NEPC Resources on Privatization
NEPC Review: The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, January 2012)
In The Louisiana Recovery School District: Lessons for the Buckeye State, the Thomas B. Fordham Institute criticizes local urban governance structures and presents the decentralized, charter-school-driven Recovery School District (RSD) in New Orleans as a successful model for fiscal and academic performance. Absent from the review is any consideration of the chronic under-funding and racial history of New Orleans public schools before Hurricane Katrina, and no evidence is provided that a conversion to charter schools would remedy these problems. The report also misreads the achievement data to assert the success of the RSD, when the claimed gains may be simply a function of shifting test standards. The report also touts the replacement of senior teachers with new and non-traditionally prepared teachers, but provides no evidence of the efficacy of this practice. Additionally, the report claims public support for the reforms, but other indicators—never addressed in the report—reveal serious concerns over access, equity, performance, and accountability. Ultimately, the report is a polemic advocating the removal of public governance and the replacement of public schools with privately operated charter networks. It is thin on data and thick on claims, and should be read with great caution by policymakers in Ohio and elsewhere.
Privatization, Politics, and Policymaking in Public Education
NEPC Review: They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools (March 2010)
The CATO Institute’s Policy Analysis They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools contends that the figures most commonly associated with spending on K-12 public education do not include all relevant expenditures. It also cites survey evidence suggesting that voters underestimate the cost of education and, when presented with a higher per-pupil expenditure figure, will support lower spending. The report notes that education is the largest spending category in combined state and local budgets, and it examines spending in five of the nation’s largest metropolitan areas plus the District of Columbia. The heart of the analysis is a comparison, within each of the selected districts, of three alternative calculations of school spending. An estimated private school cost is also calculated and presented. The report presents large "real" costs per pupil. However, the spending numbers calculated for the report actually double count, adding in both capital construction and debt service. The use of flawed data renders the report to be of limited value in policymaking.
Suggested Citation: Altemus, V. (2010, May 5). Review of "They Spend WHAT? The Real Cost of Public Schools." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-they-spend-what
NEPC Review: The Fiscal Impact of Tax-Credit Scholarships in Montana (February 2009)
The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice has published multiple reports advocating for states to adopt policies that award tax credits to donors who fund private school vouchers. The three most recent reports focus on Indiana, Georgia, and Montana. For each state, the reports conclude that the policies would reduce government expenditures and make the educational finance system more efficient. This review looks at the Indiana, Georgia, and Montana reports and finds those conclusions highly suspect, pointing out that the reports present unsubstantiated claims and fail to adequately consider short- and long-term costs of such tax-credit schemes.
Suggested Citation: Huerta, L. (2009). Review of three tuition-tax-credit voucher reports from the Friedman Foundation. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/reviewtuition-tax-credits
The Neovoucher: A Kissing Cousin in Disguise
NEPC Review: When Private Schools Take Public Dollars: What’s the Place of Accountability in School Voucher Programs? (Thomas B. Fordham Institute, March 2009)
The Fordham Institute conducted a survey of experts who are advocates of private education, soliciting opinions about how private schools accepting public monies, such as from voucher programs, should be held accountable. The experts were in agreement that private schools should not accept regulation of their day-to-day operations, but disagreed among themselves whether to accept top-down standardized testing accountability. The Fordham researchers proposed a compromise position in which the more the private schools rely on public money, the more the schools should be subject to the same requirements as public schools. The Fordham study is a reasonable inquiry into the difficult area of private/public education ventures. Although the study does not arrive at a definitive position, it raises important issues about accountability in both private and public education.
Suggested Citation: House, E. (2009). Review of “When Private Schools Take Public Dollars: What’s the place of accountability in school voucher programs?” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-when-private-schools-take-public…
Legislature's Vouchers Report is Based on Smoke and Mirrors
NEPC Review: Markets vs. Monopolies in Education: A Global Review of the Evidence (September 2008)
The Cato Institute report examines international evidence on outcomes from public and private education. The paper makes three key claims: private schools outperform public schools in “the overwhelming majority of cases”; private schools’ superiority is greatest in countries where the education system has more market features; and “the implications for U.S. education policy are profound.” Each claim is problematic. The first is based on an atypical method of summarizing academic literature and excludes two important research studies. The claim also fails to adequately take into account selection bias due, for instance, to parents choosing private schools because of an academic focus on their children. The second claim oversimplifies a very complex issue, namely the optimal application of market forces to improve education. And the third claim is dubious as well: even if the report’s first two claims are legitimate (based on international evidence), there may be no practical implications for U.S. education policy.
Suggested Citation: Belfield, C.R. (2008). Review of "Markets vs. Monopolies in Education. A Global Review of the Evidence.” Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-markets-vs-monopolies
Under the Voucher Radar
The Privatization Infatuation
NEPC Review: A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents (Mackinac Center, June 2007)
Issued by the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents examines the “contracting out" of public school support services — specifically food, transportation, and custodial services. The report describes the prevalence of contracting out and sets forth the practical steps in hiring a contractor and the benefits in allowing districts to focus on their core mission of instruction. This information may help districts already committed to contracting out. However, the report presupposes that the practice is beneficial. It relies primarily on testimony from district officials rather than direct data or research. And it does not consider the significant transactions costs associated with contracting out or the risks in ceding control to an outside vendor. Overall, the report is prone to overstatement and misleading contentions, resulting in a report that greatly oversimplifies how education systems operate and the purported benefits of contracting out education-related services.
