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 language | English (US) |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 455-472 |
| Number of pages | 18 |
| Journal | Peabody Journal of Education |
| Volume | 91 |
| Issue number | 4 |
| DOIs | |
| State | Published - Aug 7 2016 |
Fingerprint
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 journal › Article
}
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 -