Michelle Malkin » A school choice study suppressed

A school choice study suppressed

By Michelle Malkin • April 7, 2009 09:56 AM

It would have been helpful to know about a Department of Education study on D.C.’s school choice initiative before the Democrats — beholden to teachers unions allergic to competition — voted to starve the innovative program benefiting poor, minority children in the worst school district in the nation.

Somehow, the results of the study conducted last spring didn’t surface until now. And that’s a damned shame. The Wall Street Journal reports:

President Obama’s stimulus is sending some $100 billion to the nation’s school districts. What will he demand in return? The state budget passed by the New York legislature last week freezes funding for charters but increases it by more that $400 million for other public schools. Perhaps a visit to a charter school in Harlem would help Mr. Obama honor his reform pledge. “I’m looking at the data here in front of me,” Mr. Duncan told the New York Post. “Graduation rates are up. Test scores are up. Teacher salaries are up. Social promotion was eliminated. Dramatically increasing parental choice. That’s real progress.”

Mr. Duncan’s help in New York is in stark contrast to his department’s decision to sit on a performance review of the D.C. voucher program while Congress debated its future in March. The latest annual evaluation was finally released Friday, and it shows measurable academic gains. The Opportunity Scholarship Program provides $7,500 vouchers to 1,700 low-income families in D.C. to send their children to private schools. Ninety-nine percent of the children are black or Hispanic, and there are more than four applicants for each scholarship.

The 2008 report demonstrated progress among certain subgroups of children but not everyone. This year’s report shows statistically significant academic gains for the entire voucher-receiving population. Children attending private schools with the aid of the scholarships are reading nearly a half-grade ahead of their peers who did not receive vouchers. Voucher recipients are doing no better in math but they’re doing no worse. Which means that no voucher participant is in worse academic shape than before, and many students are much better off.

“There are transition difficulties, a culture shock upon entering a school where you’re expected to pay attention, learn, do homework,” says Jay Greene, an education scholar at the Manhattan Institute. “But these results fit a pattern that we’ve seen in other evaluations of vouchers. Benefits compound over time.”

It’s bad enough that Democrats are killing a program that parents love and is closing the achievement gap between poor minorities and whites. But as scandalous is that the Education Department almost certainly knew the results of this evaluation for months.

Voucher recipients were tested last spring. The scores were analyzed in the late summer and early fall, and in November preliminary results were presented to a team of advisers who work with the Education Department to produce the annual evaluation. Since Education officials are intimately involved in this process, they had to know what was in this evaluation even as Democrats passed (and Mr. Obama signed) language that ends the program after next year.

Opponents of school choice for poor children have long claimed they’d support vouchers if there was evidence that they work. While running for President last year, Mr. Obama told the Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel that if he saw more proof that they were successful, he would “not allow my predisposition to stand in the way of making sure that our kids can learn . . . You do what works for the kids.” Except, apparently, when what works is opposed by unions.

Mr. Duncan’s office spurned our repeated calls and emails asking what and when he and his aides knew about these results. We do know the Administration prohibited anyone involved with the evaluation from discussing it publicly. You’d think we were talking about nuclear secrets, not about a taxpayer-funded pilot program. A reasonable conclusion is that Mr. Duncan’s department didn’t want proof of voucher success to interfere with Senator Dick Durbin’s campaign to kill vouchers at the behest of the teachers unions.

Accountability? Transparency? Not much.

Read a round-up of reax on the news from Jay P. Greene and Matthew Ladner.

And more from Jeff Emanuel.

Posted in: Education

Printer Friendly

comments (107)

trackbacks (8)

See what others have said

Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.

Trackbacks

Trackback URL

Comments

« Older Comments

#671060

On April 7th, 2009 at 5:20 pm, usa_usa said:

On April 7th, 2009 at 12:45 pm, Send_Me said:

Another question: where in the Constitution is the government charged with developing an education system? I don’t recall seeing it in the enumerated powers.

Government Violating constitution ? That ship sadly sailed long long time ago …
#671123

On April 7th, 2009 at 6:35 pm, pdv said:

On April 7th, 2009 at 10:02 am, iamsaved said:

It’s no surprise that the Democrats could care less about the people they say they support. They want the victimhood for politcal and economic use but not the remedies to fix the victims plight.

It’s just so hard to understand why so many sheeple can’t see this and call the Dems to account.

Its not hard to understand, the parents are products of the public school system.
#671144

On April 7th, 2009 at 7:00 pm, zorro said:

Somehow, the results of the study conducted last spring didn’t surface until now. And that’s a damned shame.