Suggested Citation:
Belfield, C. (2008). Review of "A School Privatization Primer for Michigan School Officials, Media and Residents." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-school-privatization-primer
Who Chooses Schools, and Why?
NEPC Review: Are Private High Schools Better Academically Than Public High Schools? (October 2007)
Public versus private school achievement gaps in general and the effects of school choice on academic outcomes in particular remain controversial issues. The author reviews two recent reports of empirical studies on this topic: one from the Milton & Rose D. Friedman Foundation (MFF) and the other from the Center on Education Policy (CEP). MFF presents its empirical analysis in the context of the larger policy question about the effect of school choice, whereas CEP simply attempts to answer a research question, with policy implications, about a possible public-private school achievement gap. Both studies contribute new evidence to the existing literature through secondary analyses of national high school student datasets — the Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS) and the National Education Longitudinal Study (NELS) databases. The two reports in tandem provide contrasting views and results regarding private school effects. MFF argues that private schooling is more successful at improving student test scores; CEP argues that public and private schools have relatively equal success. This review provides an independent cross-examination of the two data sources and shows that the public-private high school gaps in math achievement gain scores were almost null (in the NELS) or too small to be practically significant (in the ELS). Therefore, the seemingly divergent findings and conclusions at the first glance may have been largely due to their different interpretations rather than real differences in the results. Both studies could have given more useful guidelines for policy and practice if they had examined reasons for observed gaps (or the lack thereof) between public and private schools.
Suggested Citation:
Lee, J. (2007). Review of "Two Reports Addressing the Achievement of Students in Private and Public Schools." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-two-reports-addressing-achievement-students-private-and-public-schools
NEPC Review: The ABC's of School Choice (September 2007)
A new annual report from the Milton and Rose Friedman Foundation is designed as a resource to provide ammunition for persuading people as to the merits of school choice. While there may indeed be a number of reasons to argue for school choice, this handbook shoots blanks. The report provides updated information on thirteen states and the District of Columbia with policies that approximate the Friedman Foundation's voucher-based version of school "choice." While the descriptive compendium of information is mostly accurate and somewhat useful, the report begins and ends with "Frequently Asked Questions," where the Foundation seeks to interpret the research on school choice issues for the lay reader. As might be expected from a voucher advocacy organization such as this, the report relies on a highly selective sub-sample of studies. The research referred to in the report tends toward non-peer-reviewed studies of questionable quality from other advocacy organizations, while ignoring evidence in these and other higher quality studies that questions the Foundation's unequivocal support for vouchers. Evidence — particularly on the issue of achievement — is consistently abused in this report, both by misrepresenting individual studies (including those by voucher advocates) and misrepresenting the general body of research on choice. In short, for those hoping to learn more about the issue, this one-sided report does a poor job of even representing only one side of the debate.
Suggested Citation:
Lubienski, C. (2007). Review of "The ABC's of School Choice." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-abcs-school-choice
NEPC Review: State Takeover, School Restructuring, Private Management, and Student Achievement in Philadelphia (February 2007)
In 2002, the city of Philadelphia began a policy of restructuring its lowest-achieving elementary and middle schools. 86 schools were included. Restructuring can take on a wide variety of forms, but in Philadelphia the most prominent approaches shifted school management to either the district or one of several private providers. In 2007, after four years of this policy, two research reports were issued, one by RAND in collaboration with Research For Action (RAND-RFA) and one by the Program on Education Policy and Governance (PEPG). Both reports examined whether any positive effects on the math and reading achievement of students could be attributed to privately managed schools, district-managed schools, or neither. According to the RAND-RFA report, private management has had no cumulative effect on math or reading achievement, while district management has had a positive effect on math achievement but no effect on reading. According to the PEPG report, private management has had a positive effect on the percentage of students reaching "Basic" levels of performance in math and reading, while district management has generally had no effect. The different findings from the two reports can largely be explained by the fact that PEPG did not have the same access to data as did RAND-RFA. PEPG also analyzed data using a different methodological approach than did RAND-RFA, due in large part to the data limitations. This review identifies and describes methodological weaknesses in the report from RAND-RFA as well as in the PEPG report. Overall, while the RAND-RFA study appears to better capture the overall effects of Philadelphia's reform than does the PEPG study, it does not differentiate effects between the elementary and middle school grades. Further analysis and research is needed before drawing any definitive conclusions.
Suggested Citation:
Briggs, D. (2007). Review of Two Reports about Privately Managed Schools in Philadelphia. Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-two-reports-about-privately-managed-schools-philadelphia
NEPC Review: On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate (August 2006)
This report claims that private schools outperform public schools. According to a review by the Think Tank Review Project, the report applied inappropriate models to account for the demographic differences between students.
Suggested Citation:
Lubienski, C. and S. (2006). Review of "On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate." Boulder and Tempe: Education and the Public Interest Center & Education Policy Research Unit. Retrieved [date] from http://epicpolicy.org/thinktank/review-on-public-private-school-achievement-debate