Fatally Flawed - A Critique of Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools - The Limits of Parent-Driven Reform

Oct 15, 2026

A 2007 critique argues that a Wisconsin Policy Research Institute report on public school choice and parent involvement is fatally flawed and cannot support broad conclusions for Milwaukee or private school choice. The analysis highlights that the study omits the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, relies on nationwide data to infer local outcomes, and does not test causal relationships between choice, involvement, and student performance. It also challenges the report’s definitions and variable construction, concluding the findings are meaningless.

LanguageEnglish

CategoryResearch & Report

FormatPDF

Pages15

Reading Time38 min

AccessFree to download

Overview of the WPRI Report

Media Coverage and Reactions

Core Flaws in the Analysis

Scope: Public Choice Only

Evidence for Competition and Private Options

Data Validity: Not Milwaukee-Specific

Lack of Causal Testing

Out-of-Step Definitions and Variables

What the WPRI Report Says and Assumes

Effects on School Effectiveness and Outcomes

“Ideal Consumers” and Limited Parent Engagement

Limits for Private School Choice

Generalization Error

Fatally Flawed: A Critique of Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of Parent-Driven Reform * Dick M. Carpenter II, Ph.D. Institute for Justice November 2007 In October 2007, the Wisconsin Policy Research Institute released a research report on public school choice and parental involvement, Fixing the Milwaukee Public Schools: The Limits of Parent-Driven Reform.1 Because the report claims that public school choice and parental involvement have little effect on student performance in Milwaukee Public Schools, a surprising conclusion from a think tank that has traditionally supported public and private school choice, the report received significant news coverage and editorial comment, particularly from those opposed to school choice programs that include private school options, such as the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Headlines included: “The failure of school choice,” Capital Times (Madison, Wis.)2 “Choice may not improve schools, study says,”Milwaukee Journal Sentinel3 “School choice doesn’t necessarily add up,”The Kansas City Star4 “Whoops, we goofed: School choice doesn’t work like its supporters promised. Gulp. Now what?” Milwaukee Magazine5 The Utah Democratic Party also included the study’s results in an October press release just before Utah citizens went to the polls to vote on a statewide private school choice plan.6 The release described it as a “study released Tuesday in Milwaukee that suggests school choice isn’ta powerful tool for driving educational improvement.” Unfortunately, most of this coverage and commentary uncritically accepted the report’s conclusions about public school choice—and, even worse, applied them more broadly to private school choice programs. But, as this analysis finds, the WPRI report is fatally flawed, undermining both its claims about public school choice and any implications for private school choice in Milwaukee or elsewhere. Among the flaws: 1. The WPRI report studies only public school choice. The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program is not included. Because public school choice plans differ fundamentally from * Carpenter serves as the director of strategic research for the Institute for Justice. He holds a Ph.D. from the University of Colorado in Educational Leadership and Innovation. His work has appeared in the Journal of Special Education, The Forum, Education and Urban Society, Journal of School Choice, Leadership, Phi Delta Kappan and the American School Board Journal. Before working with IJ, Carpenter worked as a high school teacher, elementary school principal, public policy analyst and professor at the University of Colorado, Colorado Springs. Fatally Flawed Institute for Justice Page 2 choice plans that include private schools, the results from the WPRI report cannot be generalized, even though its authors have suggested otherwise. 2. There is strong empirical evidence (from far more methodologically rigorous research) that competition in Milwaukee and elsewhere that includes private school choice spurs improvement in public schools and leads to greater student performance and more satisfied parents among families who choose their children’s schools. 3. The WPRI report does not actually study Milwaukee families. It uses data collected by the U.S. Department of Education for a nationwide study and attempts to extrapolate those results to Milwaukee, a process the Department of Education advises against—with good reason. 4. At no time does the WPRI report formally test the relationship or impact of public school choice or parental involvement on student performance, or any other outcome measure. It merely surmises how much parental involvement there might be in Milwaukee and how parents might make decisions about their children’s schooling and then notes the poor performance of student performance in Milwaukee Public Schools, assuming but never proving a causal link between them. 5. The report’s theoretical understanding and def

FAQs

Why does the critique argue the WPRI report is “fatally flawed”?

Because it makes broad claims from a design that omits private-choice programs, extrapolates from nationwide data to Milwaukee, and does not formally test causal links between choice or parental involvement and student performance.

What limitation does the critique identify regarding the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program?

The WPRI report studies only public school choice and excludes the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, so its results cannot be generalized to plans that include private options.

What does the critique say the WPRI report fails to do analytically?

It does not formally test the relationship or impact of public school choice and parental involvement on student performance or other outcomes; it instead surmises involvement and decision-making and then assumes a causal connection to poor performance.

Oct 15, 2026

Uploaded by WPS_1786070896