Special Offer
Save 20%

Collateral Damage: How High-Stakes Testing Corrupts America’s Schools
by David C. Berliner and Sharon L. Nichols

The Effect of Special Education Vouchers on Public School Achievement: Evidence from Florida’s McKay Scholarship Program

This report claims that Florida’s McKay program of providing private-school vouchers to special education students has resulted in improved educational outcomes for special education students who chose to stay in public schools. The theory behind this conclusion is that increased competition to enroll these students has led public schools to improve services and programs for special education students not choosing to leave.

Yun concludes that any possible contribution made by this report is outweighed by research design problems, failure to take into account alternative explanations, and possible selection bias. He cautions against using this report for any decision-making or policy evaluation purposes.

Choice and Education across the States

This report assigns letter grades to states based on how extensive the state’s school choice system is.

Chi concludes that this report offers little or no useful information for policy makers. The report asserts, based on a faulty use of past research, that an increase in school choice will strengthen accountability and improve student achievement. It awards most states low grades, reflecting a desire for more school choice throughout the nation.

The Turnaround Challenge: Why America’s Best Opportunity to Dramatically Improve Students Achievement Lies in Our Worst-Performing Schools

Mass Insight Education & Research Institute

This report puts forth an ambitious proposal aimed at getting chronically underachieving schools to improve academic achievement.

In his review, McQuillen commends the report for making a “major contribution” to the debate over school reform, but warns that it has an overly optimistic timeline, relies too much on punitive sanctions, offers key recommendations beyond what research can support and pays little attention to the role students might play in the reform process.

Fund the Child: Bringing Equity, Autonomy and Portability to Ohio School Finance

Thomas B. Fordham Institute

This report is the latest in a series which argues that state funding should follow children to the public schools (rather than the districts) of their choice; that per-pupil funding amounts should be weighted according to children’s individual needs and circumstances; and that schools should have flexibility in how they spend the funds they receive. A major goal of these proposals is to end funding disparities within and between districts.

In his review, Baker writes that this report is of higher quality than most past reports on the topic and praises it for avoiding overstatement. However, Baker points out that the report’s primary weakness is its general failure to use relevant, empirical research that might provide policy makers with useful insights.

How Sound an Investment? Analysis of Federal Prekindergarten Proposals

Lexington Institute

This report considers current proposals for federal involvement in prekindergarten (pre-K). It concludes that federally funded preschool program for all children would be unnecessarily expensive, provide little benefit to most children, decrease options for parents and could likely impair the social development of many children.

Barnett’s review of this report finds that it is misleading, poorly grounded, biased and inaccurate. Barnett concludes that the report oversimplifies the debate, ignores relevant research and falls short of thoughtful policy discussion.

A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents

Mackinac Center

This report is billed as a guide for Michigan school officials and other interested in privatizing school services.

Belfield’s review finds that the report offers little evidence to support its premise that privatizing school services saves money or is otherwise beneficial. Belfield credits the report with offering practical steps for issuing and monitoring contracts, but notes that the report’s usefulness stops there.

Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure

Urban Institute’s National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research

This study examines whether Florida’s system of sanctions and incentives for its poorest performing schools has led to improved student achievement. It concludes that the system, including the threat of vouchers, appears to have spurred schools to improve practices and thereby improve performance.

Thought Betebenner’s review commends the report for its thorough analysis of the data, he observes that a very prominent shortcoming is the report’s overstatement regarding the relationship between the pressure of accountability sanctions and improvements in school achievement. He notes that the report’s title and some of the statements in the body of the report suggest that vouchers and other accountability measures are the cause of the achievement gains despite the fact that there is no supporting evidence that such a causal connection exists.

The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Missouri
The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Indiana
The High Cost of Failing to Reform Public Education in Texas
The High Cost of South Carolina’s Low Graduation Rates
The High Cost of Low Graduation Rates in North Carolina

The Milton and Rose D. Friedman Foundation

These five sister reports have been published by the Friedman Foundation over the past two years. They assert that private-school voucher programs can reduce the social costs of dropping out while increasing graduation rates.

