A number of school choice advocates claim that there is a research consensus indicating that vouchers for private schools lead to higher academic achievement. The authors review and critique these local studies of voucher programs, contrasting them with findings from larger-scale analyses of nationally representative samples of public and private schools, which illuminate patterns that appear to undercut the assumption of superior private school performance that is a premise of voucher programs. The authors note limitations inherent in different methodological approaches to this question, focusing on the shortcomings of randomization as an exclusive “gold standard” for research on the issue of achievement in school choice plans. The concluding discussion reconsiders the question of a consensus, highlighting the emerging research environment that bypasses traditional review processes and emphasizes instead the promotion of ideas to support policy agendas.
Alexander, K.L., & Pallas, A.M. (1985). School sector and cognitive performance: When is a little a little? Sociology of Education, 58(2), 115-128.
2.
Alexander, L. (2006, April). Remarks of Senator Alexander. Paper presented at the National Student Academic Freedom Conference , Washington, DC. Retrieved April 7, 2006 from http://alexander.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=Speeches.Detail&Speech_id=97&Month=4&Year=2006.
3.
Anrig, G. (2007). The conservatives have no clothes: Why right-wing ideas keep failing. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.
4.
Braun, H., Jenkins, F., & Grigg, W. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (No. 2006-461). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
5.
Bryk, A.S., & Lee, V.E. (1993). Science or policy argument? A rejoinder to Chubb and Moe. In M. E. Rasell & R. Rothstein (Eds.), School choice: Examining the evidence (pp. 241-244). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
6.
Bryk, A.S., Lee, V.E., & Holland, P.B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
7.
Carbonaro, W. (2006). Public-private differences in achievement among kindergarten students: Differences in learning opportunities and student outcomes . American Journal of Education, 113(1), 31-66.
8.
Carnoy, M., Jacobsen, R., Mishel, L., & Rothstein, R. (2005). The charter school dust-up: Examining the evidence on enrollment and achievement. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Clune, W.H. (1990). Educational governance and student achievement . In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 2: The practice of choice, decentralization school restructuring (pp. 391-424). London: Falmer.
11.
Coleman, J.S., Campbell, E.Q., Hobson, C.J., McPartland, J., Mood, A.M., Weinfeld, F.D., et al. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: National Center for Educational Statistics .
12.
Coleman, J.S., & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books .
13.
Coleman, J.S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
14.
Coons, J.E., & Sugarman, S.D. (1978). Education by choice: The case for family control. Berkeley: University of California Press.
15.
Figlio, D.N., & Stone, J.A. (1997). School choice and school performance: Are private schools really better? (Discussion Paper 1141-97). Madison, WI: Institute for Research on Poverty.
16.
Forster, G. (2005, May 12). "F" is for failure. National Review Online . Retrieved April 11, 2005 from http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/forster200505120815.asp
17.
Forster, G. (2007). Monopoly vs. markets: The empirical evidence on private schools and school choice. Indianapolis, IN: Friedman Foundation.
18.
Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest (pp. 127-134). New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
19.
Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
20.
Friedman Foundation. (2007). The ABCs of school choice, 2006-2007 edition. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
21.
Friedman Foundation. (2008). The ABCs of school choice, 2007-2008 edition. Indianapolis, IN: Author.
22.
Fuller, H. (2006, October). Parental choice: Scarce and widespread . Paper presented at the Spencer Foundation Conference on Values and Evidence in Education Reform, Chicago.
23.
Gamoran, A. (1996). Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive, and private city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18(1), 1-18.
24.
General Accounting Office. (2002). School vouchers: Characteristics of privately funded programs (GAO-02-752) . Washington, DC: Author.
25.
Goldberger, A.S., & Cain, G.G. (1982). The causal analysis of cognitive outcomes in the Coleman, Hoffer and Kilgore report. Sociology of Education , 55(2-3), 103-122.
26.
Goldhaber, D.D. (1996). Public and private high schools: Is school choice an answer to the productivity problem? Economics of Education Review, 15(2), 93-109.
27.
Greeley, A.M. (1982). Catholic high schools and minority students. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Books.
28.
Greene, J.P. (2000). A survey of results from voucher experiments: Where we are and what we know (Civic Report No. 11). New York: Manhattan Institute, Center for Civic Innovation .
29.
Greene, J.P. (2001a). The hidden research consensus for school choice . In P. E. Peterson & D. E. Campbell (Eds.), Charters, vouchers, and public education (pp. 83-101). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
30.
Greene, J.P. (2001b, Summer). The surprising consensus on school choice. Public Interest, pp. 19-35.
31.
Greene, J.P. (2001c). A survey of results from voucher experiments: Where we are and what we know. In C. R. Hepburn (Ed.), Can the market save our schools? (pp. 121-149). Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada: Fraser Institute .
32.
