Are Private Schools Better Than Public Schools? New Book Says ‘No’

Cross Posted from The Washington Post's The Answer Sheet

It is often assumed that private schools do a better job educating children than public schools, but a new book, “The Public School Advantage,” which is being published this week, shows this isn’t the case. Here’s a piece the authors, Christopher Lubienski, a professor in the Department of Educational Organization and Leadership at the College of Education at University of Illinois, and Sarah Theule Lubienski, professor of mathematics education in the College of Education at the University of Illinois. The Lubienskis looked at two huge datasets of student mathematics performance and found that public school students outperform private school ones, when adjusted for demographics.

By Christopher and Sarah Lubienski:

Greater school choice for families and greater autonomy for schools leads to greater academic outcomes, right?  Maybe not.  Using two nationally representative datasets, we recently conducted one of the most comprehensive studies ever performed of school type and achievement in mathematics—a subject widely held to be the best measure of in-school learning.  We analyzed instruction and performance for over 300,000 elementary and middle school students in 15,108 public, charter, and private schools.  What we found surprised us.  Students in public schools actually outperform those in private schools.

Choice and autonomy are now touchstones of U.S. education reform.  Since over two decades ago, when John Chubb and Terry Moe famously argued that “choice is a panacea” and reported that more school autonomy led to better school outcomes, policymakers have been enamored with devolving authority away from school districts and creating options for families.

The number of charter schools in the United States is growing, with almost 6,000 such independent, largely autonomous schools of choice.  At the same time, the market share of private schools —non-government schools that, unlike charter schools, are “not supported primarily by public funds” — is declining, creating demands for subsidies on the grounds that the 30,861 private schools do a better job of educating children.

Since 2012, states have adopted or expanded 28 voucher, tax credit or similar programs to subsidize families choosing private schools, and the charter school movement is growing with bipartisan support. These efforts are based on the popular notion that autonomy from state regulation allows schools to respond to parents’ preferences for quality education options.  Autonomous schools have the freedom and incentive to adopt more effective practices in areas such as curriculum, pedagogy, staffing and management. Thus, the logic goes, they get better results.

However, our analysis of nationally representative samples of Catholic, Lutheran, conservative Christian, and other private schools — a total of 1,355 private schools — raises serious questions about that logic.  We found that once we account for the fact that private schools serve families with more advantages associated with academic success—things like money and highly-educated parents—we find that public elementary schools are, on average, simply more effective at teaching mathematics.  Indeed, demographic differences more than explain any apparent edge in the raw scores of private school students, and by the time they reach middle school, public school students score ahead of their demographically similar, private school peers, with differences ranging from a few weeks to a full grade level, depending on the type of private school.

Given public education’s considerable challenges, these findings are remarkable, and cut at the heart of the current reform movement.  Yet they are starting to be echoed by other researchers at the Educational Testing Service, Notre Dame and Stanford universities. How should we understand these patterns?

Current school reform efforts elevate the idea of autonomy, positioning parents as expert choosers and schools as autonomous competitors that embrace effective instructional methods to attract students.  This market model for education is neat, appealing, and quite possibly wrong. 

Private schools have more operational autonomy, sure, but this autonomy is too often used to maintain outdated strategies that may align with parental preferences but are not particularly effective for educating students.

For example, private school students are more likely than their public school counterparts to sit in rows, complete math worksheets and believe that mathematics is “mostly memorizing facts”—a narrow view that captures neither the breadth of the discipline nor the reasoning that is central to it. In contrast, public schools have moved beyond traditional, repetitive exercises, and more often ask students to solve complex, real-world problems and to learn geometry, data analysis, and early algebra ideas, in addition to basic arithmetic.

This difference can partly be explained by the fact that public school teachers are more likely to be certified and to receive ongoing training in the field, keeping them current on research-based instructional standards and resources supported by professional entities such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics and the National Science Foundation. Private school teachers are rarely impelled to receive such training. And despite much criticism, teacher certification and up-to-date instructional practices are actually positive correlates of achievement, and the fact that these are more prevalent in public schools helps explain the public school advantage.

These patterns highlight some of the downsides of autonomy, especially in more competitive conditions where schools may try to play to popular demands instead of embracing professional expertise.  In fact, it is not at all clear that parents choose schools primarily on the basis of academic effectiveness.  School uniforms, the demographics of a school, and sports programs are easier to observe, and parents often consider these, along with religious values, to be more important than the quality of academic instruction, as consistently shown in studies of parents’ school-choice behaviors from places like the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Columbia University. As schools are cast as competing businesses in current reforms, families may be influenced by image over academic substance, just as fast food marketing successfully focuses on fun and not nutrition.  Professional models for education avoid this need to play to mass consumer demands, instead focusing on evidence and expertise.

It would be overly simplistic to say that parents are poor choosers when it comes to schools, since they work with the information, options, and priorities that they have.  Instead, it appears that more autonomous schools—the private and charter schools so often credited with innovation—are doing a poor job of choosing effective educational strategies, of working on behalf of students, rather than parents.  We agree that there are serious problems facing public education.  But private models for public education do not appear to be the answer.