In his review of these reports, Dorn finds that the reports are of little value because they ignore the abundance of relevant research and offer no means by which to gauge the alleged benefits of vouchers against other alternatives. Dorn advises policymakers who are interested in increasing graduation rates to bypass these reports and seek out “the available, well-researched scholarship on the topic,” much of which he identifies in his review.

1) Are Private High Schools Better Academically than Public High Schools?

2) Monopoly Versus Markets: The Empirical Evidence on Private Schools and School Choice

1) Center on Education Policy (CEP)

These two reports come to different conclusions about whether private schools are better than public ones at educating students. The CEP report found no advantage for either public or private schools using the National Education Longitudinal Study database. The Friedman report used the Educational Longitudinal Study database and presents evidence that private schools produce more benefit.

Lee’s review finds that there is little actual difference between the findings of the two reports – and little difference between public and private schools. The  most that can be concluded from the two reports taken together is that “students generally learn in public high schools about as well as in private high schools.” Lee also presents his own, independent cross-examination of the two data sources used in the reports.

Shortchanging Disadvantaged Students: An analysis of intra-district spending patterns in Ohio

This report argues that funding disparities in high-poverty Ohio schools are the fault of school districts, not the state. Districts, the report contends, have adequate funds but don’t allocate them properly to high-poverty schools under their jurisdiction.  The report’s central claim is that district-level policies are responsible for continued spending and achievement gaps.

Baker’s review finds that the report’s authors fail to provide evidence to support their central claim. Further, the report contains weak methodology and a scant review of existing relevant research. Baker concludes that the report “is built on the weakest of foundations” and suggests that if taken seriously, “the Buckeye Institute report will only misguide policymaking.

End It, Don’t Mend It: What to Do with No Child Left Behind

This report urges scrapping the No Child Left Behind law and replacing it with a national voucher or tax credit system.

Fuller’s review offers praise for the report’s analysis of how NCLB has failed to deliver on its promise of raising student achievement and has resulted in a number of negative consequences for schools including narrowing curriculum and a lowering of the achievement bar. Fuller criticizes the report for its use of “highly selective, even misleading” research to make some of its points. He also points out that the report ignores or downplays research raising serious questions about the benefits of market proposals such as school vouchers.

The ABC’s of School Choice

This report, released in the form of a booklet, is designed as a resource for persuading people as to the merits of school choice. The report provides updated information on states that have choice policies in place and begins and ends with a “Frequently Asked Questions” section where the attempt is made to interpret the research on school choice issues for the lay reader.

Lubienski’s review finds that this report is based on selective and shoddy evidence and makes misleading and false claims.
The reviewer considers the merits of each key factual assertion in the report’s “Frequently Asked Questions” section and points out that there is an overwhelming reliance on a very selective sample of studies from other advocacy organizations that are not peer-reviewed and are highly biased and of questionable quality. Lubienski concludes that the report, as a misleading work of advocacy, offers no useful guidance to policymakers.

Portfolios – A Backward Step in School Accountability

This report argues that the current standardized testing system should be retained and criticizes the use of multiple measures, particularly portfolios, to assess school performance.

Mathis’s review concludes that the Lexington report is ill-founded and of little value as research or policy development. Mathis notes that the report more closely resembles political propaganda than a research report.  According to Mathis, It provides no new data, examines only two studies done and includes only results favorable to the report’s conclusions. In addition, the report is problematic because its author presents portfolios as representative of all non-test measures of student performance – which they are not – and concludes that non-test based measures of performance are ineffective.

Michigan Higher Education: Facts and Fiction

Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind?

School Choice by the Numbers: The Fiscal Effect of School Choice Programs

State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Students Achievement in Philadelphia

School Reform in Philadelphia: A Comparison of Student Achievement at Privately-Managed Schools with Student Achievement in Other District Schools

How Much Are Teachers Paid?

Whole Language High Jinks: How to tell when ‘scientifically-based reading Instruction’ isn’t

Report Card on Education, 1983-84 to 2004-05

Related Information

Examining the Funding and Activities of Free Market Education Think Tanks

Truthiness in Education

Think Tanks At Risk For Corruption

Holding Think Tanks To High Standards

US Think-Tanks: Casualties In The War of Ideas

Far-Right "Think Tanks" (Propaganda Mills) – Who Are Those Guys?

Let The Buyer Beware [ Executive Summary | Full Report ]