based one. Decide first if families should have publicly supported options beyond a single, uniform system. Then use evidence to inform choice or ensure that taxpayer funds are well spent.

Berner is the author of the new book "Pluralism and American Public Education: No One Way to School," which notes that making traditional district schools the default setting makes American education an outlier. In other countries, she notes, the state "either operates a wide array of secular, religious and pedagogical schools, or it funds all schools but operates only a portion of them." Pluralism does not exist to create competition for state-run schools; it's valued intrinsically.

That doesn't mean pluralistic systems are indifferent to school performance. Governments in other lands intervene when schools fail to produce acceptable academic outcomes, but the corrective measures are "sector agnostic," Berner notes. In the U.K., for example, whether it's a Church of England school or a nonsectarian, state-run school that's not performing well doesn't matter, since both are government-supported. "The conversation is not, 'See? Church of England schools are terrible!' The conversation is, 'All schools need to serve students well. Period,'" she says. School outcomes are a downstream conversation. The larger, more important debate—should we have a state-run or pluralistic system?—comes first.

School choice proponents who seek to prove that vouchers, tax credits and scholarships "work" by citing test-score-based research have allowed themselves to be lured into argument that can never be completely won. They have tacitly agreed to a reductive frame and a debate over what evidence is acceptable (test scores) and what it means to "win" (better test scores). This is roughly akin to arguing whether to shop at your neighborhood grocery store vs. Wal-Mart based on price alone. Price is important, but you may have reasons for choosing the Main Street Grocery that matter more to you than the 50 cents per pound you'd save on ground beef. Perhaps Main Street's fresh local produce and personal service are more important to you.

If we limit the frame of this debate to academic outputs alone, every new study provides ammunition, but never a conclusion. The real debate we should be having is, "What kind of system do we want?" Answer that question first, then use evidence to improve the school designs, policies and programs we have agreed deserve public support.

Editor’s note: A version of this article was originally published by U.S. News & World Report.

A response to Robin Lake’s article “Is charter school growth flat-lining?”, originally published 2/17/17 in The Lens.

Robin Lake recently noted that the growth in charter school openings has slowed to less than 2 percent annually. “Things could start rebounding,” she wrote, “but it seems to me that the days of easy, unfettered charter growth may be gone, at least for the near future. It’s time for honest conversations about what that means, especially given the demand and need for more high-quality choices.”

Robin is right about the trend but I want to challenge her explanation. I see four reasons why growth has slowed but am optimistic that, if we take the necessary steps, we can move into a period of dynamic expansion.

Reason #1: Innovation is unwelcome

At the outset, charters were a new frontier in public education. Educators who launched them could try out bold innovations in mission and vision, school culture, governance, management, human capital, marketing, curriculum, instruction, technology and assessment.

As the charter sector has matured, however, the space to innovate has shrunk. State laws and rules now force charters to mimic districts in many ways. Onerous state and federal compliance requirements force conformity. Authorizers might allow charters to set unique performance goals, but at renewal time, they make decisions mostly on state test results.

In few places is there a political—or philanthropic—appetite for true innovation any longer. We only want “what works.” We struggle with the idea of a school that “experiments on kids” even if parents want it.

Taken together, these forces threaten the entire premise of chartering. The challenge is to once again give charter leaders the ability to build distinctive institutions that deliver a better value proposition to the families and students that they serve.

Reason #2: Mission impossible

Over the past ten years, charters have been pigeon-holed. Rather than a living laboratory where more effective practices can be developed, they’ve come to be seen as an extreme intervention to replace failing inner city schools and educate the most underserved.

In some states, political bargains have been struck to limit charters to big urban districts. Even when there aren’t legal restrictions, elected officials and district leaders have become adept at blocking charters from their suburbs and towns. NIMBY!

Who wants to tackle the toughest challenges in public education—challenges that have deepened in recent decades—only to have your charter yanked when you don’t produce miracles in the first three to five years—and all of this with scarce start-up dollars (especially for one-off schools) and operating funds that average seventy-eight cents on the district dollar.

We need to return to the original purpose of chartering—and finance it fairly.

Reason #3: Lack of entrepreneurial capacity

The great charter starters of yester year—people like Mike Milkie of the Noble Network, Chris Barbic at YES Prep, JoAnn Gama and Tom Torkelson at IDEA, and Dan Scoggin of Great Hearts—figured out how to start one-off schools and turn them into today’s leading CMOs. They did this by leveraging a rare mix of educational vision, personal charisma, results-driven mindset, stamina, entrepreneurial chops, team collaboration, and access to resources.

