School-choice policies are expected to generate healthy competition between schools, leading to improvements in school quality and better outcomes for students. However, the empirical literature testing this assumption yields mixed findings. This systematic review and meta-analysis tests this theory by synthesizing the empirical literature on the competitive effects of school choice on student achievement. Overall, we found small positive effects of competition on student achievement. We also found some evidence that the type of school-choice policy and student demographics moderated the effects of competition on student achievement. By examining whether school competition improves outcomes, our findings can inform decisions of state and local policymakers who have adopted or are considering adopting school-choice reforms.
AbdulkadirogluA.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2015). School vouchers and student achievement: Evidence from the Louisiana Scholarship Program. National Bureau of Economic Research Cambridge, MA.
2.
AhnS.AmesA. J.MyersN. D. (2012). A review of meta-analyses in education. Review of Educational Research, 82, 436-476.
3.
AloeA. M.ThompsonC. G. (2013). The synthesis of partial effect sizes. Journal of the Society for Social Work and Research, 4(4), 390-405.
4.
AloeA. M. (2014). An empirical investigation of partial effect sizes in meta-analysis of correlational data. The Journal of General Psychology, 141(1), 47-64.
5.
AloeA. M. (2015). Inaccuracy of regression results in replacing bivariate correlations. Research Synthesis Methods, 6(1), 21-27.
6.
AndersonK.WolfP. (2017). Evaluating school vouchers: Evidence from a within-study comparison (EDRE Working Paper No. 2017-10). doi:10.2139/ssrn.2952967
7.
ArsenD.NiY. (2012). The effects of charter school competition on school district resource allocation. Educational Administration Quarterly, 48, 3-38.
8.
BagleyC. (2006). School choice and competition: A public-market in education revisited. Oxford Review of Education, 32(3), 347-362.
9.
BelfieldC.LevinH. (2002). The effects of competition between schools on educational outcomes: A review for the United States. Review of Educational Research, 72, 279-341.
10.
BettingerE. P. (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 133-147.
11.
BerendsM. (2015). Sociology and school choice: What we know after two decades of charter schools. Annual Review of Sociology, 41, 159-180.
12.
BettingerE. (1999). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. National Center for Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University.
13.
BorlandM. V.HowsenR. M. (2000). Manipulable Variables of Policy Importance: The Case of Education. Education Economics, 8(3), 241-248.
14.
BettsJ. (2009). The competitive effects of charter schools on traditional public schools. In BerendsM.SpringerM. G.BallouD.WalbergH. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (pp. 195-208). New York, NY: Routledge.
15.
BookerK.GilpatricS. M.GronbergT.JansenD. (2008). The effect of charter schools on traditional public school students in Texas: Are children who stay behind left behind?Journal of Urban Economics, 64(1), 123-145. doi:10.1016/j.jue.2007.10.003
16.
BohteJ. (2004). Examining the Impact of Charter Schools on Performance in Traditional Public Schools. Policy Studies Journal, 32(4), 501-520. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2004.00078.x
17.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50-90. doi:10.1162/edfp.2006.1.1.50
18.
BulkleyK.FislerJ. (2003). A decade of charter schools: From theory to practice. Educational Policy, 17, 317-342. doi:10.1177/0895904803017003002
19.
CarlsonD.LaveryL.WitteJ. (2012). Charter school governance and student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 31, 254-267.
20.
CarrM.RitterG. (2007). Measuring the competitive effect of charter schools on student achievement in Ohio’s traditional public schools. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (Columbia University) Research Paper, 146.
21.
CarrM. (2011). The Impact of Ohio’s edchoice on traditional public school performance. Cato Journal, 31, 257.
22.
ChakrabartiR. (2008a). Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1371-1393. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.06.009
23.
ChakrabartiR. (2008b). Impact of Voucher Design on Public School Performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee Voucher Programs (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. ID 1086772). Retrieved from Social Science Research Network website: http://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=1086772
24.
