Fool’s Gold: Pure Propagandistic Garbage

by David Safier

Today's Daily Email from Goldwater Institute's Matthew Ladner is worse than usual if only because it misuses the data from two good studies. There's not a factual inaccuracy to be found, only gross errors of overstatement and omission.

The headline states the premise of the email:

President Obama should transfer Head Start funds to D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program

According to Ladner, the voucher (Opportunity Scholarship) program in Washington D.C. was a rousing success, while Head Start doesn't result in lasting gains for students. Ergo, kill Head Start and give the money to students so they can go to private schools.

Both assertions are based on a very selective reading of two studies.

First, let's look at the study on D.C. vouchers (Ladner's link in his email didn't work, so he sent me the intended link). Ladner states, "the voucher program improves reading scores and students’ satisfaction with their schools."

According to the study, after 3 years in private schools, the voucher students scored 3.1 months higher than students who had entered the random voucher lottery but weren't selected. Math scores were the same for both groups.

A month's improvement per year in reading and nothing in math. When you put it that way, it's not as impressive as "the voucher program improves reading scores."

I'm not through. The study also indicated that students at the low end of the reading spectrum showed no gains from being in the voucher program. None. The gains can all be attributed to students who were already doing fairly well. But since conservatives always want to use "widows and orphans" — or in this case, the "lowest performing students" — to show how much they care, it wouldn't have furthered Ladner's agenda to make that distinction.

As for "students' satisfaction with their schools," a conservative would only refer to something that nebulous if the other data is weak — which it is. Hard nosed conservatives don't go for touchy-feely stuff like "I like it better here!" Show me reading scores! they shout. Show me math scores! And in this case, they really shouldn't take the subjective preference too seriously. After all, wouldn't you think students who are selected to be part of a special program would tend to say they liked their new school better than others who lost the lottery and were sent back to their same old schools? Seems likely to me.

As for the "Head Start doesn't have lasting gains" assertion, if you want to see a more nuanced analysis of the data, go to the post I wrote about the study. In a nutshell, the Head Start children were compared to a "control group," 60% of whom were enrolled in preschool. And the control group children attended elementary schools with higher achievement than the Head Start children. Put those two together, and you are comparing one form of early childhood education against another, and you're comparing students who attended schools where their classmates had different levels of achievement, which can have a direct effect on the achievement of students in the study.

The study doesn't conclude that Head Start has no effect on achievement.

Oh, and one more thing. According to the study, Head Start children showed a lowered incidence of hyperactivity in school as a result of participating in the program. And their parents exhibited better parenting. Those are far more important soft results than students with vouchers being more satisfied with their schools, but Ladner doesn't see fit to mention them. They weaken his argument, so he ignores them.

Here's an honest analysis of the two studies. Higher achieving students who had vouchers to attend D.C. private schools scored marginally higher in reading as a result, but no higher in math. And the voucher students say they like their new schools more. Meanwhile, Head Start doesn't appear to be significantly better than other forms of early childhood education, except in students' school behavior and their parents' relationship with their children.

But my honest analysis doesn't serve the propagandistic purpose Ladner wants, so he doesn't present an honest analysis. He prefers to distort the data to serve his conservative/libertarian agenda.

I wouldn't expend so much time and energy deconstructing these vile pieces of propaganda if it wasn't that no one else is doing it. The Goldwater Institute has the field to itself, and reporters too often eat up G.I.'s pronouncements like candy without consulting people who know enough to debunk this nonsense. Reporters really need to develop other sources.