The edusphere is abuzz over the DOE’s release of the NCES study. We’re planning to respond further to the study, but first we’d like to point out a few things.
First off, and fatally, the study is comparing apples and oranges. It acknowledges that private school students outpace public school students, but then makes "adjustments" to control for various factors. But the results predictably are skewed in favor of public schools. A huge percentage of poor-performing public schools are slapped with "special needs" labels and removed from testing. Moreover, most children who exercise school choice were doing poorly in the public schools. Without including special-needs students, and without knowing the point at which choice students started, side-by-side comparisons are irrelevant.
Second, choice supporters believe that school choice is the tide that lifts all boats. If we’re right–and studies by Harvard’s Caroline Hoxby says we are–test scores will rise for both public and private school students. Again, a snapshot tells nothing about the competitive benefits of school choice.
The gold standard for studies on the benefits of school choice comparies performance of students who applied for school choice and were randomly selected for admission with those who applied and were not admitted. So far, all gold-standard studies have found gains for children exercising school choice. Control-group longitudinal studies are underway in the District of Columbia and Milwaukee programs. Those apples-to-apples studies will tell us a great deal about systemic reform prospects for school choice. Unfortunately, the NCES study tells us nothing.
Clint Bolick is the president and general counsel of the Alliance for School Choice.