Greene, J.P. (2001d). Vouchers in Charlotte. Education Next, 1(2), 55-60.
33.
Greene, J.P., Howell, W.G., & Peterson, P.E. (1997). An evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship Program (Occasional paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
34.
Greene, J.P., Howell, W.G., & Peterson, P.E. (1998). Lessons from the Cleveland Scholarship Program. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 357-392). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
35.
Greene, J.P., Peterson, P.E., & Du, J. (1996). The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program's evaluation (Occasional paper) . Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
36.
Greene, J.P., Peterson, P.E., & Du, J. (1997). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee experiment (Occasional paper No. 97-1). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
37.
Greene, J.P., Peterson, P.E., & Du, J. (1998). School Choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment . In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 335-356). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
38.
Greene, J.P., Peterson, P.E., & Du, J. (1999). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee experiment. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 190-213.
39.
Grogger, J., & Neal, D. (2000). Further evidence on the effects of Catholic secondary schooling. In W. G. Gale & J. R. Pack (Eds.), Brookings-Wharton papers on urban affairs 2000 (pp. 151-202). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
40.
Henig, J.R. (2007). Spin cycle: How research is used in policy debates-The case of charter schools. New York: Russell Sage.
41.
Heyneman, S.P. (2005). Student background and student achievement: What is the right question? American Journal of Education, 112(1), 1-9.
42.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty: Responses to decline in firms, organizations, and states. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
43.
Howell, W.G., Wolf, P.J., Peterson, P.E., & Campbell, D.E. (2000). Test-score effects of school vouchers in Dayton, Ohio, New York City, and Washington, D.C.: Evidence from randomized field trials. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
44.
Howell, W.G., Wolf, P.J., Peterson, P.E., & Campbell, D.E. (2001). Effects of school vouchers on student test scores. In P. E. Peterson & D. E. Campbell (Eds.), Charters, vouchers, and public education (pp. 136-159). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
45.
Institute of Education Sciences. (2003). Identifying and implementing educational practices supported by rigorous evidence: A user friendly guide. Washington, DC: Coalition for Evidence-Based Policy. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED477483). Retrieved January 20, 2008 from http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/research/pubs/rigorousevid/index.html
46.
Jencks, C. (1972). Inequality: A reassessment of the effect of family and schooling in America. New York: Basic Books.
47.
Krueger, A.B., & Zhu, P. (2004a). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 658-698.
48.
Krueger, A.B., & Zhu, P. (2004b). Inefficiency, subsample selection bias, and nonrobustness: A Response to Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 718-728.
49.
Lubienski, C., Crane, C., & Lubienski, S.T. (2008, May). What do we know about school effectiveness? Academic gains in a value-added analysis of public and private schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 689-695.
50.
Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S.T. (2006a). Charter, private, public schools and academic achievement: New evidence from NAEP mathematics data (Occasional paper No. 111). New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
51.
Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S.T. (2006b). Report on "on the public-private school achievement debate" from the Program on Education Policy and Governance at Harvard University. Tempe: Arizona State University, Educational Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory.
52.
Lubienski, S.T., & Lubienski, C. (2005, May). A new look at public and private schools: Student background and mathematics achievement. Phi Delta Kappan, 86, 696-699.
53.
Lubienski, S.T., & Lubienski, C. (2006). School sector and academic achievement: A multilevel analysis of NAEP mathematics data. American Educational Research Journal, 43(4), 651-698.
54.
Lubienski, S.T., Lubienski, C., & Crane, C. (in press). Achievement differences among public, private and charter schools: The role of school climate, teacher certification and instruction . American Journal of Education.
55.
Mayer, D.P., Peterson, P.E., Myers, D.E., Tuttle, C.C., & Howell, W.G. (2002). School choice in New York City after three years: An evaluation of the School Choice Scholarships Program (Final report). Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research.
56.
Medina, J. (2008, February 13). A reversal on school vouchers, then a tempest. New York Times. Retrieved February 13, 2008 from http://www.nytimes.com/2008/2002/2013/nyregion/2013facebook.html?ref=education
57.
Metcalf, K.K. (1998, September 23). Commentary-Advocacy in the guise of science: How preliminary research on the Cleveland voucher program was "reanalyzed" to fit a preconception. Education Week, 18, 34, 39.
58.
Metcalf, K.K., & Tait, P.A. (1999, September). Free market policies and public education: What is the cost of choice? Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 65-75.
59.
Metcalf, K.K., West, S.D., Legan, N.A., Paul, K.M., & Boone, W.J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Summary report 1998-2002. Bloomington: Indiana University.
60.
Mezzacappa, D. (2006). Market forces: Professor Paul Peterson's influential proteges. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
61.
Molnar, A. (1999). Educational vouchers: A review of the research (CERAI-99-21). Milwaukee: University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Center for Education Research, Analysis, and Innovation .
62.
