Choice=grow=good? is the reasoning of a top ten of “Fast Facts on School Choice” recently released by the House Education and the Workforce Committee (see list below). Let’s test their “moving in the right direction” logic.

I choose to spend money=my credit card bill grows=good?

I eat too many calories=I become overweight and my waist grows=good?

We choose to burn fossil fuels=air becomes polluted/greenhoused=good?

Well, mold grows too. But that doesn’t mean that all mold is good…

This is the logic and reasoning that the House Education and the Workforce Committee utilized for eight of their facts: grow=good. Since those choice mechnisms are growing; therefore, they are “stronger, more effective.” On the effective point, only one of the ten facts (#5) actually deals with efficacy, so why did they slap strong and more effective on their top ten list? Regarding #5, I responded to a commenter on Linkedin recently when he brought up the New York study (he also mentioned Sweden as a comparable voucher system to the U.S.):

Regarding your two examples. First, New York. Interesting about that study was that it ONLY showed an effect for African Americans. However, the most damning evidence against the external validity of the study came from the authors themselves: “Scaling up voucher programs will change the social composition of private schools,” the report states. “To the extent that student learning is dependent on peer quality the impact reported here could easily change.” [This is the reasons for the failure of class size reduction in California] So if you want to know what vouchers look like when you scale them up, the only country in the world that has done that is Chile. I have posted on Chile extensively on Cloaking Inequity. Suffice to say that the Chilean example shows that vouchers have magnified inequality in the country. On your point about Sweden, schools are not allowed to discriminate in their voucher program, whether they are public or private. Our constitution allows private schools to discriminate based on race, gender, disability etc. This results in a creaming effect that you see in charters and vouchers. I have also posted on this extensively on Cloaking Inequity. Click on the vouchers and charters categories in the cloud. ciao!

NEPC also wrote an extensive statistical critique of the New York City findings here.

Fact #6 is the most appealing of the 10, you give kids scholarships, they go on to college. Now that is a revolutionary thought— earth-shattering. When college students can pay their tuition bill, they are more likely to stay, we don’t need research studies and fancy statistical models to demonstrate that. However, it makes you wonder why the feds and states are always trying to limit financial aid with various merit thresholds instead of need mechanisms?! Federal and state legislative staffs have asked me recently about “accountability” for college and universities— A No Child Left Behind law for our college and universities, the envy of the world? Motto: When it ain’t broke, fix it.