By Chris Lubienski and Sara Lubienski

Foundations and Feds Push “Freemium” Deals on Districts to Privatize Policymaking

Foundations, Feds, and interest groups have a plan that will create more room for private companies to influence what schools buy.  And in an effort to facilitate such relationships, the Education Industry Association (EIA) has announced a new initiative aimed at helping education companies sell more to public schools by changing the rules on how sales get approved. EIA, in fact, has been awarded a special grant from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation under an initiative created by the Feds to spur digital innovation in schools.  The problem (as defined in the announcement):

Why should it take 6 months, 10 months or even longer to complete deals with school districts? How can a start-up lacking [a] national sales force and without an established rep gain traction with school buyers?  How can companies access educators and hope to have them fall in love with your solution, and convert these pilots and freemium deals into revenue?

Put differently, the established public policy process for getting buy-in from district staff and teachers before large purchases (for which principals can’t just write a check) is, according to the EIA, too cumbersome. It is, as we have heard so many times in reference to public policy and its perceived failures, overly bureaucratic.

To date, EIA’s marketing campaign to influence the procurement process has been slow but steadily building, most recently through its announcement of an alliance with the American Association of School Administrators (AASA), which represents over 13,000 school district superintendents.  In this scheme, EIA offers school districts a list of approved members (business seal of approval) in exchange for more open access to districts by those vendors. Vendors, in turn, secure district contacts whereby district administrators purportedly get providers with a demonstrated record of effectiveness.

In May 2013, the Education Industry Association wrote to its members,

EIA will recommend high quality suppliers of school services and products, who are in good standing with EIA, for the AASA School Solutions Center, the go-to resource used by district buyers when they seek vendors. This is the first-time the SSC will promote instructional services, ed-tech solutions and academic products. Accepted companies may promote this AASA connection to local district decision-makers and AASA will make door-opener introductions on your behalf. In addition, vendors receive booth space at the annual conference and are highlighted in AASA publications to their membership.

There is a lot more going on here than chummy relationships to reduce red tape. There is a long history of schools purchasing textbooks, test scanners, and grade books.  But we are at a very different juncture– a kind of watershed moment in which the private industry is focused on transforming the agenda and policy adoption process at the local level.

It is a brilliant strategy really. If you can find a niche as a broker between vendors and schools, much else opens up in the way of recommending the purchase of particular products and transforming contracts from one-time purchases to expensive leases that require upgrades. This post here is part of a longer chapter through which, as Gary Anderson, Stephen Ball, and Christopher Lubienski, among others have written, the very nature of public policy is transformed.  Accordingly, privatization is not limited to goods and services, rather, it includes policymaking itself. The private sector’s involvement with point-of-sale processes brings it one step further into decision-making around the use of public funds– beyond influence on agenda setting and policy adoption and deep into policy formulation and evaluation.

The stakes are high everywhere but particularly in big central cities. Providers gravitate to cities like New York and Los Angeles because cities with more students mean more revenue.  For example, many companies selling technology charge by user fees.  That is, the more students or teachers in a district, the higher the revenue – even if the unit price is low.  Charter schools get money based on Average Daily Attendance (ADA) or seat time. If we follow this thread further, we can see why organizations like EIA would want more influence over the rules for contracting in public education. Streamlining public policy around the procurement process opens up markets, and not just for the start-ups referenced in the EIA announcement. 

Streamlining could eventually involve making big sales as customers click “BUY” rather than having to go through multiple presentations to district leaders in an effort to maintain transparency. But, making the decision about whether every child in a school district should have a tablet over a music program or smaller class sizes is very different from making the decision to purchase staples and pencils. The interest of education foundations – like the Gates Foundation – and the Federal government in the EIA initiative is telling. It suggests a broader agenda at play in reimagining the local in local governance. The marketing letter from the EIA announcing the partnership uses the language of a “freeium offer.”  But public policy is meant to be deliberative and transparent. It shouldn’t be for sale.

by Patricia Burch

School Vouchers - Legal Watch

This past week was National School Choice Week.  School Choice continues to be a major area of discussion in the current education policy debates. The National School Board Association recently released facts on voucher programs to counter National School Choice Week.  As school reform advocacy strengthens, this Country will continue to face increased pressure to develop voucher programs.  In 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court in Zelman v. Simmons-Harris[1] , held that an Ohio school voucher program was not in violation of the Establishment Clause.  This ruling opened up the opportunity for other states to create similar school voucher programs. The increase in voucher programs has lead to an increase in litigation regarding the constitutionality of these programs.  The success of these legal challenges depends on the language in the individual state’s constitution.