ChakrabartiR. (2013). Do vouchers lead to sorting under random private school selection? Evidence from the Milwaukee voucher program. Economics of Education Review, 34, 191-218. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.201301.009
25.
ChettyR.HendrenN.KlineP.SaezE.TurnerN. (2014). Is the United States still a land of opportunity? Recent trends in intergenerational mobility. The American Economic Review, 104, 141-147.
26.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
27.
CookR. D. (1979). Influential observations in linear regression. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74, 169-174.
28.
CooperH. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.
29.
CooperH.HedgesL. V.ValentineJ. C. (Eds.). (2009). The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
30.
CordesS. A. (2018). In pursuit of the common good: The spillover effects of charter schools on public school students in New York City. Education Finance and Policy, 13, 484-512. doi:10.1162/edfp_a_00240
31.
CowenJ. M. (2008). School choice as a latent variable: Estimating the “complier average causal effect” of vouchers in charlotte. Policy Studies Journal, 36, 301-315. doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072200800268x
32.
CowenJ. M.FlemingD. J.WitteJ. F.WolfP. J. (2012). Going public: Who leaves a large, longstanding and widely available urban voucher program?American Educational Research Journal, 49, 231-256.
33.
CreedB. (2015). Different measures, different results: Understanding the impact of multiple school competition measures in the literature. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Antonio, TX April 18 2015.
34.
DeAngelisC. A. (2017). Do self-interested schooling selections improve society? A review of the evidence. Journal of School Choice, 11, 546-558.
35.
DeAngelisC. A.Holmes EricksonH. (2018). What leads to successful school choice programs: A review of the theories and evidence. Cato Journal, 38, 247-263.
DemingD. J. (2011). Better schools, less crime?Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126, 2063-2115.
38.
DillsA. K.Hernández-JuliánR. (2011). More choice, less crime. Education Finance and Policy, 6, 246-266.
39.
DobbieW.FryerR. G. (2015). The medium-term impacts of high-achieving charter schools. Journal of Political Economy, 123, 985-1037.
40.
DoucouliagosH. (2011). How large is large? Preliminary and relative guidelines for interpreting partial correlations in economics (Working Paper). Faculty of Business and Law, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria, Australia. Retrieved from http://dro.deakin.edu.au/view/DU:30106880
41.
DynarskiM.RuiN.WebberA.GutmannB. (2018). Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Impacts two years after students applied (NCEE 2018-4010). National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. Retrieved from https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20184010/pdf/20184010pdf
42.
EgaliteA. J. (2013). Measuring competitive effects from school voucher programs: A systematic review. Journal of School Choice, 7, 443-464.
43.
EgaliteA. J. (2016). The competitive effects of the Louisiana scholarship program on public school performance. Retrieved from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2739783
44.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?Journal of Public Economics, 90(1-2), 239-255. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.005
45.
FiglioD. N.HartC. M. D., & National Bureau of Economic Research. (2010). Competitive Effects of Means-Tested School Vouchers. NBER Working Paper No. 16056. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from eric. (National Bureau of Economic Research. 1050 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, MA 02138-5398. Tel: 617-588-0343; Web site: http://www.nber.org)
46.
FiglioD.HartC. M. D. (2011). Does Competition Improve Public Schools? New Evidence from the Florida Tax-Credit Scholarship Program. Education Next, 11(1), 7-80.
47.
FiglioD.HartC.MetzgerM. (2010). Who uses a means-tested scholarship, and what do they choose?Economics of Education Review, 29, 301-317. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.200908.002
FlemingD. J.CowenJ. M.WitteJ. F.WolfP. J. (2015). Similar students, different choices: Who uses a school voucher in an otherwise similar population of students?Education and Urban Society, 47, 785-812. doi:10.1177/0013124513511268
50.
ForemanL. M. (2017). Educational attainment effects of public and private school choice. Journal of School Choice, 11, 642-654.
51.
ForsterG. (2008). Lost opportunity: an empirical analysis of how vouchers affected florida public schools. School Choice Issues in the State. Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice. Retrieved from http://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED508458
52.
