Hello from the road!

I’m writing this edition of The Private Eye while traveling between bookstore visits at Politics and Prose in Washington, D.C., Changing Hands near Phoenix, and Princeton University. I appreciate all the well-wishes and enthusiasm for my book, The Privateers, so far!

For this edition, I want to draw special attention to the ways the private school voucher lobby makes its case and, especially, goes on the offensive against voucher critics. And I want to highlight the relatively recent role that the apparatus of state government plays in that activity—particularly, and perhaps surprisingly, the state departments of education charged with overseeing public schools.

Now, just before I hit “send” on this newsletter, the Center for Media and Democracy published a big expose on how the Heritage Foundation, authors of Project 2025, are “weaponize[ing] state superintendents in culture war.” It’s a must-read on this issue too, because they explain how this all gets done.

But keep reading here for the why: Why do these state education agencies matter to right-wing education policy schemes and especially the voucher fight?

Although states vary in the process by which their superintendents of public instruction enter office —some are elected officials, some are appointed by governors, others are selected by statewide boards—all have one important job in common: they all oversee a civil service department that the federal government recognizes as a state education agency (SEA).

The SEAs have a variety of functions, but most involve distributing taxpayer dollars earmarked for both general and specific school needs, and overseeing their use. These dollars include federal contributions, and with those federal dollars come a number of different requirements. For the purposes of today’s newsletter the most relevant of those rules are around data use and student privacy.

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) lays out many different restrictions on the use of student-level data. It’s what keeps schools from giving your kid’s information out to vendors, journalists, or researchers just because the district might want to do so. But there are important FERPA exceptions, and one of those is that SEAs and local school districts both have some latitude to use confidential (usually deidentified) student records toward the goal of improving educational outcomes.

This includes partnering with outside researchers on studies that might illuminate what’s working and what’s not when it comes to educational programs. I’ve worked in such partnerships throughout my career, as have many of my colleagues and counterparts across the country.

What does this all have to do with school vouchers? Well, in the early days of voucher evaluation—events I discuss in The Privateers—some of those research partnerships included efforts to study school voucher outcomes. We know about the dreadful academic results for voucher users in Louisiana, Indiana, Ohio, and Washington, D.C. precisely because of such partnerships, usually included in the original state (or in D.C.’s case, federal) legislation authorizing vouchers in the first place.

But here’s the thing. SEAs can and do limit what data researchers have access to—and even which researchers get that access to begin with. I was involved in setting up a general-use partnership based at the University of Michigan that (within reason) provides redacted student records to researchers under FERPA’s research exemption. Similar programs exist in North Carolina, Texas, and Tennessee, to name a few.

The point is that none of us can just simply decide to study school voucher impacts with even the redacted student-level records needed for most rigorous methodologies. The SEA gets to approve who uses those data and what they study, and usually even gets a chance to review results well ahead of public release.

You can see where I’m going. Each state’s superintendent is more or less the final decision point for student record use, and for the distribution of results using their state’s student records. This means that in states like Arizona, Arkansas, Florida, or Iowa, a voucher study that might use student records is going to have to go through the state superintendent’s office before its authors are approved to use those data, and before the public sees what results are found.

I name those states because all four have zealous, extremely pro-voucher state superintendents—an irony given that their daily charge is working on behalf of students in public schools. As one indicator, consider that the Arkansas and Florida superintendents spoke on behalf of vouchers at the 2023 Moms for Liberty general convention. Iowa’s state education director was previously Betsy DeVos’s policy director at the federal education department during the Trump years.

The superintendent and communications office at the Arizona Department of Education have been especially aggressive in leading a quasi-official state war room against voucher opponents. The state’s education agency routinely releases reports on users of the state voucher system, which voucher lobby groups like the Heritage Foundation and Betsy DeVos’s American Federation for Children then cite in a cyclical fashion as evidence that vouchers work. In the most recent case, ADE communications staff sent out press releases “demolishing,” as they put it, highly regarded work from the Brookings Institution on wealthy voucher users, and investigative reporting from ProPublica describing voucher pressure on the state’s budget.

Arizona also illustrates the dynamic in which even an anti-voucher governor could be hamstrung by a pro-voucher superintendent. The reverse is certainly possible as well: if the superintendents are not pro-voucher partisans, their governors might be, so even responsible superintendents might be compelled to use their authority over student data to either push or quash reports that align with the pro-voucher objective.

The point here is that because of good, important legal safeguards on the use of student data, researchers, journalists, parents and the general public are all but at the mercy of their state education agency to provide indicators of progress or decline when it comes to vouchers. That’s information the public deserves to have, but nowadays it very well might be denied them.

I should say, I’ve never had a study of mine quashed by the Michigan Department of Education or any other partner agency. But I have gone through intense and sometimes extended back and forth on text, language, and timing of report release. Most researchers in such situations have. You do your best to work with a partner while not compromising your independence or your principles.

In The Privateers, I recount how such situations allowed both the Louisiana and Indiana Departments of Education to restrict and delay their partner researchers’ release of studies showing negative voucher impacts. Those eventually did see the light of day, but it was a different time back then.

Now it’s not even clear whether, or which, evaluators may be able to assess voucher outcomes today. Among recent legislative expansions, only Arkansas and Iowa affirmatively (though nominally) provide for outside inquiry.

Unfortunately, I don’t think any of this is changing any time soon. My goal here today with this newsletter is simply to lay down a marker:

Be very, very skeptical of any voucher results you see coming
out of states where pro-voucher superintendents control
state records used to obtain such results.

State education agencies employ so many well-meaning and dedicated civil servants. But they all have a boss, and today the use of proprietary education data is one more example of a dangerous scenario in which the mechanisms of ordinary mid-level bureaucracy may be used to further ideological and political objectives.

Thanks again for reading and take good care.

Josh

P.S. If this newsletter was forwarded to you, please consider joining the PFPS distribution list here so you can receive future editions directly in your inbox.