High Costs to Peddling Solutions in Search of Problems. A Book Review of \u3cem\u3eSelling School: The Marketing of Public Education\u3c/em\u3e

The unwavering commitment by reformers to privatize schools through educational marketplaces has fostered a rise in educational advertising necessitated by the competitive nature of commodification. Not only has this new form of edvertising fostered the creation of new jobs within the corporate cabal but it relies heavily on what are likely misleading claims of academic success and, additionally, raises serious questions about funds being diverted away from pedagogical practices in favor of glossy advertisements and videos. Selling School: The Marketing of Public Education by DiMartino and Jessen explores the ways in which edvertising within the educational landscape serves as a mechanism by, and through, which, corporate slogans, ideological commitments, and misleading claims seek to reify the need for privatization and the creation of customer loyalty both within and outside of the corporate school

Examining the Myth of Accountability, High-Stakes Testing, and the Achievement Gap

In this article we outline how notions of accountability and the achievement gap have relied upon the massive expansion of high-stakes exams in our nation’s schools. Texas-style test and punish accountability manifested in various ways within schools and school culture across the nation via NCLB, which undermined notions of trust within education. More than decade of national education policy focused on high-stakes testing and accountability—despite that the fact that the rise of high-stakes testing also involved considerable legal, ethical, and social considerations. We argue the practice of spending large amounts of time on test preparation and test taking must be reversed lest we continue on the path of maintaining schools solely as machinery for stratification. We conclude that market- and business-oriented ideology, has reinforced the racist under- and overtones of testocracy in the United States and has neither closed the achievement gap nor fomented meaningful accountability or success

NEPC Review: The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation (Urban Institute, July 2019)

A report by the Urban Institute, The Effects of Means-Tested Private School Choice Programs on College Enrollment and Graduation, compares certain outcomes of three school voucher programs to traditional public school programs. It finds that students using vouchers to attend private schools sometimes have higher rates of college enrollment and completion than their public school counterparts. These findings, however, arise from comparisons of apples to oranges, because the two case studies showing some voucher benefits do not sufficiently account for pivotal differences between choosers and non-choosers. Only in the third case study, which uses random assignment and thus avoids these selection effects, do we see no voucher benefits. Two other concerns are important to note. First, the literature review places an unbalanced reliance on non-peer-reviewed sources. Second, the report attempts to &ldquo;move the goalposts&rdquo; away from the test-score outcomes that have been the center of voucher advocacy and debate for decades&mdash;coinciding with recent voucher studies finding null or negative effects on test scores. These shortcomings render the report of limited value for evaluating voucher policies.</p

NEPC Review: The 123s of School Choice: What the Research Says About Private School Choice: 2019 Edition (EdChoice, April 2019)

An annual report from EdChoice is designed to provide a yearly updated list and synthesis of empirical studies exploring the impacts of school vouchers across a set of outcomes. EdChoice presents itself as a clearinghouse of “evidence” that school vouchers “work” and that school choice is an effective and efficient reform. Along those lines, the report showcases the purported personal and community benefits that arise from voucher implementation, such as an increase in test scores, educational attainment, parental satisfaction, increased civic values, improvements in racial segregation, and fiscal benefits through governmental cost savings. However, the report is a limited collection of cherry-picked studies chosen from an “overwhelming” number, largely from sources that are not peer-reviewed and primarily authored by voucher advocates. For these reasons, the report is so misleading that it is not useful for decision-making or research purposes

Choice without Inclusion?: Comparing the Intensity of Racial Segregation in Charters and Public Schools at the Local, State and National Levels

We conduct descriptive and inferential analyses of publicly available Common Core of Data (CCD) to examine segregation at the local, state, and national levels. Nationally, we find that higher percentages of charter students of every race attend intensely segregated schools. The highest levels of racial isolation are at the primary level for public and middle level for charters. We find that double segregation by race and class is higher in charter schools. Charters are more likely to be segregated, even when controlling for local ethnoracial demographics. A majority of states have at least half of Blacks and a third of Latinx in intensely segregated charters. At the city level, we find that higher percentages of urban charter students were attending intensely segregated schools

NEPC Review: Pluck & Tenacity: How Five Private Schools in Ohio Have Adapted to Vouchers

The new Fordham report, Pluck &amp; Tenacity, examines the impact of school vouchers on five private schools in Ohio. While the journalist who authored the report is primarily interested in the effect on this small set of schools, we focus here on an underlying assumption asserted in the executive summary of the report: that because of vouchers, &ldquo;school outcomes will improve.&rdquo; As presented in this report, this assumption about the beneficial impacts of vouchers is a case-study in how to engage in slanted selection and interpretation of research evidence. As we show in this review, the totality of three endnotes used in the report reflect not just an incomplete picture of the research literature on vouchers, but an extreme case of cherry-picking sources to support a contested policy agenda. Moreover, even with the few sources cited to put voucher outcomes in a favorable light, the report cherry-picks the findings that suit Fordham&rsquo;s agenda, while ignoring the findings from those very same sources that do not support&mdash;and even contradict&mdash;the premise. Thus, the report is grounded in a twice-skewed and intellectually dishonest view of the research on vouchers and their academic outcomes. The subsequent journalistic celebration of five schools in Ohio then continues this unsystematic treatment of evidence, amounting to little more than cheerleading for vouchers.</p