But K–12 education doesn’t cultivate these qualities in many people. Most educators are trained to expect job security, contract hours, twenty-two holidays a year, a two-month summer break, and retirement at fifty-five. In return, they accept low pay, a job setting with little professional collaboration, and a slow promotional ladder. By mid-career, they’re habituated to all of this.

Yet America needs a more entrepreneurial, self-improving K–12 education market. Our school-age population has become extremely diverse with a wide variety of individual needs and aptitudes. New technologies are transforming teaching and learning. Parents now expect access to options—which have proliferated in the form of magnet schools, inter-district choice, dual enrollment, homeschooling, charters, vouchers, tax credits, savings accounts and more. These trends beg for an entrepreneurial market that can continuously change and improve.

Right now, we have a limited pool of education entrepreneurs prepared to thrive in such a market. We need more leadership programs that find, equip, and support the next generation of education entrepreneurs. If we expect more from these entrepreneurs, we must equip them with the expertise and resources to give us more.

Reason #4: Risk intolerance

Over the last two decades, charter authorizers, policy-makers, and advocates have been horrified by stories of fiscal mismanagement and scandal in a few bad schools. These stories are ALARMING. In response, we’ve systemically regulated charter schools, blocked the launch of unproven concepts, and stifled grassroots startups. A few bad apples have changed how the orchard is tended for the entire crop.

Looking forward, we must embrace the reality that encouraging schools to open means there will be casualties. Schools that fail should be closed. That’s the charter bargain, and those closures are happening.

The alternative is to run in place, preventing all but the strongest CMOs and EMOs from opening new schools. The inevitable result, however, is very little innovation, few school openings, and a charter sector that looks ever more like the blob we are trying to reform.

Are there solutions?

I am not suggesting that we lower the performance bar, but rather that we define quality in broader, more sophisticated ways. American families need quality educational options that:

• Serve the whole child;
• Meet different learner needs and aptitudes as well as parent preferences;
• Build a broad foundation of knowledge (not just skills);
• Focus on growth in achievement towards mastery (not just proficiency);
• Form strong character, diplomacy and citizenship habits; and
• Prepare high school graduates for a workplace that requires the ability to develop new—and durable—mindsets, skill sets and expertise.

We need to be honest with ourselves about whether our current schools are meeting these objectives in a demonstrable manner. And then we need to be realistic about putting in place the leadership preparation programs, startup runway, institutional development dollars, ongoing operating funds, and accompanying supports in place to raise the quality bar.

It’s time to re-open the charter frontier. Here are three approaches:

1. The Charter School Startup Grant Program at the U.S. Department of Education, which was available for grassroots school startups in most states during the Bush and Clinton years, could be revamped so it isn’t just an insider’s game for experienced CMOs and a lucky few states with new startups.
2. Authorizers could get better at patiently encouraging school founders to put all the necessary ingredients in place to launch innovative schools rather than issuing quick rejections and forcing so much conformity.
3. The many charter school gate-keepers—be they state education departments, authorizing bodies, or foundations—could hire entrepreneurial leaders onto their teams who are willing to get their hands dirty, work with charter founding groups, fight for sufficient resources, and encourage calculated risks.

The era of a narrow focus on proficiency in math and reading in grades 3–8 is gone. A myopic focus on No-Excuses schools won’t yield the diversity of educational models, learning pathways and quality experiences that American children need today.

Although they aren’t known for moral exemplars, Silicon Valley and Wall Street recruit terrific talent by rewarding entrepreneurs and prizing a culture of innovation and risk taking. Why can’t the charter sector do likewise—plus the morality and character that children need from the grownups who teach them?

On this week's podcast, Checker Finn, Alyssa Schwenk, and David Griffith discuss the future of school choice under a Trump administration. During the Research Minute, Amber Northern examines the effects of birth order on non-cognitive abilities.

Amber’s Research Minute

Sandra E. Black et al., “Born to lead? The effect of birth order on non-cognitive abilities,” Institute of Labor Economics (February 2017).

