Tierney misrepresented study on Milwaukee school vouchers
SUMMARY: New York Times columnist John Tierney misrepresented the findings of a study of school vouchers in Milwaukee, claiming that it showed "that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program." In fact, the study questioned whether the Milwaukee voucher program actually had an effect on public schools.
New York Times columnist John Tierney, in his March 7 column (subscription required), misrepresented the findings of a study conducted by Harvard researcher Rajashri Chakrabarti on school vouchers in Milwaukee, claiming that Chakrabarti's study showed "that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program." In fact, Chakrabarti's 2005 study, which compared school voucher programs in Milwaukee and Florida, questioned whether the Milwaukee voucher program actually had an effect on public schools.
School voucher programs allow parents to withdraw their children from public schools and enroll them in private schools with the help of vouchers for a set amount of public funding, money that is then transferred to the private school. Such programs are usually promoted under the concept of "school choice."
From Tierney's March 7 New York Times column:
In fact, the students in public schools have benefited from the competition. Two studies by Harvard researchers, one by Caroline Hoxby and another by Rajashri Chakrabarti, have shown that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program (the ones with large numbers of low-income students eligible for the vouchers).
The competition spurred the public system to shift power from the central administration to individual schools, allowing councils of parents and teachers to decide who should teach there, instead of forcing the schools to accept incompetent teachers just because they had seniority.
Chakrabarti's study, however, found that the Milwaukee program was deficient to voucher programs in Florida, and that "the results in Milwaukee are mixed" in terms of improving performance in nearby public schools. Chakrabarti concluded:
This study contributes in this direction by comparing the effects of two U.S. voucher programs -- Florida and Milwaukee -- that differ fundamentally in their designs. The Florida program is a "threat of voucher" program that first threatens the failing schools with vouchers and vouchers are introduced only if they fail to meet a certain government designated quality cutoff. The Milwaukee program, on the other hand, is a "voucher shock" program with a sudden government announcement that all low income public school students would be eligible for vouchers. In the context of an equilibrium theory of public school and household behavior, this paper argues that the Florida-type program should bring about an unambiguous improvement in public school performance and this improvement should exceed the improvement (if any) in the Milwaukee-type program.
Moreover, the findings of Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby regarding the Milwaukee voucher program have garnered significant criticism. As Media Matters for America previously noted. Helen F. Ladd, Duke University professor of economics and professor of public policy, has criticized the findings of Hoxby's studies -- one of which was a study of school voucher programs in Milwaukee, Arizona, and Michigan. Ladd claimed that Hoxby's conclusion that competition created by school voucher programs "significantly raised the productivity of the traditional public schools" in Milwaukee cannot be accepted as definitive.
According to Ladd:
In particular, she presents evidence that the threat to public schools in Milwaukee of losing students to voucher schools and the threat to public schools in Arizona and Michigan of losing students to nearby charter schools significantly raised the productivity of the traditional public schools in that city and those states. If she is correct, these results are potentially very important for education policy makers.
Without further corroboration from other researchers, however, it is premature to accept Hoxby's results as definitive. While her research is extremely sophisticated in many ways, it is flawed in that the unit of analysis is the school rather than the individual student.
Among the more egregious examples of media misinformation being cited today by Media Matters for America, in addition to the quotation provided in this item:
"that as the voucher program expanded in Milwaukee, there was a marked improvement in test scores at the public schools most threatened by the program" -John Tierney, New York Times
...we also have from the other items:
"See how much we get done when you come over here?" ...I wish we had you on every night." -Chris Matthews, MSNBC
"She sounds like a screeching ex-wife. ... Men will know what I mean by this" -Rush Limbaugh, whoever the heck pays him
"I don't think most people are going to run on national issues" Jaun Williams, NPR and FOX, jointly
And it's kind of sad that those egregious examples of media misinformation may serve to distract the eye and mind from the remaining one which inhabits Media Matters for America's front page items of the day (as of this posting), that remaining one being:
that the CIA did obtain evidence of an al-Qaida-Saddam relationship from foreign intelligence and open sources." -Michael Barone, U.S. News & World Report and all others who pick up his syndicated column
...it being the only quote cited so far today (as of this posting) worth a damn.
Maybe you should start your own site where you get to pick and choose what goes on it. Start here: www.blogspot.com
MMFA may have more tongue-in-cheek and less-serious articles then in the past, but they still have about the same amount of serious issue content. You see, the total volume of articles seems to have gone up.
for a school voucher proponent to explain how they are going to FORCE the private schools to accept those low-income/low-achieving students that will be "liberated" from the public schools. That seems to be one aspect of their "plan" which gets little attention.
I don't see that the evidence cited by MMFA against Tierney's conclusion is any stronger than the evidence cited in the study repeated by Tierney.
I also don't understand why the left is against school vouchers.
that every American child regardless of race or income is entitled to the best education possible because they're American citizens. Is that too complicated too understand? I know you're conservative but I really can't make it any simpler.
How does the voucher program inhibit your goals in that regard.
