June 22, 2007 10:30AM # Voucher Use in Washington Wins Praise of Parents By [Adam B. Schaeffer](https://www.cato.org/people/adam-b-schaeffer) --- SHARE The headline for the *[New York Times article](http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/22/washington/22vouchers.html?_r=2&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1182514956-paVAv5BzwwWvEq86/cF8VA)* on the first review of the D.C. voucher program ([summary](http://www.ed.gov/programs/dcchoice/factsheet.html), [full report](http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20074009/index.asp)) is the headline I use here for this post. I’m pleasantly surprised, I have to say. The *NYT* lead paragraph was *almost* correct as well, losing marks for lack of context. It mentions that parents who can choose a school for their children are much more satisfied, and that the choice students did not have consistently statistically significant academic gains. The vital context for this is that treatment effects from major education changes just aren’t expected in the first year. The *NYT* unfortunately also repeats the false claim that the evidence on voucher effects is not consistent. All scientific assessments of choice programs show positive gains, and nearly all of those studies show statistically significant gains. But it takes some time to get results, especially after a switch in schools that can be disruptive in various ways in the short-term. We [have](http://www.amazon.com/Education-Myths-Special-Interest-Schools/dp/074254978X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0030453-8266541?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182519886&sr=1-1) [plenty](http://www.schoolchoices.org/roo/How_Markets_Affect_Quality.pdf) [of](https://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=5224) [evidence](http://www.amazon.com/Education-Myths-Special-Interest-Schools/dp/074254978X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/102-0030453-8266541?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1182519886&sr=1-1) that school choice improves student performance, and improves government schools as well. The real news here is the immediate and very significant improvement in parental satisfaction across the board. The *Washington Post*, of course, [buries](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/06/21/AR2007062101295.html?referrer=emailarticle) the real news 14 paragraphs into the story. In the one effect that *should* be expected in the first year, the voucher program has been a wild success. But that’s not the line the *Post* is helping school choice opponents push. The *Post* prints a headline today that’s a lesson in how to slant the news while appearing on the surface to remain neutral. Here’s their headline: “Voucher Students Show Few Gains in First Year.” No one expected them to! Again, studies show choice has an effect, but it’s not magic fairy dust that makes students savants after the average of seven months they spent at a new school. And the numbers involved in this tiny program are, well, tiny. But the subtitle is the kicker, and combined it’s a despicable exercise in political activism masquerading as journalism; “D.C. Results Typical, Federal Study Says.” Here’s the trick; suggest, falsely, that it’s newsworthy that vouchers don’t immediately and massively increase student achievement, then suggest that choice programs typically don’t lead to improvements. Chairman of the House education committee, George Miller (D‑Calif.), echoed the *Post* and the *NYT* in a statement: “This report offers even more proof that private school vouchers won’t improve student achievement and are nothing more than a tired political gimmick.” Miller should be ashamed of himself. And so should the education reporters who fail to give their readers context and crucial facts. The D.C. voucher program is a life-line for low-income children. It’s sad to see their hometown paper helping handmaidens for the education-industrial complex in Congress try to cut that line to a better future. ##### Related Tags [Education](https://www.cato.org/education), [Center for Educational Freedom](https://www.cato.org/center-educational-freedom) [![Creative Commons License](/build/cato_2020/images/creative-commons.svg)](http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) This work is licensed under a [Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/).