Jay P. Greene's Blog

(Guest Post by Jason Richwine)

The new experimental evaluation of the Louisiana voucher program poses a challenge to school-choice advocates such as myself. How do we explain the voucher students’ negative test outcomes – including a massive 0.4 SD drop in math scores – when evaluations in other cities showed neutral to mildly positive effects? Supporters have quickly coalesced around the explanation that Louisiana imposed regulations so suffocating that only the worst private schools participated in the voucher program.

I find that explanation unsatisfactory for a few reasons. First, it feels like a post-hoc excuse. Yes, choice advocates have been warning about burdensome regulation for years, including in Louisiana, but how many predicted that the state’s voucher system would go down in flames because of it? The magnitude of the score declines must surprise even the most vociferous critics of regulation.

More importantly, if the participating private schools are so bad – and other people apparently knew they were bad, given the declining enrollments – then why did the voucher recipients choose them? Did the parents fail to research their options? Do they not value academics much at all? Blaming the results on an unusually bad set of private schools is tempting, but it creates the new problem of having to explain why parents made such dubious choices.

Personally, I do not find it plausible that school quality alone could have so much impact, especially in one year. The traits that students bring with them to school – natural abilities, resilience, family support networks  – generally explain much more of the variance in student achievement than school quality. Only the absolute worst schools could have such deleterious effects, but there is no indication that the Louisiana voucher schools were the bottom of the barrel. Even if the one third of private schools that participated really were the worst third in the state, we are still talking about schools that are below average – not uniformly awful.

In trying to reconcile Louisiana with the successful experiments in DC, Milwaukee, Charlotte, etc., I suggest exploring other explanations. In particular, how well did the private schools align their curricula with the demands of the state tests? Maybe the private schools were simply teaching different material rather than teaching the state’s curriculum badly. Also worth examining is whether the randomization process, which was done within a complicated set of priority levels for admission, was conducted appropriately. Another issue is how schools adapt after the first year of statewide implementation. And, remember, it is not uncommon for studies to change significantly from the working paper phase to publication. So let’s be patient. Explaining this anomalous study will require more research.

[Guest Post by Jason Bedrick]

Yesterday, Matt addressed the “very bitter lesson” of the recent NBER study’s first-ever finding of a negative impact from school choice. I concurred with Matt over at Education Next today. It’s also worth noting that the results should not have been surprising. Jay, Matt, Greg, Andrew Coulson, Robert Enlow, Rick Hess, and others warned that a rigid test-based accountability system could have serious unintended consequences. Indeed, here is a recap of this very debate two years ago:

For years, factions within the school choice movement have argued over the effectiveness and wisdom of numerous regulations. For example, when the Fordham Institute released a “policy toolkit” praising Louisiana for mandating the state test, among other regulations, it launched a vigorous debate. Andrew Coulson and I argued that, while well-intentioned, uniform testing mandates would stifle diversity and innovation. Matt Ladner warned that Fordham failed to recognize the “natural limitations of technocrats” in their overconfidence about the ability of policymakers to guard against the “risk of self-defeating homogenization of the school offerings available.” Robert Enlow of the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice cautioned that governments are “prone to politicial decisions and special interests,” and that accountability should be primarily to parents, not bureaucrats. Jay Greene noted that “testing requirements hurt choice because test results fail to capture most of the benefits produced by choice schools,” and that “highlighting a measure that severely under-states performance puts those programs in jeopardy.” AEI’s Rick Hess expressed skepticism that “policymakers have a Goldilocks-like ability to find the ‘just right’ solution” and called the Fordham report “surprisingly naïve about the realities of the legislative process and regulatory creep.”

Ultimately, the Fordhamites dismissed these concerns. Future Fordham president Michael Petrilli waved them away as mere “hypotheticals” whereas his concerns—such as parents making bad decisions and the long-term impact of crummy schools on kids—were “all playing out, right now, in the real world.” Noting that “we have to work hard to get the policy design right,” Petrilli “applaud[ed] Louisiana and Indiana policymakers for doing a darn good job on this front with their statewide voucher programs.” Then-president of Fordham Chester Finn, went further, arguing that “it’s insane to expect [the] marketplace to yield quality control, efficiency, and accountability for educational outcomes.”

(Ironically, Petrilli also expressed his fear that “bad private schools will get lots of media attention, which will drive down public support for school choice and strengthen the hand of those who opposed such programs in the first place.” Sadly, the negative findings in the NBER study stemming from Petrilli’s preferred policies are likely to do more damage to the public support for school choice than any one bad school could ever do.)

Petrilli’s concerns about crummy schools are perfectly reasonable. Indeed, all his interlocutors share them. In this debate among friends, everyone wants what is best for children. Where they differ is over the best means to improve educational quality. Given that there is no perfect system, the question is what sort of system is most likely to produce the best outcomes.