Simple. It takes money out of the public school system and puts it in the hands of private institutions. It allows rich folk to "opt-out" of the system. Meanwhile, poor folk who couldn't send their kids to private school with the amount they'd get in vouchers are left-behind in the further decaying public school infrastructure. Not only that, there's no restrictions on the entrance requirements to private schools. So the rich can escape to private schools, not have to contribute to public education, and still exclude the poor and minorities.
By definition, rich folk can opt out of the system without the benefit of vouchers. Vouchers are designed to help the middle class and lower class give their kids the same opportunity, at least in theory. I don't see the downside.
1) When you make public money available to everyone for a product, the suppliers of that product will charge everyone more. That's how vouchers will work: schools that are halfway decent - which cater to the affluent - will charge everyone the extra amount of the voucher, and pocket the difference.
2) Do you think it's a good idea for groups that receive public money to have no oversight? Then you'll love vouchers: money to schools that don't have to prove that their kids are learning. Gee, sounds great...
3) Most private schools pay their teachers less than public school teachers; the benefits are way less as well (I speak from experience). Will they really attract better teachers?
4) Nobody wants a kid to go to a crummy public school, and I can sympathize with those who want to get their kids out of them. But our suburban schools, with well-paid teachers and good facilities, consistently beat all but the most elite private schools in academic performance. What does that tell us?
5) No private school can replace what happens at home, and we have too many kids who are showing up to kindergarten already years behind. These kids will not make it in any private school save the type that will give them social promotions and worthless degrees. The incentives will be great to create private schools just like that.
Vouchers are a con job - they are trotted out by conservatives who know that the only real solution to our education problems is more revenue, better paid staff, and intensive remidiation in the early grades.
Thanks for your post. You raised some legitimate points, and I especially agree with your #5. I have several friends in teaching here in Minnesota. I believe our student results when compared to the rest of the nation are well above average here. We have open enrollment in the public schools which is new since I graduated 22 years ago. That to me is a modified version of the voucher program. Still, I hear about the funding problems a lot, even though funding has increased quite a bit. According to my friends, which is really just their opinion, it is the special education students that take up a disproportionate amount of money and time. Clearly these students deserve an opportunity to learn the best they can, but it creates pressure on the system. Anyway, you sound credible to me and I appreciate your input on this matter.
They dont have to, by law, provide for instance special teachers for dyslexic children which public schools must do. Nor do they have to take children with any real problems while public schools must take whoever comes through the door. So, with all the mandatory testing, and the flight of the better children with no problems fleeing to private schools, they will be able to show they are teaching better for less, not because they are better but because the percentage of children that have problems in public shools will have gone up. Vouchers are a trojan horse to destroy Americas committment to public education.
For the most part the vouchers will not cover the entire cost of schools so only those with disposable income will be able to take part in the voucher scheme. IF a private school takes the public money like this they should have to follow the rules public schools do, accepting every applicant, not only the cream of the crop. My opposition to vouchers is simple, everyone gains from an educated public, therefore our commitment to public education should be unquestioned. In the end what the agenda here seems to me IS choice, the choice of WHAT YOU CAN AFFORD. If we stratify the education system so that no matter how smart poor children are they get crappy education because they cannot afford the good schools and no matter how mediocre the more affluent children are they get the good education it will further stratify society and make it that much harder to cross the class barrier no matter the merit and talent of the children in question. I think this is the agenda. Why would George Bush sr want his kid who isnt the smartest crayon in the box to compete with MY daughter who could read at three years old? Stratifying the education system is a way to insure that he WONT. Protecting privelege is the agenda here not what is best for ALL Americans. IF wealthy people want their children in private schools fine, they are doing this anyway but they SHOULDNT be allowed to lessen their commitment and obligation to PUBLIC schools.
lets see. ...how many stupid statemants you can make in one post
Is it only the "rich" opting out? Please define what you consider rich
I send my kid to private school but I still pay my property taxes so how am i not contributing to public education?
And Scott, i send my kid to private school because it teaches values that hold dear such as personal responsibility, hard work, respect for adults, love of country and how to think critically. things NOT taught in the public school system
But that doesn't mean that you get to NOT pay your taxes that fund Public Education. That's essentially what a voucher is- a REFUND. Where do you suppose that money for the refund will come from? Out of the Public Schools, of course.
Look, I don't know how more simply I can put this: Good Public Education BENEFITS the Public because it creates jobs and opportunities. If you don't like the way Public Education is run (I don't either) then CHANGE IT. You don't DESTROY IT to "save" it. Baby, bathwater...sound familiar?
Because it takes money OUT of the public school system, which is already desperately underfunded, that's why.
If rich people want to BUY a "better" education for Buffy and Reginald, fine. BUT, they don't get CREDIT because they took that option because it takes money AWAY from the public school system. If you want to take on the extra financial burden of private schools, fine, that's your choice. That DOESN'T mean that you get to NOT pay for Public Education because YOU CHOSE that extra financial burden, nobody FORCED you to that choice. Once you start giving credits, or taking money like this out, the whole system will totally FAIL. Of course, that's what the conservatives want. A Well-Educated Public SERVES the Public Interest. Look it up, it's been proven over and over again.