FrankenbergE.LeeC. (2003, September5). Charter schools and race: A lost opportunity for integrated education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11(32).Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/260/386
GellerC. R. (2000). Private schools and public quality: An analysis of the effects of private schools on public school performance (Ph.D.). Georgia State University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (304592221)
55.
GellerC. R.SjoquistD. L.WalkerM. B. (2006). The effect of private school competition on public school performance in Georgia. Public Finance Review, 34(1), 4-32.
56.
GillB.BookerK. (2015). School competition and student outcomes. In LaddH.FiskeE. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (2nd ed.). pp. 211-227New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
GoldhaberD. D.EideE. R. (2003). Methodological thoughts on measuring the impact of private sector competition on the educational marketplace. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25, 217-232.
58.
GreeneJ. P.PetersonP. E.DuJ. (1999). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee experiment. Education and Urban Society, 31, 190-213. doi:10.1177/0013124599031002005
59.
GreeneJ. P., & others. (2001). An evaluation of the Florida A-Plus accountability and school choice program. Center for Civic Innovation at the Manhattan Institute.
60.
GreeneJ. P.WintersM. A., & Manhattan Inst., N. Y. NY. Center for Civic Innovation. (2003). When schools compete: the effects of vouchers on florida public school achievement. Education Working Paper. Retrieved from: http://www.manhattan-institute.org.
GreeneJ. P.MarshR. H., & University of Arkansas, S. C. D. P. (SCDP). (2009). The effect of milwaukee’s parental choice program on student achievement in milwaukee public schools. SCDP Comprehensive Longitudinal Evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Report #11. School Choice Demonstration Project. Retrieved from: http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP.html
63.
GreeneJ. P.ForsterG., & Manhattan Inst., N. Y. NY. Center for Civic Innovation. (2002). Rising to the Challenge: The Effect of School Choice on Public Schools in Milwaukee and San Antonio. Civic Bulletin. Retrieved from: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/cb_27.pdf.
64.
HamlinD. (2017). Are charter schools safer in deindustrialized cities with high rates of crime? Testing hypotheses in Detroit. American Educational Research Journal, 54, 725-756.
65.
HartC. (2014). Contexts matter: Selection in means-tested school voucher programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36, 186-206. doi:10.3102/0162373713506039
66.
HattieJ.RogersH. J.SwaminathanH. (2014). The role of meta-analysis in educational research. In ReidA. D.PetersM. A. (Eds.), A companion to research in education (pp. 197-207). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer.
67.
HedgesL. V. (1983). A random effects model for effect sizes. Psychological Bulletin, 93, 388-395.
HedgesL. V.VeveaJ. L. (1998). Fixed-and random-effects models in meta-analysis. Psychological Methods, 3, 486-504.
70.
HedgesL.V.TiptonE.JohnsonM. C. (2010). Robust variance estimation in meta-regression with dependent effect size estimates. Research Synthesis Methods, 1(1), 164-165.
71.
HenryK. L.DixsonA. D. (2016). “Locking the door before we got the keys”: Racial realities of the charter school authorization process in post-Katrina New Orleans. Educational Policy, 30, 218-240. doi:10.1177/0895904815616485
72.
HolmesG. M.DeSimoneJ.RuppN. G. (2003). Does School Choice Increase School Quality? (Working Paper No. 9683). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w9683
73.
HoxbyC. M. (1994). Do Private Schools Provide Competition for Public Schools? (Working Paper No. 4978). National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w4978
74.
HoxbyC. M. (2000). Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?The American Economic Review, 90(5), 1209-1238
75.
HoxbyC. M. (2003). School choice and school productivity. Could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats? In The economics of school choice (pp. 287-342). University of Chicago Press.
76.
HowellW. G. (2004). Dynamic selection effects in means-tested, urban school voucher programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23, 225-250. doi:10.1002/pam.20002
77.
HowellW. G.PetersonP. E. (2002). The education gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
78.