(Guest post by Greg Forster)

Choice Remarks carries my article on OU President David Boren’s proposal to solve our education problems by throwing money at them – and doing so totally indiscriminately. Here’s one part of the proposal:

Another $125 million would go to higher education to keep down tuition and fees.

Yeah . . . I’ll just leave that there.

[Guest Post by Jason Bedrick]

On the campaign trail in Iowa yesterday, Hillary Clinton said she “wouldn’t keep open any school that’s not doing a better than average job.”

Andrew J. Coulson responds: “Garrison Keillor, please call your office.”

[Guest Post by Jason Bedrick]

The historical role of anti-Catholic bigotry in fueling opposition to school choice is well known. Justice Clarence Thomas recounted it in Mitchell v. Helms (2000):

[H]ostility to aid to pervasively sectarian schools has a shameful pedigree that we do not hesitate to disavow. […] Opposition to aid to “sectarian” schools acquired prominence in the 1870’s with Congress’s consideration (and near passage) of the Blaine Amendment, which would have amended the Constitution to bar any aid to sectarian institutions. Consideration of the amendment arose at a time of pervasive hostility to the Catholic Church and to Catholics in general, and it was an open secret that “sectarian” was code for “Catholic.” […] Notwithstanding its history, of course, “sectarian” could, on its face, describe the school of any religious sect, but the Court eliminated this possibility of confusion when […] it coined the term “pervasively sectarian”–a term which, at that time, could be applied almost exclusively to Catholic parochial schools and which even today’s dissent exemplifies chiefly by reference to such schools. […]

In short, nothing in the Establishment Clause requires the exclusion of pervasively sectarian schools from otherwise permissible aid programs, and other doctrines of this Court bar it. This doctrine, born of bigotry, should be buried now.

Sadly, it is far from buried. Some opponents of greater parental choice in education still find religious bigotry to be a useful tool in pushing their agenda. Consider the following excerpt from this (factually challenged) letter to the editor from Charles Sumner, president of the Nashville chapter of Americans United for Separation of Church and State:

After the Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments was circulated in Virginia by Madison and Jefferson, our nation decided we would never again send tax money to religious groups.

When I asked the principal of a Nashville Muslim school, I was told they would accept vouchers. However, most mainline religious groups are not known for having schools.

What an interesting choice of religious affiliation to cite as an example. Perhaps Donald Trump suggested it? And how helpful of Mr. Sumner to note that Islam is not “mainline”! [wink wink, nudge nudge] Apparently neither are the Catholics, since “mainline” religious groups apparently send their kids to the government-run schools, like they’re supposed to.

Although we disagree over school choice, Americans United has admirably defended religious minorities like Muslims when they experience persecution. Do the higher ups at Americans United know that a chapter president is not-so-subtly exploiting anti-Muslim bigotry for political ends? And what do they intend to do about it?

I highly doubt that the Americans United executives are themselves bigoted, but it’s worth noting that their reasons for opposing school choice today closely resemble those of the anti-Catholic bigots a century ago. When Catholics asked for public funding of their schools just as the Protestants received for theirs (i.e., the supposedly “public” schools), the Protestant establishment responded that the Catholics certainly had the right to open their own schools, but that they shouldn’t expect public funding because their schools were “sectarian” whereas the public schools were open to everyone.

Of course, that was true only in theory. In practice, the public schools reflected the views of the, shall we say, mainline religious groups, so Catholics had to choose between sending their children to schools that taught beliefs contrary to their own or opening their own schools.

When what is taught is schools is decided through a political process, there will be winners and losers. Politics is a zero-sum game. At best, the majority will have their views reflected in the schools and minorities will not. At worst, a well-organized minority will impose its will over even the majority. But even in the best case scenario, minorities like Catholics, Muslims, Jedi, etc. lose out:

Let’s consider an imaginary “public” school district where there are three groups of people: Hobbits, Ewoks, and Terrans. Each groups has very different and passionately held views about what should be taught in school and how it should be taught. All three groups are required to pay taxes to support the district school, which is ostensibly nonpartisan, nondenominational, and open to all. However, the majority of the district is Terran so the school reflects the Terran preferences. When the Hobbits and Ewoks open their own schools and seek equal per-pupil support from the local government, the indignant Terrans respond that the district school is meant for everyone. “It’s your right to open your own schools,” explain the Terrans, “but it’s your responsibility to pay for them.” Thus the majority brazenly forces minority groups either to abandon their values or to pay for two school systems. And lower-income minorities may have no choice at all.

