An Analysis of Voucher Advocacy

Taking a Closer Look at the Uses and Limitations of “Gold Standard” Research

Christopher Lubienski, T. Jameson Brewer

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Abstract

Voucher proponents have increasingly pursued empirical evidence on the effectiveness of vouchers as a form of education improvement, in addition to advocating for vouchers on moral or ethical grounds. Voucher proponents contend that randomized assignment studies of students in voucher programs have consistently confirmed the effectiveness of vouchers. We examine such advocacy claims about these “gold standard” studies from a leading voucher proponent, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, to consider how such advocacy is presented. Although voucher advocates indicate that the research is conclusive, consistent, and thus generalizable, and essentially beyond reproach, closer examination of the studies put forth by advocates suggests little consensus or consistency across the reported findings. When there are positive effects, they do not translate across different contexts, populations, programs, grade levels, or subjects. Moreover, we highlight some limitations of these studies, which the advocates do not acknowledge, and show that, because findings on vouchers are less compelling or promising than proponents claim, the misrepresentation of empirical findings by advocates appears to be a key element of their advocacy agenda.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)455-472
Number of pages18
JournalPeabody Journal of Education
Volume91
Issue number4
DOIs
StatePublished - Aug 7 2016

Fingerprint

Population Control
gold standard
Students
Education
Research
school grade
examination
evidence
education
student

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Education
  • Developmental and Educational Psychology

Cite this

An Analysis of Voucher Advocacy : Taking a Closer Look at the Uses and Limitations of “Gold Standard” Research. / Lubienski, Christopher; Jameson Brewer, T.

In: Peabody Journal of Education, Vol. 91, No. 4, 07.08.2016, p. 455-472.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{4097aa1dffc34a0eb3a895b6c0617710,
title = "An Analysis of Voucher Advocacy: Taking a Closer Look at the Uses and Limitations of “Gold Standard” Research",
abstract = "Voucher proponents have increasingly pursued empirical evidence on the effectiveness of vouchers as a form of education improvement, in addition to advocating for vouchers on moral or ethical grounds. Voucher proponents contend that randomized assignment studies of students in voucher programs have consistently confirmed the effectiveness of vouchers. We examine such advocacy claims about these “gold standard” studies from a leading voucher proponent, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, to consider how such advocacy is presented. Although voucher advocates indicate that the research is conclusive, consistent, and thus generalizable, and essentially beyond reproach, closer examination of the studies put forth by advocates suggests little consensus or consistency across the reported findings. When there are positive effects, they do not translate across different contexts, populations, programs, grade levels, or subjects. Moreover, we highlight some limitations of these studies, which the advocates do not acknowledge, and show that, because findings on vouchers are less compelling or promising than proponents claim, the misrepresentation of empirical findings by advocates appears to be a key element of their advocacy agenda.",
author = "Christopher Lubienski and {Jameson Brewer}, T.",
year = "2016",
month = "8",
day = "7",
doi = "10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207438",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "91",
pages = "455--472",
journal = "Peabody Journal of Education",
issn = "0161-956X",
publisher = "Routledge",
number = "4",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An Analysis of Voucher Advocacy

T2 - Taking a Closer Look at the Uses and Limitations of “Gold Standard” Research

AU - Lubienski, Christopher

AU - Jameson Brewer, T.

PY - 2016/8/7

Y1 - 2016/8/7

N2 - Voucher proponents have increasingly pursued empirical evidence on the effectiveness of vouchers as a form of education improvement, in addition to advocating for vouchers on moral or ethical grounds. Voucher proponents contend that randomized assignment studies of students in voucher programs have consistently confirmed the effectiveness of vouchers. We examine such advocacy claims about these “gold standard” studies from a leading voucher proponent, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, to consider how such advocacy is presented. Although voucher advocates indicate that the research is conclusive, consistent, and thus generalizable, and essentially beyond reproach, closer examination of the studies put forth by advocates suggests little consensus or consistency across the reported findings. When there are positive effects, they do not translate across different contexts, populations, programs, grade levels, or subjects. Moreover, we highlight some limitations of these studies, which the advocates do not acknowledge, and show that, because findings on vouchers are less compelling or promising than proponents claim, the misrepresentation of empirical findings by advocates appears to be a key element of their advocacy agenda.

AB - Voucher proponents have increasingly pursued empirical evidence on the effectiveness of vouchers as a form of education improvement, in addition to advocating for vouchers on moral or ethical grounds. Voucher proponents contend that randomized assignment studies of students in voucher programs have consistently confirmed the effectiveness of vouchers. We examine such advocacy claims about these “gold standard” studies from a leading voucher proponent, the Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, to consider how such advocacy is presented. Although voucher advocates indicate that the research is conclusive, consistent, and thus generalizable, and essentially beyond reproach, closer examination of the studies put forth by advocates suggests little consensus or consistency across the reported findings. When there are positive effects, they do not translate across different contexts, populations, programs, grade levels, or subjects. Moreover, we highlight some limitations of these studies, which the advocates do not acknowledge, and show that, because findings on vouchers are less compelling or promising than proponents claim, the misrepresentation of empirical findings by advocates appears to be a key element of their advocacy agenda.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84981526560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84981526560&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207438

DO - 10.1080/0161956X.2016.1207438

M3 - Article

VL - 91

SP - 455

EP - 472

JO - Peabody Journal of Education

JF - Peabody Journal of Education

SN - 0161-956X

IS - 4

ER -