POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

We now have the results of the voucher systems of Chile and Sweden to look at.

Two of the greatest experiments in school choice have been in these 2 countries.

The results are the same. The gap between the rich and the poor schools actually widens greatly with the poor doing much worse and the overall academic achievement of the schools nation wide declines although the scores of the tiny group of rich go up which was the point from the very beginning.

As these results have become known, they have led to demonstrations and riots. Chile is falling compared to other Latin American countries and Sweden is falling compared to European countries, farther and farther behind such highly similar nations like Finland.

This is not a POV. This is clearly demonstrated by PISA and these nations own national testing.

Much like the CC results in NYC choice is not good for education, it is not even neutral, it is a strong negative. We have reached the point where to poor can no longer be left behind in rotten jobs or no job. We must educate them to be internationally successful.

The chickens are coming home to roost. Not a pretty picture.

http://dianeravitch.net/2012/12/13/vouchers-in-chile/

Doug: the research seems to indicate exactly the opposite of what you claim. 

Bohlmark & Lindahl (2012) provides a careful analysis of the data from their national standard tests, and their finding is unequivocal: charter schools have raised levels in the educational system, primarily by improving the private schools.

http://www.ifau.se/Upload/pdf/se/2012/wp12-19-Independent-schools-and-long-run-educational-outcomes.pdf

Here’s their summary: “We find that an increase in the share of independent school students has caused an increase in average educational performance. This increase is evident for both short- and long-run measures and the estimates remain very similar if we control for changes in a number of demographic, family background and municipality-level characteristics.

We also find that these positive effects are not driven by differential pre-reform trends in educational outcomes and that they are very robust to a number of other issues that might bias the estimates (such as grade inflation and the increased choice opportunities between public schools). Interestingly, it appears that the positive effects are primarily due to external effects (e.g., spill-over or competition effects) and not that independent-school students gain significantly more than public school students.

We are also able to show that a higher share of independent-school students in the municipality has not generated increased school expenditures. Hence, our positive educational performance effects are interpretable as positive effects on school productivity. However, for most measures, we do not detect positive and statistically significant educational performance effects until approximately a decade after the reform. This time lapse is notable, but not surprising since it has taken time for independent schools to become more than a
marginal phenomenon in Sweden.”

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

Poor are rioting against vouchers in both Sweden and Chile with water cannon needed. Results not good. Privatized Sweden flling behind virtually all PS Finland.

http://dianeravitch.net/2013/03/26/the-swedish-voucher-system-an-appraisal/

Open the Ravitch link, scroll to bottom, Levin’s power point open it.

He deals with above study + Niepal Edmark and Frolich study

Shows the Swedish decline overall on international scores PISA, TIMMS, PIRLS since vouchers.

There are no academic gains to be found in charters or vouchers. You might move some around but aggregate does not rise and usually falls. The great education nations do not go this route.

Levin discusses the increased social stratification in Sweden in the schools, the other article discusses the same in Chile.

Dr Levin does not dispute the findings of Bohlmark & Lindahl.  Mostly what he expresses is that HOW you implement school choice has a huge impact on outcomes along different dimensions of measurement. 

For example, Sweden does not allow publicly funded schools to charge extra tuition, preventing a spectrum of schooling options at different price points.  We have the same limitation in Ontario, and I suspect Sweden deals with it the same way we do: wealthy parents choose private schools, less-wealthy ones use the publicly-funded system and supplement with tutors.  It is possible to argue whether that is right or wrong, and Dr Levin’s valuable contribution to the debate is a framework for making that kind of argument.

Sweden spends about the same per student as Canada (http://www.oecd.org/pisa/49685503.pdf ), so I’m guessing that they are pretty upset about their low educational achievement.  It’s not possible to say what that outcome would have been if charters had not been funded, but Bohlmark & Lindahl clearly show that districts with charters have higher performance in both charter and public schools.

Diane Ravich plays fast and loose with the evidence she cites.  That’s probably good politics, but a terrible way to design educational policy.

POSTED ON BEHALF OF DOUG

The fact remains Tom, Sweden is going nowhere with choice and the social stratification is up and the poor and their advoctes are furious and want choice ended. It was for the poor the most right.

Very similar society across the Baltic Sea Finland surges ahead with an almost 100% public school system.

The choice system in Chile, instituted by Pinochet, has cause the poor (who you support right) to riot. Choice is not about choice. Choice is about privatization period. Only the painfully naive otherwise.

It is about:

1) Profiteering
2) Putting in religion through the back door.
3) Ideology

It sure isn’t about the poor.