"In sum, twenty years after the initiation of vouchers in l\lilwaukee

and a decade after the program's expansion to include religious

schools, there was no evidence of dramatic improvement for the

neediest students or the public schools they left behind."

P. 129

"By 2009. studies hy different authors came to similar conclusions

about vouchers, suggesting an emerging consensus. Cecelia

E. House of Princeton University and Lisa Barrow of the Federal

Reserve Bank of Chicago published a review of all the existing

studies of vouchers in Milwaukee. Cleveland. and the District of

Columbia. They found that there were "relatively small achievement

gains for students offered educational vouchers. most of which are

not statistically different from zero."

...............

"In 2009. the same research learn released another study that

found no major differences between students in voucher schools

and those in regular public schools. The research group included

the strongly pro-voucher Jay P. Greene of the University of Arkansas

and John Witte, who was considered a critic of vouchers. The

researchers found "no overall statistically significant differences

between MPCP [voucher] and MPS [Milwaukee Public Schools] student achievement growth in either math or reading one year after

they were carefully matched to each other." Perhaps there would be

different outcome's in the future. but this was not the panacea that

voucher supporters had promised and hoped for.

.....

The first evaluation [of the Washington, D.C. voucher program] in 2008

reported that in the first two years of the program (2004 and 2005).

there was no statistically significant difference in test scores of reading

and math between students who won the lottery and those who

entered the lottery but did not win. However. the third-year evaluation

of the voucher program (released in 20(9) found that there was

"a statistically significant positive impact on reading test scores. but

not math test scores." The reading scores represented a gain of more

than three months of learning"

Supporters of vouchers were ecstatic about the third·year evaluation

because at last they had hard evidence that vouchers would

benefit students. They glossed over the finding that these gains \vere

limited to certain groups of students. The students who experienced

gains in reading were those who entered the program from schools

that were not in need of improvement, those who entered the program

in the upper two-thirds of the test score distribution. and those

who entered in grades K-8. Females also seemed to benefit, though

that finding was not as robust as the others. The groups that did

not experience improvement in reading (or math) were boys, secondary

students. students from SINI [Schools in Need of Improvement] schools. and sludents in the lowest third of the test score distribution. The students who did not

see any gains were those in the highest-priority groups. the ones for

whom the program was designed: those with the lowest test scores

and those who had previously attended SINI schools."