Olson, D.R. (2004). The triumph of hope over experience in the search for "what works": A response to Slavin. Educational Researcher , 33(1), 24-26.
63.
Peterson, P.E. (1990). Monopoly and competition in American education . In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education, Volume 1: The theory of choice and control in education (pp. 47-78). London: Falmer.
64.
Peterson, P.E. (1995). A critique of the Witte evaluation of Milwaukee's school choice program (Occasional paper). Cambridge, MA : Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
65.
Peterson, P.E. (1998). School choice: A report card. In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 3-32). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
66.
Peterson, P.E. (1999, January-February). Vouchers and test scores. Policy Review, 93. Retrieved from http://www.hoover.org/publications/policyreview/3908666.html
67.
Peterson, P.E. (2007). School reform in Philadelphia: A comparison of student achievement at privately-managed schools with student achievement in other district schools (PEPG 07-03). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
68.
Peterson, P.E., & Howell, W.G. (2003). Efficiency, bias, and classification schemes: Estimating private-school impacts on test scores in the New York City voucher experiment. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
69.
Peterson, P.E., & Llaudet, E. (2006). On the public-private school achievement debate (PEPG 06-02). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance.
70.
Ravitch, D. (2005, November 7). Every state left behind. New York Times, p. A23.
71.
Reardon, S.F., Cheadle, J.E., & Robinson, J.P. (2008, March). The effect of Catholic schooling on math and reading development in kindergarten through fifth grade . Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Crystal City, VA.
72.
Robinson, G. (2005). Survey of school choice research. Milwaukee, WI: Marquette University, Institute for the Transformation of Learning.
73.
Rothstein, R. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the Black-White achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
74.
Rouse, C.E. (1998a). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 553-603.
75.
Rouse, C. (1998b). Schools and student achievement: More evidence from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University and the National Bureau of Economic Research.
76.
Rouse, C.E., & Barrow, L. (in press). School vouchers and student achievement: Recent evidence, remaining questions. Annual Review of Economics.
77.
Scott, J.T. (2008). Managers of choice: Race, gender, and the political ideology of the "new" urban school leadership. In W. Feinberg & C. Lubienski (Eds.), School choice policies and outcomes: Empirical and philosophical perspectives (pp. 149-176). Albany: State University of New York Press.
78.
Smith, K.B., & Meier, K.J. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets, and fools. Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe .
79.
Swanson, C.B., & Barlage, J. (2006). Influence: A study of the factors shaping education policy. Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education Research Center.
80.
Taningco, M.T.V. (2006). Assessing the effects of parental decisions about school type and involvement on early elementary education. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Pardee Rand Graduate School, Santa Monica, CA.
81.
Thomas, C. (2006, November 22). Friedman's greatest legacy: School choice?Real Clear Politics. Retrieved from http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2006/11/the_other_milton_friedman.html
82.
Tiebout, C.M. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(4), 416-424.
83.
U.S. Department of Education. (2006). The condition of education 2006 (NCES 2006-071). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
84.
Various Scholars, & Center for Education Reform. (2004, August 25). Charter school evaluation, reported by the New York Times, fails to meet professional standards. New York Times. Retrieved June 3, 2006 from http://www.edreform.com/_upload/NewYorkTimesAd.pdf
85.
Watkins, S. (2006, September 1). Are public or private schools doing better? How the NCES study is being misinterpreted. Heritage Foundation Backgrounder, pp. 1-4.
86.
Wenglinsky, H. (2007). Are private high schools better academically than public high schools?Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
87.
Willms, J.D. (1985). Catholic-school effects on academic achievement: New evidence from the High School and Beyond follow-up study. Sociology of Education, 58(2), 98-114.
88.
Witte, J.F. (1996). Reply to Greene, Peterson and Du: "The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program's evaluation."Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Department of Political Science and Robert La Follette Institute of Public Affairs.
89.
Witte, J.F. (1997, May). Achievement effects of the Milwaukee voucher program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economics Association, New Orleans, LA .
90.
Witte, J.F. (1998). The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20(4), 229-251.
91.
Witte, J.F., & Thorn, C. (1995). The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, 1990/1991-1994/1995 [Computer file]. Madison, WI: Data and Program Library Service.
92.
Witte, J.F., Thorn, C., & Pritchard, K. (1995). Fifth year report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program . Madison: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction.
93.
Wolf, P.J. (2007, October). Research findings on school voucher programs: Applications to Utah. Paper presented at the Educational Choice: Emerging Legal and Policy Issues conference, Provo, UT.
94.
Wolf, P.J. (2008). School voucher programs: What the research says about parental school choice. Brigham Young University Law Review, 2008(1), 415-446.
95.
Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, 536 U.S. 639 (2002).
96.
Zernike, K. (2000, September 15). New doubt is cast on study that backs voucher efforts. New York Times, p. A26.
