Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at ASU
Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at CU-Boulder
****NEWS RELEASE--FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE****
REPORTS TOUTING VOUCHERS TO REDUCE DROPOUT RATES FOUND TO BE OF POOR QUALITY
Review concludes that the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation series on voucher program benefits "are not trustworthy."
Contact: Sherman Dorn, (813) 205-6143; (email) sherman.dorn@gmail.com
Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; (email) kevin.welner@gmail.com
TEMPE, Ariz and BOULDER, Colo. (Jan. 9, 2008) -- A series of five reports released from early 2006 through late 2007 asserts that dropout rates could be reduced with the implementation of private-school voucher programs. A new review of those reports, however, finds that they "cherry-pick" research authority and ignore an abundance of relevant research on high school graduation.
The five reports, each specific to a given state -- Missouri, Indiana, Texas, South Carolina, and North Carolina -- are written in a parallel structure, with only "the details of the arguments chang[ing] in a formulaic manner for each state in question," according to Professor Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida, who reviewed the reports for the Think Tank Review Project. All these reports were written by researcher Brian Gottlob and published by the Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation.
Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all five reports:
• inadequately use existing research on dropping out and school competition;
• present a superficial calculation of the costs of dropping out;
• improperly rely on a single, imperfect 1998 article as the entire basis for their calculations on the purported impact of voucher programs on improving graduation rates; and
• ignore possible alternative approaches for raising graduation rates, instead focusing exclusively on private school voucher programs. Dorn writes: "Without a comparative analysis of alternative proposals to increase high school graduation, the reports are of little practical use to policymakers who have no means by which to gauge the value of vouchers versus other alternatives."
On their argument for vouchers as a remedy to reduce dropout rates, Dorn found that the reports "cherry-pick" a 1998 article to support the association while ignoring other, contradictory research. Moreover, these reports lack appropriate transparency in their calculations that apply that earlier article's formula to each state's dropout data. Absent the necessary statistical details, "the reports' conclusions about the benefits of school voucher programs are not trustworthy," Dorn says.
At the same time, he adds, "the reports make no mention of the extensive literature exploring graduation, dropping out, and the factors that shape educational attainment." As a result, "each report obscures other program options that policy-makers could consider." These other options include preschool programs and intervention in elementary and high school grades.
In addition, the reports offer only an oversimplified analysis of the costs of dropping out, both to individuals and to society. In doing so, Dorn explains, they ignore the "extensive, published debate among economists" who have found that understanding the impact of dropping out is much more complex. Dropping out is a real problem, he notes, and it deserves serious rather than superficial analysis.
Finally, Dorn finds carelessness ranging from misleading graphs to misspelling the author of the 1998 article relied on for calculating the alleged benefits of vouchers in reducing dropout rates.
Dorn notes that the way the reports present data has the effect of exaggerating the dropout problems in each state. In one egregious instance, the report on South Carolina uses a misleading bar graph where the lengths of the bars do not correspond to the numbers reported. This report wrongly implies that there are more dropouts in the state than college graduates. The reports' sloppy presentation does nothing to advance public understanding of dropping out.
Dorn also notes that the dropout rates should be cause for concern using any reasonable approach for the calculations, but the Friedman Foundation reports are not credible.
Dorn concludes by advising state policy makers who are interested in increasing graduation to bypass these reports and instead seek out "the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic," much of which he identifies in the review.
Find Sherman Dorn's review on the web at:
http://epsl.asu.edu/epru/ttreviews/EPSL-0801-248-EPRU.pdf
About the Think Tank Review Project
The Think Tank Review Project (http://thinktankreview.org), a collaborative project of the ASU Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) and CU-Boulder's Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC), provides the public, policy makers, and the press with timely, academically sound reviews of selected think tank publications. The project is made possible by funding from the Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice.
Kevin Welner, the project co-director, explains that the project is needed because, "despite their garnering of media attention and their influence with many policy makers, reports released by private think tanks vary tremendously in their quality. Many think tank reports are little more than ideological argumentation dressed up as research. Many others include flaws that would likely have been identified and addressed through the peer review process. We believe that the media, policy makers, and the public will greatly benefit from having qualified social scientists provide reviews of these documents in a timely fashion." He adds, "we don't consider our reviews to be the final word, nor is our goal to stop think tanks' contributions to a public dialogue. That dialogue is, in fact, what we value the most. The best ideas come about through rigorous critique and debate."
CONTACT:
Sherman Dorn, Associate Professor of Education
University of South Florida
(813) 205-6143
sherman.dorn@gmail.com
Kevin Welner, Professor and Director
Education and the Public Interest Center
University of Colorado at Boulder
(303) 492-8370
kevin.welner@gmail.com
**********
###
The Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) conducts original research, provides independent analyses of research and policy documents, and facilitates educational innovation. EPRU facilitates the work of leading academic experts in a variety of disciplines to help inform the public debate about education policy issues.
Visit the EPRU website at http://educationanalysis.org
###
The Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at the University of Colorado, Boulder seeks to contribute information, analysis, and insight to further democratic deliberation regarding educational policy formation and implementation.
Visit the EPIC website at http://education.colorado.edu/epic
###
**********