Yes, there is yet another study about Florida Tax Credit Scholarships for private schools. This one is funded in part by the Walton and Bush foundations. Don’t bother to read it you say? Not so fast. I found some useful tidbits.
The study looks for evidence that students who stay in the FTC program benefit by enrolling in college (community college) at a higher rate than similar students from public schools. Depending upon how you count, about five percent of the FTC program students are more likely to attend, but not graduate from, a community college. We can all celebrate students who succeed. We can also predict who they are likely to be.
What the report admits is that this study is not about student achievement. Florida private schools do not administer state tests, so comparisons cannot be made with public schools. In fact, Indiana, Louisiana and Ohio studies demonstrated that participating in their FTC programs reduced student achievement on state tests. So, the researchers asked different questions.
Who enrolls in Florida FTC private schools? What happens to them?
1. The study supposedly matched public school and FTC private school students by income and race. The match had problems. The public school group included 4% more children from families below the poverty level. Data on FTC students in the reduced lunch category, which is about a $10,00 higher income level, was even more starkly different. Only 11% of the FTC students were in the reduced lunch group compared to 31% of public school students. This fact alone may explain the difference in the rate of college enrollment between the two groups.
2. The Florida DOE data show that 83% of FTC students attend a religious private school. FTC students who enrolled in a Catholic or a non Christian religious school were more likely to enroll in college, but few FTC students enroll in these schools.
Who benefited from the FTC program?
1. FTC students who are most likely to attend college are Hispanic students who were born outside the U.S.
2. FTC students enrolled in private schools that were in existence before the program began in 2003 are more likely to go to college.
3. As more FTC students enrolled in a school, the less likely the students enrolled in community college.
No matter how the numbers are manipulated, private schools are no answer to improving student achievement. The students who succeed attend selective, well established private schools that will only enroll a few scholarship students. No doubt these children were carefully screened for admission.
The State can no longer even say that the tax credit scholarships save money. The legislature increased the stipend for tuition. The legislature must turn its attention to improving the quality of schools. Simply moving children around from place to place harms kids. Even this study mentions this disruption.
Sue,
I work with Step Up For Students and know we respectfully disagree on the value of scholarships for low-income students, but I hope you’ll allow me to challenge a couple of the assertions here.
First, the Institute doesn’t need me to stick up for its academic integrity, but I think you’ll find that most people on both sides of this issue consider Matt Chingos, who has a Ph.D from Harvard, to be a straight shooter who takes his research where the facts lead him. Also, he submitted this study to various academic peers before releasing it.
Second, you noted correctly that the public school grades 6-8 comparison group had more “Reduced Price Lunch” eligible students. But that alone does not skew the findings because the lunch program figures may be overstating the number of low-income students in public schools and understating the number who choose the scholarship (see: https://edexcellence.net/articles/no-half-of-american-schoolchildren-are-not-low-income).
Chingos observed that scholarship students “may not have participated [in the lunch program] because they did not apply or because they did not qualify during the baseline year.” More importantly, the law requires scholarship organizations to verify the household income of every participating student, and the average income during those years was less than 130 of poverty, which is the threshold for a free lunch. By way of contrast, school districts are required to verify the income of only 3 percent of the lunch participants, and, in 2015, the U.S. government eliminated or reduced the lunch benefits of 54 percent of the families who were audited (see: https://www.usda.gov/oig/webdocs/27601-0001-41.pdf).
For the record in 2010, 96 percent of the scholarship students were eligible for the lunch program. Furthermore, FRL eligibility in the scholarship program was 100 percent during the first several years.
I certainly agree with you that Catholic schools, which serve roughly a fifth of all scholarship students, are doing a great job. But that doesn’t mean the others are suffering. Students in other religious schools are 15 percent more likely to attend college while students on the scholarship four or more years are 40 percent more likely to attend college.
I respect the degree to which the League researches all its positions, and I hope you’ll accept my thoughts in that same spirit. Don’t hesitate to reach out if you have any questions.
Patrick Gibbons