Following up on Andrew’s comments …


I wish Sol Stern would have the professional integrity to finally correct himself in writing, because others seem to trust him and keep repeating his confusions and inaccuracies.


The latest is from Daniel Casse, who writes a review of Sol Stern’s badly researched and poorly argued City Journal article, “School Choice Isn’t Enough.” In fact, the essay is not about the effectiveness of school choice in improving education, but about a few voucher programs that didn’t measure up to Stern’s wildly unrealistic expectations of how they would transform public schools.


Unfortunately, Casse repeats an erroneous implication from the piece that Stern refuses to correct; “[Stern] points out that today there are only three tiny voucher programs supported by public funds, one in Cleveland, one in Milwaukee, and another in Washington, D.C…” (emphasis added).


In fact, there are twenty‐​one choice programs in 13 states that allow students to choose private schools with the support of vouchers or tax incentives. Most of these were passed in the last ten years. Just counting recently passed state programs, close to $700,000,000 is used to help more than 700,000 children attend a school of choice.


Eleven of these programs, in eight states, use vouchers. Not three … eleven voucher programs. Most of the ones he missed help 20,000 disabled children attend a school that meets their needs when the public school fails them.


But apparently, handicapped children don’t count for Stern.


Counting only modern state programs, vouchers help around 47,000 children attend schools of their choice with over $275 million.


Across seven states, there are ten education tax credits or deductions, and Stern ignores them entirely. These benefit more than 650,000 children with more than $400 million; five of those programs target low‐​income families and help 93,000 children attend schools of their choice.


It’s easy to see how someone like Casse, who isn’t in the thick of school choice policy would be misled by Stern’s article; the essay is misleading, in addition to confusing, feather‐​light on research and evidence, and poorly argued.


It would be nice to have an official correction in print by Stern. But the least he should do is directly address the most important evidence and critiques levied against his argument. Stern’s imprecise and irresponsible article is misleading readers.