Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) at ASU
Education and the Public Interest Center (EPIC) at CU-Boulder
REPORTS TOUTING VOUCHERS TO REDUCE DROPOUT RATES IN GEORGIA PART OF A LARGER, FLAWED SERIES
Review concludes that the conclusions reached by Friedman Foundation series on voucher program benefits "are not trustworthy."
Contact: Kevin Welner, (303) 492-8370; (email) kevin.welner@colorado.edu
BOULDER, Colo. and TEMPE, Ariz. (Dec. 21, 2009) -- A new report issued last week by the Friedman Foundation and the Georgia Public Policy Foundation is part of a series of reports asserting that dropout rates could be reduced with the implementation of private-school voucher programs, but all of these reports "cherry-pick" research authority and ignore an abundance of relevant research on high school graduation, according to a review of the first five of these reports. The review, by Professor Sherman Dorn of the University of South Florida, was published in January of 2008, and covered reports released from early 2006 through late 2007.
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 Dorn, who reviewed the reports for the Think Tank Review Project. The Georgia report follows the same formula, making the same arguments, and citing the same sources. All these reports were written by researcher Brian Gottlob.
Among their more serious flaws, Dorn finds that all the reports he reviewed:
• 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. The Georgia report cherry picks the same 1998 article and has precisely these same defects.
At the same time, Dorn 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. The Georgia report repeats these mistakes.
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.
Dorn notes that while dropout rates should indeed be cause for concern, the Friedman Foundation reports are not credible. He 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:
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
###
**********