Currently there are several school voucher cases that have been recently decided or are awaiting a decision. These decisions can shape the future of voucher programs.  On November 30, 2012, a Louisiana state court held that its state voucher program is unconstitutional.[2]   The Louisiana Scholarship Program is a program designed to provide students with additional opportunities to attend high quality schools. The voucher program provided vouchers to student within a certain income bracket to allow the opportunity to attend private schools.  Judge Timothy Kelley of State District Court ruled that the Louisiana voucher program is financed in a way that is in violation of the state constitution. The state used their Minimum Foundation Program (MFP), the state’s public school funding formula, to pay for the program.

Another voucher case, Meredith v. Daniels[3], is currently in front of the Indiana Supreme Court.   Meredith, questions the constitutionality of the Indiana school voucher program, the Choice Scholarship Program, hereafter “CSP”.[4]  CSP allows Indiana primary and secondary school students, within a certain household income, to receive voucher scholarships to attend private schools.[5]   The Indiana Marion County Superior Court held that CSP was not in violation of the Indiana Constitution.[6]  The court summarized that “interpreting Article 1, Section 6 to prohibit programs like the CSP would cast double on the validity of a host of other longtime religion-neutral state programs whereby taxpayers funds are ultimately paid to religious institutes by way of individual choice.”[7]  The Plaintiffs appealed this ruling to the Indiana Supreme Court.  On November 21, 2012, the Indiana Supreme Court held oral arguments for Meredith.  We are awaiting a decision on this case.  After listening to the oral arguments in this case, I did not anticipate there not being a decision two months after the arguments.   

The case of Larue v. Colorado Board of Education[8] is currently in the front of the Colorado  Court of Appeals.  Larue, challenges the Choice Scholarship Program, not to be confused with the Indiana CSP.[9]  “The Program, enacted by the Douglas County Board of Education on March 15, 2011, takes public funds provided by the State of Colorado—which are required by law to be spent on public schools—and uses them to pay for tuition at private schools. The vast majorities of these private schools are religious, are controlled by churches or other religious institutions.”[10]  The Plaintiff’s allege that the voucher program is in violations of six sections of the Colorado Constitution, and a public finance act.  The lower court agreed with the plaintiffs and issued an injunction in August 2011.[11]    Oral arguments for this case were held on November 19, 2012.  We are currently awaiting the Colorado Court of Appeals decision.  

In an Oklahoma case, Independent School District No. 5 of Tulsa County v. Spry,  the school district sued the parents regarding the constitutionality of a voucher program that provided vouchers to students with disabilities.[12]  The lower district court ruled that the voucher program was unconstitutional, however, on appeal, the Oklahoma Supreme Court refused to address the constitutionality of the voucher program because the school district did not have standing to sue the parents.  It stated in its unpublished decision, that “the school districts are not taxpayers themselves, whom this Court has long recognized have a right to challenge the illegal expenditure of public funds.”  The court further states, “the parents are clearly not the proper parties against whom to assert these constitutional challenges. We hold that the school districts have neglected to meet the threshold standing requirement for constitutional challenges.” [13] Considering that the court did not make a determination regarding the constitutionality, one could anticipate that the school district will look into possible future action.  This matter will most likely be brought again with individual citizens and taxpayers as the Plaintiffs and the Education Agency as the defendant. 

These school voucher decisions will impact education policy for the years to come.  As more organizations advocate for education reform, we will see more and more states create voucher programs.  The complication or ease in the creation of these programs will depend on the language in that state’s constitution.  The litigation involving these programs will continue to transform the definition of Public Education. Only the future will tell us what that definition will be.  On another note, what is going on with virtual charter schools in Pennsylvania?  I can smell the litigation!!!

 By:  Tiffany Puckett

---

[1] Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).

[2] Louisiana Association of Educators, et al, v. State of Louisiana, case number and opinion not available.  The case was decided by the 19^th District Court in Louisiana.  Information regarding the opinion retrieved on December 1, 2012 from various websites, including, the Louisiana Association of Educators website located at http://www.lae.org/news.asp?nid=190. 

[3] Meredith v. Daniels, No. 49S00-1203-PL-00172, (Ind. filed Jan. 20, 2012).

[4] Id. 

[5] See Ind. Code §§ 20-51-1-4.7; 20-51-4 et seq.; 20-51-4-1.

[6] Meredith v. Daniels, No. 49D07-1107-PL-025402, slip op. (Ind. Sup. Ct. Jan 13, 2012).

[7] Id. at 9.

[8] Larue v. Board of Education, No. 11CA1856 and 11CA1857. (Colo. Ct. App. filed Sept. 2011).

[9] Id.

[10] Plaintiff’s complaint, Larue v. Board of Education, No. 11CA1856 and 11CA1857.

[11] Larue v. Board of Education, No. 11cv4424 and No.11cv4427.  District Court, Denver County, unpublished opinion. 

[12] Independent School District No. 5 of Tulsa County v. Spry, 2012 OK 98, __ P.3d __, decided November 20, 2012, has not been released for publication.  Until such time it is subject to revision or withdrawal. 

[13] Id.