NEPC Review: Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform

The 18th edition of the American Legislative Exchange Council&rsquo;s (ALEC) Report Card on American Education: Ranking State K-12 Performance, Progress, and Reform draws on ratings from market-oriented advocacy groups to grade states in areas such as support for charter schools, availability of vouchers, and permissiveness for homeschooling. The authors contend that these grades are based on &ldquo;high quality&rdquo; research demonstrating that the policies for which they award high grades will improve education for all students. This review finds that, contrary to these claims, ALEC&rsquo;s grades draw selectively from these advocacy groups to make claims that are not supported in the wider, peer-reviewed literature. In fact, the research ALEC highlights is quite shoddy and is unsuitable for supporting its recommendations. The authors&rsquo; claims of &ldquo;a growing body of research&rdquo; lacks citations; their grading system contradicts the testing data that they report; and their data on alternative teacher research is simply wrong. Overall, ALEC&rsquo;s Report Card is grounded less in research than in ideological tenets, as reflected in the high grades it assigns to states with unproven and even disproven market-based policies. The report&rsquo;s purpose appears to be more about shifting control of education to private interests than in improving education.</p

NEPC Review: Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? (American Enterprise Institute, March 2018)

A report from the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Do Impacts on Test Scores Even Matter? Lessons from Long-Run Outcomes in School Choice Research, examines whether student achievement scores on math and English language arts tests align with &ldquo;long-run&rdquo; attainment outcomes such as high school graduation rates, college enrollment, and college graduation rates. Drawing on a systematic review of the literature, it concludes that the impacts of school choice programs on test scores are not well connected to such attainment outcomes, which are presented as more positive. This review considers two issues with the report: consistency and evidence. Regarding consistency, the report&rsquo;s suggestion that achievement scores should play a smaller role in determining the efficacy of school choice models represents a stunning effort to move the goalposts in search of new justifications for supporting their preferred policies. After decades of pro-school-choice research and advocacy promoting test score comparisons with public schools as the primary measurement for evaluating school choice models (e.g., charters and school vouchers), the AEI report now suggests that less attention be given to these learning outcomes. Regarding evidence, the AEI report is riddled with numerous internal inconsistencies in its discussion and treatment of a set of studies that were selected by questionable methods. In view of the 180-degree turn based on questionable evidence, the report &mdash; despite the authors&rsquo; assertions &mdash; is of little use to policymakers.</p

NEPC Review: Differences by Design? Student Composition in Charter Schools with Different Academic Models

A report by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Differences by Design?, compares differences in approaches and demographics between and among charter school models and local &ldquo;traditional public schools.&rdquo; Using three national data sets, the report effectively captures the national universe of charter schools. It empirically demonstrates that cream-skimming occurs and that charters segregate by income, special education, race and ethnicity, in that different demographic groups attend different types of charter schools. Charter schools, the authors contend, provide differentiated and &ldquo;innovative schooling options&rdquo; through varied academic models that cater to, and ultimately reflect, parental choices for their children. The resulting de facto segregation is presented as a benign byproduct of beneficial choices differentially associated with different racial and ethnic groups. They contend this is &ldquo;in line with a properly functioning charter sector.&rdquo; Unfortunately, the report does not demonstrate familiarity with the research on parent decision-making or with the extensive research suggesting that charter schools are not particularly innovative in the curricular or instructional options. Despite what the report claims, traditional public schools do, in fact, offer various academic model specializations like the ones offered by the charter schools. Ultimately, the report&rsquo;s dismissive characterization of de facto segregation in charters, as a benign byproduct of parental choice, is at odds with the purpose and aims of equitable public education.</p

NEPC Review: Empowering Parents with School Choice Reduces Wokeism in Education (Heritage Foundation, November 2022)

A Heritage Foundation report compares the amount of &ldquo;wokeness&rdquo; terminology in parent/student handbooks in charter schools with the level of charter school regulation in their states, and concludes that while charters represent a safe space away from &ldquo;woke indoctrination&rdquo; in public schools, further deregulation and less bureaucracy will allow that sector to truly respond to parent desires to avoid &ldquo;leftist&rdquo; curriculum. While apparently intended to tap into current turmoil, the report has at least five significant weaknesses. It assumes that parent/student handbooks are good proxies for curriculum; it completely ignores the diversity of parents and relevant research about what large proportions of parents actually want; it conflates correlation with causation; it relies on undefined conceptions of what constitutes &ldquo;wokeness;&rdquo; and it possibly uses cherry-picked data and methods that suit ideological bias. These shortcomings render the report useless for understanding or developing policy.&nbsp;</p