Releasing bad news on a Friday afternoon is a time-honored tradition among governments of all political leanings. (The public is distracted by weekend plans; few people read the Saturday paper.) The Obama Administration is showing itself to be no different; it's no coincidence that the latest (very positive) findings about the D.C. "Opportunity Scholarship Program" were released this afternoon. It creates a conundrum for Team Obama and its allies on Capitol Hill, all of whom want to kill the program (some sooner than later). Here's the key news, as spotted by our fantastic research director, Amber Winkler:
After 3 years, there was a statistically significant positive impact on reading test scores, but not math test scores. Overall, those offered a scholarship were performing at statistically higher levels in reading--equivalent to 3.1 months of additional learning--but at similar levels in math compared to students not offered a scholarship.
Keep in mind that, as Education Week just reported, almost every "gold-standard" study in education finds "null" results. So the fact that researchers could detect such dramatic impacts for reading is a very big deal. (And it's not too surprising that the same can't be said about math.)
This nugget is important too:
The OSP improved reading achievement for 5 of the 10 subgroups examined. Being offered or using a scholarship led to higher reading test scores for participants who applied from schools that were not classified as "schools in need of improvement" (non-SINI). There were also positive impacts for students who applied to the Program with relatively higher levels of academic performance, female students, students entering grades K-8 at the time of application, and students from the first cohort of applicants. These impacts translate into 1/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth. However, the positive subgroup reading impacts for female students and the first cohort of applicants should be interpreted with caution, as reliability tests suggest that they could be false discoveries.
Keeping that cautionary note in mind, what does this mean? Basically, this program has been really good for poor kids, but not necessarily the poorest kids in the city who attend the worst of the worst schools. Some will surely argue that this is an example of "creaming," just as they argue that KIPP isn't a panacea because the students who enter its lotteries are unusually motivated. Even if these critics are right, does that mean these social policies aren't worth supporting? Does an education intervention have to work for the very poorest of poor kids, in the toughest of tough situations, in order for it to be deserving of public funding? If that's the standard, almost no program or policy will ever qualify.
President Obama has said that he will support vouchers if they are proven to work. Now's his opportunity to show his commitment to pragmatism and post-partisanship, and go to the mat for this unusually effective experiment.
