In a recent article in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Josh Cowen is quoted several times making claims about programs that allow families to choose private schools for their children that would almost be convincing, if they weren’t so easily refuted.
He claims, for instance, that recent evaluations of some choice programs, such as the evaluation of the Louisiana Scholarship Program, found negative effects on student learning. But he ignores terrible program implementation and/or lower quality research designs. For example, the Center for Education Reform rated Louisiana’s voucher program poorly because it imposed “significant regulatory intrusion on private school autonomy.” One peer-reviewed study concluded that these regulations led lower-quality schools to participate in voucher programs in Washington, D.C., Indiana and Louisiana.
This result doesn’t indicate that vouchers are ineffective. It would be more reasonable to conclude that regulatory burdens undermine the benefits of school choice programs for students and their families.
Other recent studies, such as those focusing on programs in Ohio and Indiana, evaluate school-choice programs using quasi-experimental methodologies where researchers “match” students to compare them. A more rigorous approach is to derive estimates from randomized controlled trials, universally regarded as the gold standard of social science research. Two twice-married, wealthy Englishmen born in 1948 might be considered well-matched in a quasi-experimental setting, but one would hardly believe that King Charles and Ozzy Osbourne are appropriate counterfactuals for each other.
Policymakers would do better to rely on experimental studies that compare voucher recipients and non-recipients who are randomly selected by lottery, ensuring that treatment and control groups are balanced on all characteristics. Indeed, the weight of evidence from gold standard evaluations of private school choice programs find that choice programs produce positive effects on student achievement. Cowen ignores the vast majority of the evidence—and he ignores the highest quality evidence, because that evidence contradicts his point.
Furthermore, Cowen’s attempts to cast school choice as a “conservative” (used five times), “religious” (used five times) or “Christian” (used four times) movement ignores evidence of the sweeping public support for choice. Polling conducted by Harvard University’s Education Next found that Republicans, Democrats, Blacks and Hispanics are all inclined to support voucher proposals. Support for choice is also growing among Jews, Muslims and other religious groups. Similar polling by the American Federation for Children (AFC) concludes that school choice has the support of a super-majority of groups by race, ethnicity and political affiliation—yes, over two-thirds of both Biden voters and Trump voters in 2020 support school choice.
While Cowen depicts “billionaires” as the driving force behind school choice, he ignores that supporters of these programs are actually far outspent by opponents. According to legal disclosures, the National Education Association (NEA), the union that represents over 2.8 million U.S. teachers, spent $50.1 million on political activities and lobbying between September 1, 2022, and August 31, 2023. Similarly, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), which represents 1.7 million teachers and featured Cowen as a keynote speaker at its 2024 convention, spent $46.9 million on politics between July 1, 2022, to June 30, 2023.
In contrast, Betsy DeVos’ AFC – the organization Cowen cites so often – spent a miserly $9.5 million on political activities in 2024. Koch Industries and Americans for Prosperity, two other organizations Cowen mentions, spent a combined $7 million on lobbying in 2024.
Cowen is correct that opponents of allowing parents to have more school options for their children have been successful in referenda, but he does not point out the massive financial advantage that anti-choice forces typically have had in these elections. He elevates the $16.5 million across AFC, Koch and AFP to all-powerful bogeyman status, while ignoring the nearly $100 million spent by unions.
Despite this financial advantage, opponents of education choice have had a lot more losses than wins in recent years. Since, 15 states have enacted, expanded, or launched universal school choice programs. Perhaps DeVos’s organization is so successful, despite being financially outgunned, because a large majority of Americans support choice.
His suggestion that more states should pursue school choice programs by referendum also ignores that in states like Georgia, there is no option for a popular vote except for amendments to the state constitution. That’s a far higher bar to clear than your typical public program faces.
Finally, there is Cowen’s strange claim that school choice is not “parent driven” or “locally driven.” How then do we explain the progression in Arizona and Florida, two of the leading states when it comes to universal school choice? Those states started with narrowly targeted programs for students with special needs, or students from low-income families. They gradually grew into universal programs precisely because other parents also demanded choices for their children.
School choice is sweeping the nation because parents—regardless of ethnicity, political persuasion, or religious convictions—are demanding school choice. Cowen’s misleading claims are a desperate grasp at straws to defend the unions that support him.
Matthew H. Lee is a clinical assistant professor of economics at Kennesaw State University. The views expressed here are his alone and do not necessarily represent the views of Kennesaw State University.