Cleveland Study: Evidence Undercuts Voucher Claims

National School Boards Association’s
Prepared Date: December 23, 2003

Review of

Study of the Cleveland Voucher Program
by the Indiana Center for Evaluation, Dec. 2003

Looking for More Voucher Info, visit

www.nsba.org/novouchers

Quick Comments

The evidence again proves that vouchers are not a miracle ticket to a better education. Once more, the realities of vouchers fail to live up to the promises. The one undeniable conclusion is that vouchers drain needed dollars from the public schools that educate most of America’s students.

Noteworthy - Key Points From the Study

1. Although questions continue to abound about the impact of school voucher programs, the Cleveland study has been the only ongoing review of a publicly funded voucher program in the nation. At the time this study was released, the Ohio legislature had decided not to continue funding the evaluation. They later reversed course, and the evaluation now continues.
   
   
2. Public school students, on average, made larger academic gains overall than students in the voucher program. However, overall, there are no statistically significant differences in academic achievement as a result of vouchers.
   
   
3. Contrary to the image put forth by voucher proponents, especially during the Supreme Court’s review of the Cleveland voucher program, voucher students are less likely to be African-American or to qualify for the federal free lunch program when compared to their public school peers.
   
   
4. Because of the selection (or lottery) process, higher income families, non-minority families, and families whose children already attend private schools disproportionately end up claiming vouchers.
   
   
5. Many low-income families who receive a voucher via the lottery do not use the voucher, citing limited private school vacancies near their home, lack of special services (including special education and gifted programs) by participating private schools, or out-of-pocket expenses (including tuition not covered by the voucher).

THE BACKGROUND

1. This is a 2003 report by Dr. Kim Metcalf and the contract research team at Indiana University that was hired by the State of Ohio to evaluate the Cleveland voucher program. It covers the program from 1998 to 2002.
   
   
2. The report specifically tracks the academic performance of voucher students and a similar group of public school students from the start of first grade until the end of fourth grade. Subjects tested include math, reading and language for all four years, and social studies and science for third grades and fourth grades.
   
   
3. Previous reports from this contract research team have been reviewed and validated by the U.S. General Accounting Office in its 2001 report on vouchers to Congress. That contrasts with a previous study on the Cleveland program by other researchers (Paul Peterson and Jay Greene) that the GAO deemed not credible enough to include in its report to Congress.

THE FINDINGS

• Academic Achievement

1. Over the course of four years, public school students, on average, made larger test score gains than students in the voucher program. For example, in math, public school students began first grade with lower test scores than students in the voucher program, but they caught up and passed voucher students by the end of fourth grade.
   
2. Overall, there are no “statistically significant” differences in the academic achievement of students in the voucher program and students in the public schools after the fourth grade.

• Student Characteristics

1. African-American students are under-represented in the voucher program compared to the proportions in the public schools. While African-Americans represent 51.9 percent of all students in the voucher program, they represent 71 percent of students in Cleveland public schools, and they account for 83.9 percent of students who were awarded a voucher but did not use it.
   
   
2. Caucasian students are over-represented in the voucher program compared to the proportions in the public schools. Caucasian students represent 33.7 percent of all students in the voucher program, but represent just 19.7 percent of all students in Cleveland public schools.
   
   
3. Voucher students, on average, are less likely to qualify for free lunch than students in the public schools.

• School characteristics

1. Cleveland’s public school teachers are more likely to be certified than the voucher school’s teachers, though the overwhelming majority of teachers in both types of schools are certified.
   
   
2. Cleveland’s public school teachers are more likely to have completed graduate coursework than the voucher school’s teachers.
   
   
3. Teacher experience (years taught) is roughly equal between Cleveland’s public school teachers and the voucher school’s teachers.
   
   
4. Class sizes (22 students per) are roughly equal in Cleveland’s public schools and the voucher schools.

• Parents’ Decisions in Picking Schools

1. In deciding what school they want their children to attend, parents focus first on school safety, followed closely by the perceived quality of the school’s teachers and the school’s academics. This was found to be true of parents of children attending public, private and charter schools.

The Cleveland evaluation's executive summary and technical reports are available online here.

For more information from NSBA, contact:

Marc Egan
Director, Voucher Strategy Center
National School Boards Association
1680 Duke Street, Alexandria, Virginia 22314
703-838-6707
www.nsba.org/novouchers