The Washington Post today reports on the presidential debate and the DC education reform connection, leading off with the biggest point of disagreement:
"I've got to tell you that vouchers, where they are requested and where they are agreed to, are a good and workable system. And it's been proven,’ McCain said in an exchange with Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who opposes the idea.”
The WaPo reporters then claim, “But a U.S. Department of Education study released in June showed that students in the program generally scored no higher on reading and math tests after two years than public school peers.”
This is incorrect. The study found that students in the program did generally score higher. The reporters were confused by the fact that the findings for the whole group of students were not statistically significant at the prescribed cut-off. The researchers were only 91 percent certain (statistically) that the better performance of voucher-program students was due to the program rather than chance, and they had to be 95 percent certain. They did find statistically significant positive findings for some subgroups of students.
Compounding this error, the reporters then quote an education researcher saying, "We have no evidence that vouchers work." This too is incorrect.
There have been ten analyses of random-assignment voucher program experiments (random-assignment being the gold-standard of testing treatment effects). All ten demonstrate positive voucher effects, 9 out of 10 find statistically significant effects for at least some subgroups, and 8 out of 10 find statistically significant effects for the whole voucher group.
And the parents involved are extremely happy with it and think their kids are safer. And the vouchers cost a third or less than what is spent in public schools. Oh, and these programs are all small and some highly regulated, which limits their effectiveness.
There is an embarrassment of solid evidence that vouchers are an effective, popular, and extremely efficient education reform.