HowellW. G.WolfP. J.CampbellD. E.PetersonP. E. (2002). School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 191-217. doi:10.1002/pam.10023
79.
HsiehC.UrquiolaM. (2003). When schools compete, how do they compete? An assessment of Chile’s nationwide voucher program (NBER Working Paper). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w10008
80.
ImbermanS. A. (2007). The effect of charter schools on non-charter students: An instrumental variables approach. New York: National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education. Retrieved from http://virww.ncspe.org/publications_files/OP149.pdf
81.
ImbermanS. A. (2011). The effect of charter schools on achievement and behavior of public school students. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-8), 850-863. http://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2011.02.003
82.
JacksonC. K. (2012). School competition and teacher labor markets: Evidence from charter school entry in North Carolina. Journal of Public Economics, 96, 431-448. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.201112.006
83.
JhaN. K. (2013). Roles of school district competition and political institutions in public school spending and student achievement (Ph.D.). The University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1494494106)
84.
JinnaiY. (2014). Direct and indirect impact of charter schools’ entry on traditional public schools: New evidence from North Carolina. Economics Letters, 124(3), 452-456. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2014.07.016
85.
KamienskiA. L. (2008). Competition within the market for publicly-funded education: An investigation of the impacts of charter schools on the academic achievement of elementary students attending both charter and traditional public schools within the Chicago Public Schools system (Ph.D., Loyola University Chicago). Retrieved from http://ezproxy.lib.utexas.edu/login?url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/304558321?accountid=7118
86.
KamienskiA. (2011). Competition: Charter and Public Elementary Schools in Chicago. Journal of School Choice, 5(2), 161–181. Retrieved from eric. (Routledge. Available from: Taylor & Francis, Ltd. 325 Chestnut Street Suite 800, Philadelphia, PA 19106. Tel: 800-354-1420; Fax: 215-625-2940; Web site: http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals)
LevinH. M. (2012). Some economic guidelines for design of a charter school district. Economics of Education Review, 31, 331-343.
89.
LinickM. A. (2014). Measuring competition: Inconsistent definitions, inconsistent results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(16). Retrieved from https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/1418
90.
LoebS.ValantJ.KasmanM. (2011). Increasing choice in the market for schools: Recent reforms and their effects. National Tax Journal, 64, 141-164.
91.
LubienskiC. (2007). Marketing schools. Education and Urban Society, 40, 118-141.
92.
MartinezV. J.GodwinR. K.KemererF. R.PernaL. (1995). The Consequences of School Choice: Who Leaves and Who Stays in the Inner City. Social Science Quarterly, 76(3), 485-501. Retrieved from JSTOR.
93.
MarantoR.MillimanS.StevensS. (2000). Does Private School Competition H-arm Public Schools? Revisiting Smith and Meier’s The Case Against School Choice. Political Research Quarterly, 53(1), 177-192. doi:10.1177/106591290005300109
94.
MarantoR.MillimanS.HessF. (2010). How traditional public schools respond to competition: The mitigating role of organizational culture. Journal of School Choice, 4(2), 113 -136.
95.
MetcalfK.WestS. D.LeganN.PaulK.BooneW. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program: Student characteristics and academic achievement technical report 1998-2002. Bloomington: Indiana Center for Evaluation.
96.
MillsJ. N.WolfP. J. (2017). Vouchers in the Bayou: The Effects of the Louisiana Scholarship Program on Student Achievement After 2 Years. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(3), 464-484. doi:10.3102/0162373717693108
97.
MisraK.GrimesP. W.RogersK. E. (2012). Does competition improve public school efficiency? A spatial analysis. Economics of Education Review, 31(6), 1177-1190.
98.
NiY. (2007) School Efficiency, Social Stratification, and School Choice: An Examination of Michigan’s Charter School Program. Dissertation1-165, Michigan, USA: UMI
99.
NiY. (2009). The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan. Economics of Education Review, 28(5), 571-584.
100.