Since the 1980s, there has been a significant increase in the average age at which women in industrialized nations have their first child. Advanced maternal age, medically defined as ages 35 and up, has in a number of studies shown negative association with infant health, and potentially, development in later life. However, data from three separate birth cohorts in the United Kingdom (1958, 1970, and 2001) indicated a marked increase in the cognitive ability of first-born children over time. At face value, this appears to be a disconnect: Shouldn’t the trend towards later child-bearing correlate to lower cognitive abilities among first-borns? A trio of researchers explored what was behind the unexpected results and recently published their results in the International Journal of Epidemiology.

The three birth cohorts were studied separately for different longitudinal research projects and each included more than 16,000 randomly sampled children born in specific windows of time. Cognitive ability of the children was assessed at the ages of 10 or 11 using different tests of verbal cognition depending on the cohort. The researchers in the present study combined the data and standardized the three different test results to ensure the best comparability between the diverse data sources. The most common age range in which women were giving birth in both 1958 and 2001 was 25-29, so that range was chosen as the comparison for the advanced age cohort. The researchers zeroed-in on first-borns in both age ranges. The study included adjustments for socio-demographic characteristics (married or single, income, education at time of birth, etc.) and health behaviors before and after pregnancy.

The results: First children born to younger mothers performed higher than peers born to older mothers in both the 1958 and 1970 cohorts, followed by a complete reversal of that performance outcome for the 2001 cohort.

How can it be that advanced maternal age went from being a negative influence on kids’ cognitive ability to a positive influence in less than 30 years? Although not addressed directly in the study, one part of the answer is likely to be the benefits of living in the 21st century—better medicine, hygiene, and reproductive science included. But the researchers posit that since first-born children typically have access to more maternal resources—both material support and things like attention—the trend toward older first births puts that positive variable ahead of the adverse variable of “advanced maternal age” and leads to the reversal. Additionally, older mothers are more likely to be established in their own education, career, and life, whatever level they have achieved. In short, later first births generally mean smaller ultimate family size, resulting in more resources for children and less competition for those resources down the line. These additional resources are enough to overcome the remaining potential negatives of advanced maternal age.

The researchers caution that their study looked at only a few cohorts in one nation and that more study is needed to better understand the link between timing of child bearing and its impact on later development. If the results are replicated with additional research, however, these findings could help bolster policymakers’ efforts to push adult stability as a key to child academic ability. Perhaps a push like the one proposed in the success sequence could nudge this phenomenon even further.

SOURCE: Alice Goisis, Daniel C. Schneider, Mikko Myrskalä, “The reversing association between advanced maternal age and child cognitive ability: evidence from three UK birth cohorts,” International Journal of Epidemiology (February, 2017).

In this study, the authors use administrative data from North Carolina middle schools to estimate the impact of “delinquent” students (i.e., those with three or more suspensions in a school year) on their grade level peers (i.e., students with two or fewer suspensions). To accomplish this, they take advantage of the “wide-scale remixing” of peers that occurs when students transition from fifth grade to sixth grade to implement an “instrumental variable” approach that plausibly addresses the challenge of selection bias that is endemic in peer effects studies.

Overall, their results suggest that a 10 percent increase in exposure to suspension-worthy acts results in a .06 standard deviation decrease in math scores—or roughly half of the decrease one might expect if the average class size doubled from ten to twenty students. Somewhat surprisingly, they find little evidence that the magnitude of this effect differs depending on student or teacher characteristics.

Unfortunately, because the study relies on suspensions data to identify delinquency, the authors are unable to disentangle the effects of a student’s misbehavior from those of the school’s disciplinary response. And their results don’t tell us everything we‘d like to know about the sort of group dynamics that may be at work. For example, would the costs of delinquency be larger or smaller if delinquent students were more evenly distributed across schools and classrooms? (Unsurprisingly, the study finds that the current distribution of delinquent students is highly uneven.)

Overall, the study confirms what most teachers know instinctively: that disruption has costs for students. But that is the start of the conversation, not the end of it. As the authors put it, “We may have documented the effect of peer offenses, but it is unclear what the prescription would be to improve peer behavior. Indeed, it is not clear what the cost would be (or whether it is even feasible) to effectively deter misbehavior on a large scale.”

In a world of finite resources, such deterrence is likely to be inadequate; so it would be nice if educators and policymakers could weigh the likely benefits of transferring a dangerous or disruptive student to an alternative setting—inside or outside the school—against the likely costs of such a transfer for the student in question. This study brings us incrementally closer to that ideal. But we still have a long way to go.

SOURCE: Tom Ahn and Justin G. Trogdon, “Peer delinquency and student achievement in middle school,” Labor Economics (January 2017).