We examine what factors predict why some parents enroll their children in voucher schools while other parents with similar types of children and from similar neighborhoods do not. Furthermore, we investigate how aware parents are of their educational options, where they get their information, and what school characteristics they deem the most important. To answer these questions, we analyze the school choice patterns in the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Using survey data, we compare responses from a representative sample of voucher parents and a matched sample of public school parents. While public school parents have higher incomes than voucher parents do, voucher parents have more years of education on average. We find that parents in both sectors rely heavily on their social networks to gain information about school options. Finally, we conclude that religion plays an important role in explaining why some parents use vouchers while others do not.
AbernathyS. (2005). School choice and the future of American democracy. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
2.
BettsJ. R.FairlieR. (2001). Explaining ethnic, racial and immigrant differences in private school attendance. Journal of Urban Economics, 50, 26-51.
3.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy Journal, 1, 50-90.
BuckleyJ. (2007, February). Charter schools, building communities? The effect of schools of choice on parental involvement (Occasional Paper 133). New York, NY: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
6.
CampbellD. E.WestM. R.PetersonP. E. (2005). Participation in a national, means tested voucher program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 523-541.
7.
Cohen-ZadaD.JustmanM. (2005). The religious factor in private education. Journal of Urban Economics, 57, 391-418.
8.
ColemanJ. S.HofferT. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York, NY: Basic Books.
9.
CoonsJ. E.SugarmanS. D. (1978). Education by choice: The case for family control. Berkeley: University of California Press.
10.
CowenJ. M.CarlsonD.FlemingD. J. (2012, March). The impact of high-stakes testing on students in private schools: Evidence from Milwaukee. Paper presented at the Association for Education Finance and Policy Annual Meeting, Boston, MA.
11.
CowenJ. M.FlemingD. J.WitteJ. F.WolfP. J. (2012). Going public: Who leaves a large, longstanding, and widely available urban voucher program?American Education Research Journal, 49, 231-256.
12.
CowenJ. M.FlemingD. J.WitteJ. F.WolfP. J.KisidaB. (2013). School vouchers and student attainment: Evidence from a state-mandated study of Milwaukee’s parental choice program. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 147-167.
13.
FiglioD. N.HartC.MetzgerM. (2010). Who uses a means-tested scholarship, and what do they choose?Economics of Education Review, 29, 301-317.
14.
FiglioD. N.StoneJ. A. (2001). Can public policy affect private school cream skimming?Journal of Urban Economics, 49, 240-266.
15.
FinnC. E.MannoB. V.VanourekG. (2000). Charter schools in action: Renewing public education. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
16.
GarciaD. R. (2008). Academic and racial segregation in charter schools: Do parents sort students into specialized charter schools?Education and Urban Society, 40, 590-612.
17.
GoldhaberD. D.BrewerD. J.EideE. E.ReesD. I. (1999). Testing for sample selection in the Milwaukee school choice experiment. Economics of Education Review, 18, 259-267.
18.
GoldringE. B.PhillipsK. J. R. (2008). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public-private decision about school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 23, 209-230. doi:10.1080/02680930801987844
19.
HaynesK. T.PhillipsK. J. R.GoldringE. B. (2010). Latino parents’ choice of magnet school: How school choice differs across racial and ethnic boundaries. Education and Urban Society, 42, 758-789. doi:10.1177/0013124510370943
20.
HenigJ. R. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
21.
HenigJ. R. (1996). The local dynamics of choice: Ethnic preferences and institutional responses. In FullerB.ElmoreR.OrfieldG. (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 93-117). New York, NY: Teachers College Press.
22.
HowellW. G. (2004). Dynamic selection effects in means-tested, urban school voucher programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 225-250.
23.
HowellW. G.PetersonP. E.(with WolfP. J.CampbellD. E.) (2006). The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
JacobsN. (2011). Understanding school choice: Location as a determinant of charter school racial, economic, and linguistic segregation. Education and Urban Society, 45, 459-482. doi:10.1177/0013124511413388
25.
KisidaB.JensenL.RahnJ. C.WolfP. J. (2008). The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Baseline descriptive report on participating schools. University of Arkansas, Department of Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Eval/Report_08.pdf
26.
KleitzB.WeiherG. R.TedinK.MatlandR. (2000). Choice, charter schools, and household preferences. Social Science Quarterly, 81, 846-849.
27.
LankfordH.WyckoffJ. (1992). Primary and secondary school choice among public and religious alternatives. Economics of Education Review, 11, 317-337.
28.
LankfordH.WyckoffJ. (2001). Who would be left behind by enhanced private school choice?Journal of Urban Economics, 50, 288-312.
29.
LevinH. M. (1998). Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 373-392.
30.
LongJ. E.TomaE. F. (1988). The determinants of private school attendance, 1970-1980. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 351-357.
31.
MartinezV.GodwinK.KemererF. (1995). Private vouchers in San Antonio: The CEO program. In MoeT. (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 69-91). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
32.
MetcalfK. K.WestS. D.LeganN.PaulK.BonneW. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program. Bloomington: School of Education, Indiana University.
33.
PaulK. M.LeganN. A.MetcalfK. K. (2007). Differential entry into a voucher program: A longitudinal examination of families who apply to and enroll in the Cleveland Scholarship Tutoring Program. Education and Urban Society, 39, 223-243.
34.
PowersJ. M.CooksonP. W.Jr. (1999). The politics of school choice research: Fact, fiction, and statistics. Educational Policy, 13, 104-122.
35.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.MarschallM. (2000). Choosing schools: Consumer choice and the quality of American schools. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
SmithK.MeierK. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets, and fools. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
StewartT.WolfP. J. (2011). The evolution of parental school choice. In HessF. M.MannoB. (Eds.), Customized schooling (pp. 91-106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
WolfP.GutmannB.EissaN.PumaM.SilverbergM. (2005). Evaluation of the D.C. Opportunity Scholarship Program: First year report on participation. Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
50.
WolfP.GutmannB.PumaM.KisidaB.RizzoL.EissaN.CarrM. (2010). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final report (NCEE 2010-4018). Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
51.
WolfP. J.WitteJ. F.FlemingD. J. (2012a). Special choices: Do voucher schools serve students with disabilities?Education Next, 12(3), 369. Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/special-choices/
