Budget/Financing, Community Partners, Elections, School Climate

The education debacle of the decade

4 Comments

Bob Ewing:

Dr. Patrick Wolf spoke to a packed audience in the Capitol Visitors Center last Monday.
The seats were full and people stood all along the edges of the room, even spilling out into the hallway. We all came to hear him explain his latest research on the tiny education program that has caused a national uproar–arousing so much passion that African-American leaders from around the country recently gathered downtown to engage in an act of civil disobedience.
The Department of Education commissioned Wolf to conduct a series of detailed studies on the results of the Washington DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). Established in 2004 as a five-year pilot program, OSP is among the most heavily researched federal education programs in history.
OSP targeted about 2,000 of the poorest kids in DC who were stuck in some of the worst schools in the country. It gave their parents a $7,500 scholarship to attend a private school of their choice.
The response was immediate. Four applications were filled out for every slot available. Parents loved the program, considering it a lifeline for their children, a way to escape failing schools and enter safe, functional schools.

4 thoughts on “The education debacle of the decade”

  1. Don’t buy the “debacle” stuff. It’s just typical conservative garbage masquerading as moral outrage. Best to read the report, the executive summary of the final report of which is at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20104018/pdf/20104019.pdf
    The OSP program seemed to have been no more than a taxpayer giveaway program to private religious schools, wherein some kids were offered a $7500 scholarship to attend such private schools (public charters were not eligible). As documented in the Executive Summary, 81.7% of the participating school in the last year of the program were faith-based, and 53.3% were Catholic Parochial schools.
    The key results from the study:
    1. “There is no conclusive evidence that the OSP affected student achievement.”
    2. “The Program significantly improved students’ chances of graduating from high school. Although students may not have raised their test scores in reading and math as a result of the OSP, they graduated at higher rates.”
    3. “The OSP raised parents’, but not students’, ratings of school safety and satisfaction. Parents were more satisfied and felt school was safer if their child was offered or used an OSP scholarship. The Program had no effect on students’ reports on school conditions.”
    I seem to be at odds with the conservatives on this point, but improving achievement of students would be the key item on my agenda for a program, but obviously for them, handing free taxpayer money to private religious schools without improving the lives of the students is more important. Hooray for free enterprise and separation of Church and State!
    The second key result of improving the chances of graduating sounds good, and suppose it is, but staying the course while still being inadequately educated seems to be a hollow victory at best.
    The third result, of parents feeling better about the school, though the students feel otherwise, may reflect parents’ misperceptions. This should sound quite familiar to MMSD parents who often seem to have a significantly different opinions of what goes on at school than the students, especially as it pertains to student behavior, and school safety.
    Finally, the students who were offered OSP scholarships (the treatment group) went to schools significantly different from those who were not given the scholarships (the control group):
    1. The students given the scholarships were significantly more likely to attend a school with no support for academically challenged students;
    2. The students given the scholarships were significantly more likely to attend a school with no support for advanced learners;
    3. The students given the scholarships were significantly more likely to attend a school without a cafeteria, without nurses offices, without counselors, and without art programs.
    Given these stated results, cutting the OSP program was clearly the right decision.

  2. I agree that religious schools should not receive taxpayer funds. The definition of “a religious school” would likely keep lawyers rather busy.
    However, I think these type of programs are essential to diffusing the governance and academic issues in many large public school systems. It is difficult to see the status quo simply improving on its own.
    The graduation rate improvement is interesting. I remain unhappy with Senator Feingold’s vote to kill this program, particularly without a suitable replacement for the students.

  3. I agree that the status quo is not acceptable, but “these type of programs” — that is, those that don’t work — are not acceptable.
    That the commentators call the cancelation of this failed program the “debacle of the decade” tells me its real purpose was send taxpayer dollars to religious schools — in that sense it was successful because that was its hidden goal. Now the guys are pissed because enough politicians had the backbone to kill it.
    So I can’t understand why you are unhappy with Feingold for killing a program that is clearly not working. If you want programs that don’t work to continue to be supported by taxpayers, I’m confused where you are coming from.
    You’re either for improving education or not. Which is it?

Comments are closed.