NiY.ArsenD. (2010). The competitive effects of charter schools on public school districts. In LubienskiC. A.WeitzelP. C.(Eds.), The charter school experiment: Expectations, evidence, and implications (pp. 93-120). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
101.
NisarH. D. (2012). Heterogeneous competitive effects of charter schools in Milwaukee. NCSPE Occasional Paper # 202.
102.
PhamL. D.NguyenT. D.SpringerM. G. (2017, June). Teacher merit pay and student test scores: A meta-analysis. Working Paper. University of Tennessee, Peabody College of Education.
103.
PaulK.LeganN.MetcalfK. (2007). Differential entry into a voucher program longitudinal examination of families who apply to and enroll in the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program. Education and Urban Society, 39, 223-243.
104.
PluckerJ.MullerP.HansenJ.RavertR.MakeM. (2006, February9) Evaluation of the Cleveland scholarship and tutoring program: Technical report 1998-2004. Bloomington: Center for Evaluation & Educational Policy, Indiana University.
105.
ReardonS. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In MurnaneR.DuncanG. J. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91-115). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
106.
RouseC. E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 553-602.
107.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251-281. doi:10.1257/pol.5.2.251
108.
SassT. R. (2006). Charter schools and student achievement in Florida. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 91-122.
109.
ScottJ.HolmeJ. J. (2016). The political economy of market-based educational policies: Race and reform in urban school districts, 1915 to 2016. Review of Research in Education, 40, 250-297.
110.
ShadishW. R.CookT. D.CampbellD. T. (2001). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing.
111.
ShakeelM. D.DeAngelisC. A. (2018). Can private schools improve school climate? Evidence from a nationally representative sample. Journal of School Choice, 12, 426-445.
112.
SmithK. B.MeierK. J. (1995). Public Choice in Education: Markets and the Demand for Quality Education. Political Research Quarterly, 48(3), 461-478. http://doi.org/10.1177/106591299504800301
113.
SnyderS. (2011). Spatial dynamics of urban development: School competition and public housing policy (Ph.D.). Purdue University, Ann Arbor. Retrieved from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Full Text. (1014166224)
114.
SwansonE. (2017). Can we have it all? A review of the impacts of school choice on racial integration. Journal of School Choice, 11, 507-526.
115.
TiptonE. (2014) Small sample adjustments for robust variance estimation with meta-regression. Psychological Methods, 20(3): 375-393.
116.
TiptonE.PustejovskyJ. E. (2015). Small-sample adjustments for tests of moderators and model fit using robust variance estimation in meta-regression. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 40(6), 604-634.
117.
TuttleC. C.GleasonP.KnechtelV.Nichols-BarrerI.BookerK.ChojnackiG.GobleL. (2015). Understanding the effect of KIPP as it scales. Volume I, Impacts on achievement and other outcomes. Washington, DC: Mathematica Policy Research.
118.
WaddingtonR. J.BerendsM. (2018). Impact of the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program: Achievement Effects for Students in Upper Elementary and Middle School. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(4), 783-808. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22086
119.
WestM. R.PetersonP. E. (2006). The Efficacy of Choice Threats Within School Accountability Systems: Results from Legislatively Induced Experiments. The Economic Journal, 116(510), C46-C62. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0297.2006.01075.x
WohlstetterP.SmithJ.FarrellC. C. (2013). Choices and challenges: Charter school performance in perspective. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
122.
WolfP. J. (2007). Civics exam schools of choice boost civic values. Education Next, 7(3), 66-72.
123.
WolfP. J.KisidaB.GutmannB.PumaM.EissaN.RizzoL. (2013). School vouchers and student outcomes: Experimental evidence from Washington, DC. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 246-270.
124.
WongK. K.ShenF. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16, 161-192.
125.
ZimmerR.BuddinR. (2009). Is charter school competition in California improving the performance of traditional public schools?Public Administration Review, 69(5), 831-845. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2009.02033.x
126.
ZimmerR.GillB.AttridgeJ.ObenaufK. (2014). Charter school authorizers and student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 9(1), 59-85.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
