{"product_id":"2940148886167","title":"Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts After Three Years","description":"The District of Columbia School Choice Incentive Act of 2003, passed by Congress in\u003cbr\u003eJanuary 2004, established the first federally funded, private school voucher program in the United States.\u003cbr\u003eAs part of this legislation, Congress mandated a rigorous evaluation of the impacts of the Program, now called the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP). This report presents findings from the evaluation of the impacts 3 years after families who applied were given the option to move from a public school to a participating private school of their choice.\u003cbr\u003eThe evaluation is based on a randomized controlled trial design that compares the outcomes\u003cbr\u003eof eligible applicants randomly assigned to receive (treatment group) or not receive (control group) a\u003cbr\u003escholarship through a series of lotteries. The main findings of the evaluation so far include:\u003cbr\u003e• After 3 years, there was a statistically significant positive impact on reading test\u003cbr\u003escores, but not math test scores. Overall, those offered a scholarship were performing\u003cbr\u003eat statistically higher levels in readingequivalent to 3.1 months of additional\u003cbr\u003elearningbut at similar levels in math compared to students not offered a scholarship\u003cbr\u003e(table 3). Analysis in prior years indicated no significant impacts overall on either\u003cbr\u003ereading or math achievement.\u003cbr\u003e• The OSP had a positive impact overall on parents’ reports of school satisfaction\u003cbr\u003eand safety (figures 3 and 4), but not on students’ reports (figures 3 and 4). Parents\u003cbr\u003ewere more satisfied with their child’s school (as measured by the percentage giving the\u003cbr\u003eschool a grade of A or B) and viewed their child’s school as safer and more orderly if\u003cbr\u003ethe child was offered a scholarship. Students had a different view of their schools than\u003cbr\u003edid their parents. Reports of safety and school climate were comparable for students in\u003cbr\u003ethe treatment and control groups. Overall, student satisfaction was unaffected by the\u003cbr\u003eProgram.\u003cbr\u003e• This same pattern of findings holds when the analysis is conducted to determine\u003cbr\u003ethe impact of using a scholarship rather than being offered a scholarship. Fourteen\u003cbr\u003epercent of students in our impact sample who were randomly assigned by lottery to\u003cbr\u003ereceive a scholarship and who responded to year 3 data collection chose not to use their\u003cbr\u003escholarship at any point over the 3-year period after applying to the Program.1 We use\u003cbr\u003ea common statistical technique to take those “never users” into account; it assumes that\u003cbr\u003ethe students had zero impact from the OSP, but it does not change the statistical\u003cbr\u003esignificance of the original impact estimates. Therefore, the positive impacts on\u003cbr\u003ereading achievement, parent views of school safety and climate, and parent views of\u003cbr\u003esatisfaction all increase in size, and there remains no impact on math achievement and\u003cbr\u003eno overall impact on students’ perceptions of school safety and climate or satisfaction\u003cbr\u003efrom using an OSP scholarship.\u003cbr\u003e• The OSP improved reading achievement for 5 of the 10 subgroups examined.2\u003cbr\u003eBeing offered or using a scholarship led to higher reading test scores for participants\u003cbr\u003ewho applied from schools that were not classified as “schools in need of improvement”\u003cbr\u003e(non-SINI). There were also positive impacts for students who applied to the Program\u003cbr\u003ewith relatively higher levels of academic performance, female students, students\u003cbr\u003eentering grades K-8 at the time of application, and students from the first cohort of\u003cbr\u003eapplicants. These impacts translate into 1\/3 to 2 years of additional learning growth.\u003cbr\u003eHowever, the positive subgroup reading impacts for female students and the first\u003cbr\u003ecohort of applicants should be interpreted with caution, as reliability tests suggest that\u003cbr\u003ethey could be false discoveries.\u003cbr\u003e• No achievement impacts were observed for five other subgroups of students,\u003cbr\u003eincluding those who entered the Program with relative academic disadvantage.\u003cbr\u003eSubgroups of students who applied from SINI schools (designated by Congress as the\u003cbr\u003ehighest priority group for the Program) or were in the lower third of the test score\u003cbr\u003edistribution among applicants did not demonstrate significant impacts on reading test\u003cbr\u003escores if they were offered or used a scholarship. In addition, male students, those\u003cbr\u003eentering high school grades upon application, and those in application cohort 2 showed\u003cbr\u003eno significant impacts in either reading or math after 3 years.","brand":"ReadCycle","offers":[{"title":"Default Title","offer_id":47067992654064,"sku":"2940148886167","price":2.99,"currency_code":"USD","in_stock":true}],"thumbnail_url":"\/\/cdn.shopify.com\/s\/files\/1\/0737\/7593\/9824\/files\/2940148886167_p0.jpg?v=1763709059","url":"https:\/\/shop-qa.barnesandnoble.com\/products\/2940148886167","provider":"Barnes \u0026 Noble (DEV)","version":"1.0","type":"link"}