Monday, April 14, 2014
Forum Fellow Jennifer Delaney discusses the need for new strands of research in Higher Education. See the AERA Division J blog article here.
Wednesday, April 09, 2014
The Center for Business and Public Policy presents:
Phil Oreopoulos, Professor of Economics, University of Toronto
“Pathways to Education: An Integrated Approach to Helping At-Risk High School Students.”
Tuesday, April 15 at 2:00-3:20 pm
Room 3007 Business Instructional Facility
Posted by T. Jameson Brewer at 11:09 AM
Wednesday, April 02, 2014
The Ongoing Debate on Public and Private School Effectiveness: Vouchers, Representative Samples, Fundamentalism and Wal-Mart
To no one’s surprise, the market-oriented EducationNext, “a journal of opinion and research,” does not like the findings outlined in the recent book, The Public School Advantage, which I wrote with Prof. Sarah Theule Lubienski. After all, the two large, nationally representative datasets we analyzed do not lend support to that publication’s agenda of school privatization. While I wouldn’t normally respond to reviews, the misconceptions and errors advanced by EdNext and subsequent blog postings deserve some scrutiny. In particular, as I show below, bloggers at the University of Arkansas and the conservative National Review Online have used the EdNext review as an opportunity to make claims that are simply wrong.
Writing in EdNext, Patrick Wolf, the 21st Century Endowed Chair in School Choice at Arkansas, and principal investigator of the School Choice Demonstration Project, offers a serious but flawed reading of our book. Wolf questions — but is unable to disprove — our findings. He notes that “researchers have routinely found that similar students do at least as well and, at times, better academically in private schools than in public schools,” which is not exactly true, and depends on a misrepresentation of research literature to which he himself has contributed. But even if it were true, past assumptions are certainly not a sufficient reason to preempt further research; for instance, researchers also have routinely believed that DNA was some unimportant molecule and saturated fat is bad, but new findings have caused us to question such received wisdom. For example, strangely enough, Wolf goes on to cite other independent research that, in fact, undercuts what he claims.
Perhaps most importantly, in his zeal to disprove that public schools could have any advantage over private schools, Wolf ignores a main focus of the book: why instruction in public schools now seems to give students an unexpected edge when it comes to mathematics performance, and what these findings say about the benefits and dangers of school autonomy.
Overall, Wolf points to “problems” that he actually does not show to be problems, offers no evidence that the other approaches he suggests would change the findings at all, and finds no errors in the book. While he raises several issues that — although it might not be apparent from his review — we have already discussed extensively in the book, I respond here to a few of Wolf’s statements, either because his claims require scrutiny, or because they have been taken up by bloggers associated with Wolf in their advocacy around school vouchers in misrepresenting the data, methods and findings.
Are voucher studies relevant?
The main shortcoming of Wolf and the bloggers’ efforts to refute our findings is that, for evidence, they simply point to evaluations of voucher programs, usually ones that they have conducted. As we have noted before, even if we accept the validity of their studies, these evaluations of local voucher programs simply do not address the issue at hand — the larger question of achievement in different types of schools. They are purporting to measure the impact of vouchers in what are actually small, non-representative samples of public and private schools. We are drawing from large, nationally representative datasets. Their studies are actually program evaluations in local contexts, and do not address the larger question of the relative effectiveness of U.S. public and private schools, despite what they claim. Wolf studies the effects of vouchers on students who are attempting to leave a specific public school for a private school that appears more desirable on some measure, whether it be peer demographics, instructional quality, or the use of uniforms. One cannot generalize to all public and private schools from such studies. Thus, it is simply silly to claim — as does a blog post from the libertarian Cato Institute — that “private schools beat public schools” based on those studies, especially when they provide absolutely no evidence that this is generally true.
Why focus on achievement tests?
Another concern, or irony, is the claim that we have a “narrow definition of school performance.” This is interesting because my co-author and I have research interests that are not really focused on testing outcomes, unlike many market-oriented school reform advocates such as, say, Wolf and his colleagues who have made great efforts to prove that one type of school outscores another, or to disprove research that questions that agenda (see this summary). As we have said before, we embrace many other goals for schools. Our book’s treatment of student achievement data simply reflects the fact that such measures have been elevated by these market-oriented reformers, but actually do not support their claims. Also, it is important to note that, after years of trying to prove that voucher programs and private schools are leading to higher test scores, and getting less than compelling results on those measures, market-oriented school reformers have recently been emphasizing other outcomes, such as graduation and college attendance rates. While I am happy to see them now embrace other goals for schools, their effort to move the goalposts represent Plan B for market advocates.