A system of school choice, by contrast, enables minority groups to enroll their children in schools that align with their values without placing upon them the burden of supporting two school systems.

At the very least, Americans United should repudiate Mr. Sumner’s comments and take appropriate disciplinary action. Better yet, they should rethink their approach to education in a pluralistic society.

I came across this video and am convinced that the world is a better place knowing that it exists.

This is not an odd-couple duet, like David Bowie and Bing Crosby singing Peace on Earth/Little Drummer Boy.  Dylan and Cash were actually mutual admirers and there is significant overlap in their musical styles.  So, I am not posting this for its ironic humor.  Instead, I think this is a particularly touching rendition of a beautiful song.  And for anyone who thinks Bob Dylan can’t sing, listen to him harmonize with Johnny Cash at the end.

It’s not a particularly polished performance.  But it sounds very different from Dylan’s solo version and has an air of authenticity around it.  Unlike the artificial feel of the Bowie and Crosby duet and most other TV variety show performances, this actually feels like two friends picking up the guitar and just playing a song together.  Enjoy.

(Guest Post by Ze’ev Wurman and Bill Evers)

In a recent piece on his web site Mike Petrilli, the president of the Fordham Institute, makes a rather strange case arguing that Common Core is alive (and well?). He quotes multiple blogs that argued the recent Massachusetts decision to abandon PARCC and replace it with MCAS 2.0 (Massachusetts’s own test) is a blow to Common Core and PARCC, but instead he argues that the replacement of PARCC by MCAS 2.0 “is no repudiation of PARCC.” His reasoning?

[T]here’s every reason to believe that MCAS 2.0 is going to look much the same as PARCC 1.0. This is akin to a state dropping the “Common Core” label but keeping nearly all of the standards. It’s essentially a rebranding exercise undertaken for political reasons.

Now, we don’t know whether Petrilli is right or wrong about MCAS 2.0, and we are quite willing to believe his sources are better than ours. So what Petrilli is actually saying is that PARCC has been saved in Massachusetts by its own elected officials deceiving their constituents and spending millions of extra dollars to create a fakely different MCAS 2.0. If he is right, this is in line with similar rebranding efforts elsewhere across the nation intended to confuse the parents and keep them in the dark. Yet even if true, one wonders why he brags about deceiving parents, and one wonders how Massachusetts will react to being deceived, given that a statewide ballot to repeal Common Core has just been submitted to the Secretary of State there.

Petrilli then goes on to “prove” that Common Core has been successful and hence is healthy. First, he argues that, with Common Core, standards are “dramatically improved” when compared to the prior state standards. Opinions vary on this point, yet what nobody disagrees with is that nationwide student achievement on the NAEP took a sharp dive across the board this year for the first time ever, precisely five years after Common Core’s “dramatically improved” standards were adopted by most states.

Petrilli continues and praises the “quality of the reading, writing, and math tests in use throughout the country” under Common Core, and their alignment “with college and career readiness,” arguing a “huge improvement” in what he calls the “honesty gap” between what test say and true college readiness. It seems Mr. Petrilli is unaware of the “honesty” of Common Core test results from California. For many years California assessed college readiness of high school students, and the results were slowly but steadily improving until last year. Suddenly, with the new Common Core “college-readiness” Smarter Balanced test, 20% more students this year are suddenly “college ready” in English and more than twice (110% more, to be precise) are “college ready” for math. If these clearly-fake results seems to suffer from Petrilli’s honesty gap, the number of conditionally college ready in English almost tripled(!) from less than 50 thousand to almost 140 thousand students overnight. Perhaps we should rename it Common Core’s “college readiness illusion” instead.

He goes on to acknowledge we have little evidence that Common Core improved instruction in the classroom, yet he argues that “we do know is that higher-quality curricular programs have been developed, and at least one—Eureka Math—is being widely used all across the country.” Actually, we do not know that higher quality programs are in effect, as the recent NAEP collapse indicates. Were truly higher-quality programs being used, we would expect the NAEP scores to rise rather than fall. Moreover, we would expect not to have hundreds of exemplars of math instructional idiocy propagated across the nation and on the Internet, all clearly labelled “Common Core Aligned.”

Finally, Petrilli turns to the comparability among states that Common Core supposedly allows. He somehow forgets to mention states like Washington, or Ohio, or Arkansas, which “re-defined” Proficiency on Common Core test results to suit their own needs rather than to aid comparability.

Based on all that, Petrilli declares that the Common Core standards “are still very much alive” and that cut-scores “are dramatically higher than ever.” We agree that Common Core is still – albeit barely – alive and that millions of students are going to be harmed before it is finally and completely dead. But we also observe that the federally-sponsored consortia are already almost dead and that their college-ready cut-scores are — how to put it politely? — fake.