No Child Left Behind, AS LONG AS THEY CAN PAY THEIR OWN WAY. Or in other words, No Child Left Behind, EXCEPT the non-rich ones.
That's not what this country was founded on. EVERY child deserves the best education, NOT just the rich ones. THAT'S why "we" don't like school vouchers.
Because they lose control over the indoctrination of the little darlings. If they start attending schools where the left, especially the NEA can't control the curriculum, the young rascals might just start thinking for themselves.
You don't think that the right won't find a way to pull vouchers from schools they don't like?? Its just a way to exert more control over education.
I think I heard what you said before on Rush, Hannity, O'lielly and the rest of the right-wing nuts.
There are many fine public schools that can compete with the best private ones. There are also many underfunded urban schools that need attention. Taking money away will solve nothing. Public education has been the backbone of our country and needs to funded properly. Pay needs to go up drastically for urban and rural teachers, class sizes need to be cut and infastructure updated. Oh. I almost forgot, parents need to take responsibility for their children.
Education needs to be taken seriously, not just Bush lip service. If this country put its money where its mouth is, we could greatly improve our public education, which improves our economy and security a host of other things. Just think how many schools could have been built or remodeled for the 400 Billion we have spent so for in Iraq and the 2 trillion dollars in tax cuts to the wealthy. It is all about priorities. Actually where I live the public schools are better than the private ones, because they pay the teachers quite a bit more. They get the best and brightest! The only ones that teach in the private schools are the ones who couldn't get hired in the public ones.
What is the absurd crap about indocrination! Oh it must be another liberal conspiracy, like the bogus liberal media. Right- wingers need to start thinking for themselves, and stop whinning.
... you don't know the first thing about how schools work.
Politicians control curriculum. Administrators control curriculum. Academics control curriculum. School boards control curriculum.
Even PARENTS have more control over curriculum than teachers or their unions.
Education is one of those issues that everyone has an opinion about and almost no one understands.
Oooo, god, god, god. Indoctrination? Yeah, there is a reason you think of religion when you hear that word.
What??? More control? It's parents who need more control or more accurately, better options of where they can send their kids. Most public schools are hopelessly mired in the lefts idea of education and mindless political correctness where teachers have no authority and the kids run the asylum. I'd rather see the Dept of Education dissolved and the responsibility given to the states where it belongs.
Parents do have choices. They can front the money to go to private school if they want, and tons do. What they can't do is opt-out of the public education system where everyone benefits. That's really what this is about.
This is just another Right Wing scheme to help the well-to-do pay less in taxes. They've sugar-coated it with the "choice-for-poor-students" scam, but they have yet to explain which private schools are going to be forced to accept all these poor students. To my knowledge, most private schools have waiting lists and are very selective. That's what makes them so attractive. Vouchers will just suck more money out of the already strapped public education system. As for indoctrination...don't make me laugh! What do you think is going on at those Christo-Fascist private schools?
Private schools pick and choose their "customers"- Public schools cannot do this, they have to take EVERYONE that wants to come. That being the case, of COURSE they can do better on "performance" testing- they stack the deck in their favor. But, the stack doesn't reflect REALITY, just their sanitized version of it.
Speaking from personal experience, private schools will toss out kids that they decide are "too much trouble" whereas public schools MUST accomodate EVERY student's needs. For my son (who really wasn't that big of a problem, but couldn't sit there like the little robot like they wanted for hours) the public system was a GODSEND, whereas the VERY expensive private school that I sent him to was totally unwilling to do ANYTHING to help. They just asked him to leave because it was easier for THEM, to hell with what was best for my 5 year old.
THAT'S the kind of attitude that you can expect from For-Profit enterprises like Private schools.
Because I'm in one every day, and I can tell you for a fact that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
"The left's idea of education"? Are you insane?!? EVERYTHING in school these days revolves around standardized testing - is that a product of "the left"?
"Control to the states"? Who do you think took that control away with "No Child Left Behind"? There's never been a bigger unfunded mandate to the states, thanks to your "small government" pal George W.
"Teachers have no authority"? You blame the kids for that? How about the teacher bashers on the right who blame them for every failing, keep their pay low, and constantly carp about "summers off"? Teachers are treated like dirt by the right - no wonder some kids do the same.
Again, everybody thinks they know how to fix the schools, but very few people know the facts.
Chas Darwin never knows what he's talking about, but doesn't let that stop him.
It is ridiculous to assume that all public schools are bad. My nephew went to the Chicago public schools from pre-k through high school. He then went on to get straight A's in college. He was an engineering major with a double major in philosopy. Straight A's. He was able to write his ticket to grad school and now he has his Phd in engineering. My daughter goes to one of the top elementary schools in the country. Surprise! It is a Chicago public school.
The failing public schools are the ones with large populations of economically disadvantaged children. It is not about the teachers or the NEA or about school choice. It is about the social problems that these economically disadvanteged students face. And if you don't take care of these problems, you are never going to help these children do better in school.
These public schools are not improving because of the perceived competition that vouchers create. If they do improve it is more likely because the children who were bringing down the test scores left with vouchers.
You are 100% correct!