What about reading?
Wolf finds it “curious and frustrating” that we would focus on mathematics and not reading achievement (and the bloggers suggest that we didn’t report reading results because they didn’t match our “story”). But there is actually widespread agreement that math achievement is the best measure of school performance, as Wolf’s mentor has noted: “Math tests are thought to be especially good indicators of school effectiveness, because math, unlike reading and language skills, is learned mainly in school.” Thus, although some other research has indeed found smaller public school outcomes in reading than in math, that tells us less about school impacts, since it reflects the fact that children in private schools tend to get greater advantages in reading from home — being read to, being exposed to a larger vocabulary, etc. — while home advantages are less pronounced in math, making that subject a better measure of school effects.
The other reason that we did not analyze reading achievement is because we did not set out to study or prove whether one type of school is better, but were initially focused on analyses of math teaching and learning when these public/private results first emerged. Neither of us has any special interest or training in reading issues, and — perhaps unlike some other researchers — we do not need to weigh in on topics for which we have no particular expertise.
Where Wolf really misses the mark is in his concern that we use “tests that align more closely with public school than with private school curricula.” This claim almost comes across as a suggestion of some kind of conspiracy on our part to use only measures that arrive at a particular finding. Yet these NAEP and ECLS-K tests have been used by Wolf and his colleagues with no such prior complaint. Indeed, these are federal datasets whose construction and administration is overseen by bi-partisan panels of experts, including professionals in testing and assessment, curriculum and learning, US Governors, state superintendents, teachers, businesspeople, and parents, as well as representation from the private school sector. One school choice advocate (at that time) called NAEP the “gold standard” because “the federal program tries to align its performance standards with international education standards.” These tests are constructed by experts to measure the most important content for students in today’s world, not to align with curriculum in one type of school or another.
Nevertheless, Wolf’s criticism that public schools are doing a better job in the areas measured by these tests misses the fact that this is not a weakness of our study but instead one of our major findings: that private schools are less willing to adopt current curricular standards and more likely to employ unqualified teachers who use dated instructional practices. And, as the data show, students in private schools are more likely to sit in rows, do worksheets, and see math as memorization. These factors point to the dangers of deregulation and autonomy that people like Wolf champion. As we discuss in the book, this reflects the fact that public schools have more often embraced reform models based on professional understandings of how children most effectively learn mathematics rather than the market models in many private schools that endorse many parents’ preferences for back-to-basics, and outdated methods of teaching mathematics. Wolf’s criticism is akin to saying that scores are not a good measure of football teams because, now that the sport has evolved away from the traditional 3-yards-and-a-cloud-of-dust-based ground game, teams that have a good passing game score more often.
Wolf claims that our demographic controls are inappropriate and potentially biased against private schools, echoing an earlier critique made by his mentor — a critique which we have already discussed at great length in the book and elsewhere, and have shown to be lacking. In fact, we were very aware of issues of potential bias and were extremely cautious in our approach, taking widely accepted measures to deal with those issues. In particular, Wolf suggests that reporting of students with special needs and student eligibility for subsidized lunch are inappropriate indicators, even though they have also been used by Wolf. Yet, as we explain in the book, and Wolf declines to mention, if biased at all, our estimates are most likely biased in favor of private and independent (charter) schools, since the available data do not account for the fact that families in those schools have demonstrated particular interest in their children’s education. That is, although we use the available demographic variables to compare students and families across the two sectors, we cannot account for the unmeasured factors that cause one family to invest in private or independent schooling, as compared with a demographically identical family that sends their child to the local public school. The fact that private school parents invest time and money in their children’s schooling suggests that private school students tend to have hidden advantages at home that cannot be observed through typical demographic data. This is a significant bias that we are unable to account for — one in favor of private schools — which is why recent findings in favor of public schools are so surprising and why policymakers and researchers should want to know why these findings have emerged, as opposed to trying to explain them away.
Sectors and vouchers (revisited)?
Finally, Wolf criticizes our focus on the academic gains of students who stay within public or private sector schools. That was a conscious decision on our part to discern the impacts of those different types of schools. Again, Wolf provides no evidence that an alternative approach would change the results. In fact, as we note in the book, other independent researchers (by “independent,” I mean those who don’t describe themselves as Jedi warriors for school privatization, or point to the advocacy “work” they still need to do in promoting school choice) analyzing these same data in different ways have reached conclusions similar to ours. Moreover, Wolf ends his review with a defense of vouchers, saying that our book “has nothing to say empirically about private school voucher programs,” and thus that our findings do not “undermine the case for private school vouchers.” This is a logical fallacy. Voucher programs are based on the presumption that private schools are more effective. When two large-scale nationally representative studies undercut that claim and illuminate drawbacks of private school instruction, there are serious implications for the agendas of voucher advocates.
