‘No One Is Above the Law’: Divisive Trump Surrogate Carl Paladino Removed From Buffalo School Board

Veto Override Uncertain as Fight Over Funding Illinois Schools Moves to the House

Noble Network of Charter Schools: It’s Not Just About Going to College, but About Global Perspective & Leaving Chicago

74 Interview: David Hardy on Putting Purpose Before Politics and Kids Before Adults in Leading Ohio’s 2nd State-Takeover District

For Schools, an Eclipse Conundrum: To Open or Close? For Fun or for Science?

New Poll Shows Sharp Decline in Support for Public Charter Schools Over Past Year

A Massachusetts Teachers Union Votes to Kill a Successful Charter School, as Families Scramble for Answers

WATCH: Mission to Mars Video Wins $10,000 and Visit to NASA for 4 NJ Middle Schoolers

Jason Botel Reportedly Out at Education Dept. as Feds Reject ESSA Plan From DeVos’s Home State

2 in 3 High School Students Know of Kids Who Cheat Using Digital Devices — but Few Admit Doing It Themselves

Fewer Than 1 in 3 Americans Support Kids Opting out of Tests; About Half Confused on What ‘Opt Out’ Means

Call Her RoboKid: How a Cutting-Edge Robot Is Helping an Ohio Student Attend Classes While She’s Sick at Home

LearnLaunch Accelerator Gives a Boost to Ed Tech Startups Worldwide From Its Boston Home

No More School Daze? California Weighs Making Middle & High Schools Start Later So Students Can Sleep In

This Week in ESSA: Pennsylvania Looks to Cut Testing Time, Indiana Reformats A–F Grades & 3 More Approvals

What Our Kids Made at Summer Camp: Proud Parents Posting Adorable Photos of Arts & Crafts on Social Media

74 Interview: Michael Lomax, CEO of the United Negro College Fund, on Guiding Low-Income Students Through College

Los Angeles Schools Launch Campaign and Resource Guides to Protect Immigrant Students

300 Tutors, Working With Students 2 Hours a Day: One School Network’s Investment in Personalized Learning

As Congress Mulls Slashing $2B in Title II Funds, Educators See Cuts Devastating Critical School Leadership

Data Sharing, Data Dumping & Claims of ‘Academic Fraud’ in Tweetstorm Over Story About Louisiana Vouchers

Photo Credit: Getty Images

August 9, 2017

Talking Points

The 74 story about Louisiana school vouchers surfaces fault lines in data sharing and academic politics

Sign Up for Our Newsletter

Could any education issue, circa 2017, be hotter than the debate about school vouchers? The answer, it appears, is yes: The fine points of scholarly research on the efficacy of the various mechanisms for public funding of private school attendance.

On Aug. 2, The 74 published a lengthy investigation by Matt Barnum into a slowly simmering controversy involving differing levels of access to data on Louisiana’s voucher program given to two groups of academics. The story’s publication sparked dueling recriminations between the researchers and a tsunami of tweets.

In short order, the question raised by the story — whether officials grant access to data at least partly according to policy priorities — gave way to another: Given the lightning-rod nature of the voucher debate, will researchers compromise their ethics to be first to a particular finding?

The arguments are multi-layered, but the gist is this: In 2016, researchers from MIT, Duke, and the University of California, Berkeley, published a study that showed that the first year of Louisiana’s voucher program — the most tightly regulated in the nation — led to marked decreases in student achievement. 

The stakes were high and the findings immediately politicized: “Louisiana’s voucher program is one of the most tightly monitored in the nation: Participating schools can’t set admission criteria, can’t charge families tuition beyond the voucher amount, and — most important to the study — require students to take the same tests as their public school counterparts,” wrote Barnum, who now reports for Chalkbeat.org. “That the research showed those first-year test comparisons were negative was quickly taken up both by voucher critics as evidence that private school choice doesn’t work and by hardline school choice supporters as proof that Louisiana’s program is overregulated.”

After the study was released, Louisiana ended its data-sharing relationship with the scholars in question, according to public records obtained by Barnum. The convoluted chain of emails between the researchers and state officials revealed mounting tensions as Louisiana education officials pushed the researchers to wait for more complete — and positive — data and researchers pushed back because the later data were incomplete.



Fast-forward a year, and in June, a second set of researchers with the Education Research Alliance at Tulane University and the School Choice Demonstration Project at the University of Arkansas published a study of the Louisiana program using three years of more complete data and also finding a negative effect, albeit less pronounced.



The 74’s publication of the story outlining the tensions immediately provoked social media chatter unearthing a second, angrier controversy, in which Jay P. Greene, the head of the Department of Education Reform at the University of Arkansas and a member of the second set of researchers, accused the MIT-Duke-Berkeley team of “academic fraud” for what he said was its failure to cite prior work by a Ph.D. candidate on Greene’s team.

“Why did it matter that they be first?” Greene asked on his blog in an Aug. 4 post. “By being first to release they could act like they had the original analysis rather than a replication. Top Econ journals tend not to be as interested in replications of a grad student’s dissertation. And by being first to release and not citing [the doctoral candidate’s] work they could act like theirs was the original analysis.”

The MIT-Duke-Berkeley team fired back with an extensively footnoted memo and a copy of its data-sharing agreement with the state of Louisiana. Greene responded in kind, as the attendant comments threads filled up with accusations and academic citations.

Barnum, Greene also opined, missed “an incredibly depressing story about how status and power in our field contributes to academic abuse and dishonesty.”

Or not, in the eyes of others:



Either way, the scholarly cyber-conflict completely skirted what might be of more importance to the public and to advocates who are hungry for hard information about policies proven to help disadvantaged students. According to Barnum’s interviews, obtaining data about issues in education almost anywhere is frequently a delicate dance.

Most states operate on something of an ad hoc basis, the original story reported: Researchers may be able to get data, but only if they can convince some combination of education officials and politicians that their study is worthwhile. Sometimes that turns on an individual researcher’s relationship with key policymakers, noted Dan Goldhaber, a professor at the University of Washington Bothell and director of the Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.

“I would say it’s a discretionary process,” Goldhaber was quoted as saying, “which ... opens the door for politics.”