It seems we have a new standard for judging the success of a school. We no longer ask, "How much has student achievement improved?" We ask, "Is everybody happy?"
The Milwaukee parental choice program has been hailed as a big success by voucher advocates all over the country. Now in its fourth year, it uses money provided by the state to send a small number of poor children to private schools. Advocates say it proves that vouchers will fix our failing education system. But what do they mean by success? We now have a third independent evaluation. It shows what the first two evaluations also showed: Parents of Milwaukee voucher students are happy, but kids who attend these voucher schools do no better than their counterparts in the public schools.
According to the evaluation, choice parents are much more satisfied with the private school than with the public school their children previously attended on every count: textbooks, opportunities for parent involvement, teacher performance, program of instruction, principal performance, amount the child learned and discipline in the school. And 73 percent of the parents give the choice school an A or B, compared with only 48 percent for their child's former public school.
However, there is no corresponding jump in student achievement. There are small year-to-year fluctuations in the reading and math scores for choice students and a comparable group in the public schools. But here is how evaluator John Witte describes student achievement in 1993: "Choice reading scores declined more than [public school] reading scores. On math, choice students improved for the first time while [public school] students did not. When we controlled for other relevant variables, however, the effect of being in a choice school was insignificant." There is nothing in the achievement of these Milwaukee choice students that warrants the enthusiastic reviews choice advocates give the program; the private schools are not outperforming public schools.
Milwaukee is not the only place that cares more about happiness than achievement when it comes to judging school improvement programs. A couple of years ago, when Education Alternatives Inc. (EAI), a private, for-profit firm, landed a contract to manage nine Baltimore schools, then-Secretary of Education Lamar Alexander gave the company an award for successful educational innovation-- before it had even set foot inside the schools. Now, we hear that EAI, or perhaps some other private management firm, will come to Washington, D.C.
The D.C. schools could certainly use help. Their student achievement is consistently at or close to the bottom according to every measure. But aside from Secretary Alexander's award, what qualifications does EAI have to help the D.C. schools? Does it have any educational expertise? No. Is its educational program exemplary? The program has never been evaluated; it's never been written up in any scholarly journal; in fact, it's secret.
EAI makes big claims about its success but offers no figures on how well the students in EAI schools are doing. (An independent evaluation would answer this question. But before any such evaluation is done in Baltimore, both EAI and the school district-- the ones who have most to lose from an unfavorable evaluation-- -have to approve the evaluator.) What EAI supporters do talk about is how the company has had Baltimore school buildings painted, trash hauled away from the schoolyards and some computers brought in. And they talk about how pleased and happy parents, students and some teachers are.
No one doubts that run-down schools are demoralizing or wonders that people involved with the schools are happy about these changes. But do smiles and warm feelings make the EAI program an "educational" success? Does anybody think they can take the place of giving kids an education that will qualify them for college and decent jobs?
Happiness is not our big educational problem. It's setting demanding and worthwhile standards for student achievement and pushing and helping students to meet them. It's easy to confuse feeling good with doing well. That's the mistake people make when they ask schools to teach their kids self-esteem instead of asking schools to help their kids achieve, which will truly make the kids feel good about themselves. But would we be satisfied with a good paint job if we brought a car in to have its motor replaced?
Our competitor nations don't judge the success of their schools by happy faces, and neither should we.
The push to adopt voucher plans or hire private management companies is going on in a number of places where student achievement is very poor. But before the parents and taxpayers in Jersey City or Washington, D.C., or elsewhere get pushed or seduced into accepting a voucher plan or a private management company, they should ask for some hard evidence that it will improve student achievement. They'll find the evidence doesn't exist.