I have a piece in Education Next about the study that came out the $7 billion federal school turnaround program.
Everyone is saying that the study proves SIG didn’t work.
My main argument is here:
In detailing these results, the authors note:
“The smallest impacts our benchmark approach could detect ranged from 0.19 to 0.22 standard deviations for test score outcomes, from 0.15 to 0.26 standard deviations for high school graduation, and from 0.27 to 0.39 standard deviations for college enrollment.”
Now, look back up at urban charter effects and you’ll see the three year results in math are about at the floor of what the SIG study could detect, and the results in reading are much lower than what the SIG study could detect (the SIG study also tracked children for 3 years).
So even if SIG achieved the same effects as urban charter schools the study may not have been able to detect these effects.
It seems pretty unfair for charter (or voucher) champions to call SIG a failure when SIG might have very well achieved near the same results as urban charter schools.
Until I see results that show that SIG worked, I won’t change my prior belief that SIG funds would have been better spent on high-quality charter growth.
Moreover, neither the existing research base nor theory warranted a $7 billion spend on district turnarounds, so even had the intervention worked I still would consider it a lucky outcome on an ill-advised bet.
But I also won’t claim that SIG failed.
Due to poor research design, we simply don’t know if that’s true.
The study authors, reporters, and commentators should walk back their strong claims on SIG’s failures.
At the same time, we should all keep advocating for government investment amounts to be in line with the existing evidence base.
If we have no reason to believe something will work, we should not spend $7 billion.
Too often, moonshots garner more status then they deserve.
Read the the whole piece here.