More proof the democraps and liberals are in office for the power, not to serve. To purposefully harm our children by “hiding” the results of studies is a sin against their oath to uphold our Constitution.
#671153

On April 7th, 2009 at 7:23 pm, happyscrapper said:

The more ignorant victims they create, the more voters they’ll have for the party of class warfare. When there’s a choice between party politics and education, the party comes first. Similarly, when there’s a choice between helping the student or benefiting the union, the union comes first. They don’t care that vouchers benefit students. Their policies make it clear that schools exist for the benefit of the union, not the student

So, one more generation of that kind of “education” and there will be NO ONE left to generate capital. Where will the money come from to take care of all the ignorant, lazy jerks that will be turned out from these schools? That scenario is too frightening to contemplate. I always thought that the liberals at least had brains, even though they had no common sense. But you would have to be brain dead to not realize the harm these policies will do to our children and our country!
#671157

On April 7th, 2009 at 7:28 pm, happyscrapper said:

They dont even send books home here.

It’s up to us as parents/grandparents to get hold of the books our children are being exposed to. If they don’t send them home, then go to the school and ask to borrow a copy of it to read. If they refuse, then there is something terribly wrong and you will need to find out what. Of course, the parents would need to know history themselves in order to know what is right and what is wrong in the books. That can be a challenge too! I don’t pretend to know everything about history, but I know liberal BS when I see it!
#671162

On April 7th, 2009 at 7:39 pm, happyscrapper said:

Have you ever watched a small child read a book, or sit there completely engrossed as you read to them? They are little sponges absorbing everything you tell them and everything you read to them and everything they see on TV and everything they hear in school. Brainwashing begins early. These kids are so fascinated with the world and all there is to discover! My grandsons are so proud of themselves when they grasp a new concept and get praise for it. And they completely trust that we adults are giving them true information. If an adult says so, it must be so. It is a betrayal of monumental proportions to lie to a child in order to indoctrinate him. Those of us who understand that, have a huge responsibility to reach as many kids as we can with the truth, and to call on the carpet those despicable adults who purposely mislead them.
#671166

On April 7th, 2009 at 7:48 pm, Southpaw said:

Speaking of books, here is the mother-of-all-ironies:

Due to the Lead Content Law passed by Congress in 2008, books printed before 1986 could be banned from being sold in used book stores or thrift stores and banned from being loaned out by libraries.

The reason? The lead content in the ink used in books published before 1986.

Among the books that would be banned: “1984″ by George Orwell and “Fahrenheit 451″ by Ray Bradbury.

Congress.Is.So.Stupid.

or are they?
#671263

On April 8th, 2009 at 12:20 am, paboperfecto said:

Not only do the private schools help students perform better they actually cost the tax payer much less:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/04/04/AR2008040402921.html
#671347

On April 8th, 2009 at 8:23 am, Send_Me said:

I still wonder, why are “conservatives” so unwilling to remove their children from state-run education?
A. It indoctrinates children with a secular humanist ideology.
B. It’s unconstitutional.
C. Are “conservative” parents merely admitting that they couldn’t do better themselves? I’ve never heard of someone rejecting a promotion because it was too hard.
D. Imagine the impact this would have if every “conservative” removed their kids from public schools. This would speak so much louder than these stupid Tea Parties.
#671366

On April 8th, 2009 at 8:57 am, NHMagenta said:

#103 shows a classic distortion, namely a claim that books printed prior to 1986 could be banned because of lead content.

First this “Lead Content Law” is applied to products intended for children under age 12.

The Consumer Product Safety Improvement Act of 2008 requires all children’s clothing and toys to have less than 600 parts per million (ppm) lead content in order to be sold the United States.
The bill states that the lead limit will be lowered to 300 ppm in August and 100 ppm in three years.

The kind of books most subject to censorship by so-called “Liberals” tend to be aimed at a mature audience over 12 years of age.

However this law IS causing some grief for second-hand stores and eBay “power sellers” as the law appears to require some sort of lead test for each item, which makes it uneconomic to resell used children’s items.

Meanwhile I have seen news items to the effect that some candy imported from Mexico and sold to Latino and other immigrant minorities by the slum stores was found to have been sweetened with lead acetate (sugar of lead), a practice which was outlawed in the early 1600s by Plymouth Plantation.

On both sides of the aisle I see a need to pick one’s battles more carefully.

For example those who sincerely believe lead poisoning of children, especially poor black and latino kids, is a major problem in the USA should be pushing for more aggressive testing of products sold in those neighborhoods.
Stores and their distributors found selling products containing lead and other harmful adjuncts should be put out of business.
#671467

On April 8th, 2009 at 11:09 am, Southpaw said:

#103 shows a classic distortion, namely a claim that books printed prior to 1986 could be banned because of lead content.

Hyperbole is my friend. It helps me ward off evil liberals, politicians and do-gooders and their nefarious intents.

“Insanity is the only sane reaction to an insane society.”
Thomas Szas