Wolf is a respectable researcher, although he has, to my knowledge, little if any experience with the overall question of public and private school achievement (but instead continues to conflate evaluations of local voucher programs with this larger question of public and private school effects), not to mention the data and methods involved. Overall, Wolf raises concerns with what is really a pretty standard treatment of two different and respected datasets, but shows no errors in our federally funded analysis, and provides no evidence that alternative approaches he suggests would change the outcomes at all.
Jay Greene’s blog
Despite the shortcomings of Wolf’s assessment, he at least takes a serious approach to the question. However, his review was then taken up by bloggers like Wolf’s department head at the University of Arkansas. Just for context, the Department of Education Reform at Arkansas, led by Jay Greene, was seeded by a multi-million dollar gift from the Walton Family Foundation, the philanthropic arm of the Wal-Mart heirs, which persistently promotes private and market models for public education. This is an extremely unusual “gift” to a university, and one can guess what the Waltons expected for their investment. The Waltons also fund the organization that runs EdNext, which is managed by a voucher proponent approvingly described by Senator Lamar Alexander as “the leading advocate of school choice” and who sees himself as part of “a small band of Jedi attackers” on this issue, fighting “the unified might of Death Star forces led by Darth Vader.” We discuss the questionable credibility of this group in the book (which Wolf declines to disclose in his review) in the context of how such foundations and their sponsored academics advocate for particular education policies in ways that are similar to the faux research apparatus being used to deny the science around climate change.
Greene basically summarizes Wolf’s measured but faulty review of our book, but then goes on to embellish in ways that are misleading and simply inaccurate. For instance, Wolf correctly notes that we use students’ eligibility for free-reduced lunch to help account for SES, but also acknowledges that we include all available measures of students’ home resources, and use those to supplement lunch-eligibility data (as we described in detail). However, in Greene’s telling, we simply used eligibility for subsidized lunch alone, which would indeed create problems regarding missing data and could bias the results against private schools. Greene misrepresents both our book and his colleague.
Greene also recklessly accuses us of burying data: “reading, graduation rates, college attendance, incomes, etc… don’t fit their story so they ignore those measures.” Actually, if he had read the book on which he was commenting, Greene would have seen that (1) income was used; (2) we spell out our reasons for focusing on math and not reading as noted above; and (3) there were no measures in the two national datasets used for “graduation rates, college attendance rates” — simply opening the book would show any reader that the datasets covered earlier grades, and did not include measures pertaining to high school graduation and college. One might think that the Waltons would want some accuracy for their money, unless, of course, the sole purpose of an effort such as Greene’s is simply to muddy the waters, not unlike the efforts of some deep-pocketed climate change deniers.
Greene then writes, “But the Lubienski’s (sic) don’t like randomized experiments.” This, again, is simply false. Randomized trials, as in medical trials, can be a wonderful tool for helping researchers understand the impacts of interventions. However, as we have noted before, there can also be serious limitations to randomization in understanding social phenomenon, including attrition, and, with Greene et al., typically a failure or refusal to account for school-level demographic effects. And Greene points to local voucher programs to explain away larger public-private patterns just like climate-change deniers point to local weather to overlook larger climate patterns. Just as many market advocates have a fundamentalist-like faith in choice and competition in schooling (again, as we discuss in the book), Greene et al. appear to have a similar faith in randomization — that it can explain all, and that anyone raising questions about its potential shortcomings represents a challenge that must be attacked, rather than understood.
Persistent errors, claims of a “problem” where none are demonstrated, loyal reference to an irrelevant set of studies as if they were revealed scriptures — all this suggests a fundamentalist faith in a belief system more than an interest in finding what works and why, as well as some desperation when that faith is challenged by evidence. Despite all this commotion, it may be useful to know that, in some ways, I don’t really care if one type of school will “beat” another type. As noted in our book, our own children attend public schools due to convenience, not any principle on our part, for the same reasons they have attended Catholic and Christian schools (state-funded in Ireland) in the past. But, regardless of anyone’s preexisting prejudice (or lack thereof) on this issue, we need to be wary of organizations that clamber for legitimacy while they work to arrange evidence to align with the agendas of their special interest funders. Still, we apparently struck quite a nerve, at least as indicated by all these futile attacks on our findings as these advocates continue to try to arrange evidence in support of their agenda.
Posted by T. Jameson Brewer at 7:35 PM