Paper Summary
Share...

Direct link:

Op-Ed #4. Bait and Switch: How Voucher Advocates Shift Policy Objectives

Fri, April 14, 2:50 to 4:20pm CDT (2:50 to 4:20pm CDT), Sheraton Grand Chicago Riverwalk, Floor: Lobby - Level 3, Gold Coast

Abstract

Rather than simply presenting the case for vouchers as an ideological agenda based on abstract notions of parents’ freedom to choose, school voucher advocacy explicitly cast vouchers as an evidence-based remedy for addressing the needs of minoritized and marginalized populations (see Bedrick, 2014; Campbell et al., 2012; Forster, 2008, 2016; Greene et al., 1997; Greene et al., 2008; Peterson, 1997; Robinson, 2005).

But what happens if the empirical basis for that position is not as clear as advocates have asserted? Moreover, what if evidence — some of it their own — emerges that directly contradicts advocates’ claims of empirical proof? In such cases, does a professed loyalty to improving the achievement of poor children cause a re-evaluation of advocates’ preferred policies when evidence indicates those children are harmed? Or does the shifting empirical playing field cause advocates to instead change the standards by which their preferred policies are judged — in a sense, “moving the goalposts” in order to shape a more favorable portrayal of the preferred policy?

In a “post-truth” world, where political leaders blatantly ignore evidence, even evidence of their own previous statements, the integrity of any empirically-based research community would necessitate a consistent consideration of the facts (McIntyre, 2018). The importance of empirically reliable and consistent data in policymaking is paramount and should preclude “moving the goalposts” — especially when those “goalposts” were explicitly built around learning benefits for under-served children — in a search for data to justify a predetermined solution or policy remedy.

Accordingly, the authors of this op-ed explain how advocates of school choice have changed their standards for judging the quality of programs in response to the growing empirical evidence of the negative impacts of vouchers on student achievement outcomes.

Authors