Influencing major education policies in the US such as school vouchers and charter schools, market theory assumes that organizational autonomy, parental choice, and competition between schools improve the quality of education. However, whether those policies can influence the instructional core of schools is not well understood. Comparing private and public schools offers an opportunity to examine whether market-oriented assumptions hold in practice. Relying on institutional theory, this study examines whether public and private schools differ in their instructional quality and whether such differences translate into achievement advantages in the US. Using Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) surveys and achievement data, the study integrates structural equation modeling and propensity score matching to examine the latent construct of instructional quality and mitigate selection bias. Results indicate similar instructional quality in public and private schools explaining comparable student achievement by school type. Barriers to instructional change through market-oriented reforms are discussed.
AbadieA.AtheyS.ImbensG.WooldridgeJ. (2017). When should you adjust standard errors for clustering?National Bureau of Economic Research, w24003, w24003. https://doi.org/10.3386/w24003
2.
AbdulkadiroğluA.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2018). Free to choose: Can School Choice Reduce Student Achievement?American Economic Journal Applied Economics, 10(1), 175–206. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.20160634
3.
AngristJ. D.DynarskiS. M.KaneT. J.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2012). Who benefits from KIPP?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 31(4), 837–860.
4.
AsparouhovT. (2006). General multi-level modeling with sampling weights. Communications in Statistics-Theory and Methods, 35(3), 439–460.
5.
AustinP. C. (2009). Balance diagnostics for comparing the distribution of baseline covariates between treatment groups in propensity-score matched samples. Statistics in Medicine, 28(25), 3083–3107. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.3697
6.
BaumertJ.KunterM.BlumW.BrunnerM.VossT.JordanA.KlusmannU.KraussS.NeubrandM.TsaiY.-M. (2010). Teachers’ mathematical knowledge, cognitive activation in the classroom, and student progress. American Educational Research Journal, 47(1), 133–180.
7.
BellibaşM. Ş.GümüşS.LiuY. (2021). Does school leadership matter for teachers’ classroom practice? The influence of instructional leadership and distributed leadership on instructional quality. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(3), 387–412. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1858119
8.
BenvenisteL.CarnoyM.RothsteinR.CarnoyM.RothsteinR. (2003). All Else Equal: Are Public and Private Schools Different?Routledge.
BerendsM.DonaldsonK. (2016). Does the organization of instruction differ in charter schools? Ability grouping and students’ mathematics gains. Teachers College Record, 118(11), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.1177/016146811611801103
11.
BerendsM.GoldringE.SteinM.CravensX. (2010). Instructional conditions in charter schools and students’ Mathematics achievement gains. American Journal of Education, 116(3), 303–335. https://doi.org/10.1086/651411
12.
BerendsM.WaddingtonR. J. (2018). School choice in Indianapolis: Effects of charter, magnet, private, and traditional public schools. Education Finance and Policy, 13(2), 227–255. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp_a_00225
13.
BlömekeS.OlsenR. V.SuhlU. (2016). Relation of student achievement to the quality of their teachers and instructional quality. In Trude Nilsen & Jan-Eric Gustafsson (Eds.) Teacher quality, instructional quality and student outcomes (Vol. 2, pp. 21–50). IEA & Springer Open.
14.
BollenK. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables (Vol. 210). John Wiley & Sons.
15.
BostonM. (2012). Assessing instructional quality in mathematics. The Elementary School Journal, 113(1), 76–104. https://doi.org/10.1086/666387
16.
BraunH.JenkinsF.GriggW. (2006). Comparing private schools and public schools using hierarchical linear modeling (NCES publication No.2006-461). U.S. Government Printing Office.
17.
BrownB. W. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 287–300.
18.
BrykA. S.LeeV. E.HollandP. B. (1993). Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Harvard University Press.
19.
BulkleyK. E.HenigJ. R. (2015). Local Politics and Portfolio Management Models: National Reform Ideas and local control. Peabody Journal of Education, 90(1), 53–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/0161956x.2015.988528
CarbonaroW. (2006). Public-Private differences in achievement among kindergarten students: Differences in learning opportunities and student outcomes. American Journal of Education, 113(1), 31–65.
22.
CastilloE. (2020). A neoliberal grammar of schooling? How a progressive charter school moved toward Market Values. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 519–547. https://doi.org/10.1086/709513
23.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.HilgerN.SaezE.SchanzenbachD. W.YaganD. (2011). How does Your Kindergarten Classroom Affect Your earnings? Evidence from Project Star. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(4), 1593–1660. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr041
24.
ChubbJ. E.MoeM. E. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution.
25.
ChubbJ. E.MoeT. M. (1988). Politics, markets, and the organization of Schools. The American Political Science Review, 82(4), 1065–1087. https://doi.org/10.2307/1961750
26.
ColemanJ.HofferT.KilgoreS. (1982). Cognitive Outcomes in public and private schools. Sociology of Education, 55(2/3), 65–76. https://doi.org/10.2307/2112288
27.
CravensX. C.GoldringE.PenalozaR. (2012). Leadership practice in the context of U.S. School Choice Reform. Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(4), 452–476. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2012.700989
28.
CubanL. (2013). Inside the black box of classroom practice: Change without reform in American education. Harvard Education Press.
29.
DallavisJ. W.BerendsM. (2023). Charter schools after three decades: reviewing the research on school organizational and instructional conditions. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 31, 1–30. https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.31.7364
30.
DiamondA.SekhonJ. S. (2013). Genetic matching for estimating causal effects: A general multivariate matching method for achieving balance in observational studies. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3), 932–945. https://doi.org/10.1162/rest_a_00318
31.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron Cage Revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in Organizational Fields. American Sociological Review, 48, 147–160.
32.
DynarskiM.NicholsA. (2017). More findings about school vouchers and test scores, and they are still negative. Evidence Speaks, 2(18), 1–9.
33.
ElderT.JepsenC. (2014). Are Catholic primary schools more effective than public primary schools?Journal of Urban Economics, 80, 28–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2013.10.001
34.
ElmoreR. F. (2008). The Instructional Core. Harvard Graduate School of Education.
35.
FauthB.DecristanJ.RieserS.KliemeE.BüttnerG. (2014). Student ratings of teaching quality in primary school: Dimensions and prediction of student outcomes. Learning and Instruction, 29, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2013.07.001
36.
FiglioD.KarbownikK. (2016). Evaluation of Ohio’s EdChoice Scholarship Program: Selection, Competition, and Performance Effects, Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
37.
GoffP. T.MavrogordatoM.GoldringE. (2012). Instructional Leadership in charter schools: Is There an organizational effect or are leadership practices the result of faculty characteristics and preferences?Leadership and Policy in Schools, 11(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1080/15700763.2011.611923
38.
GoldringE.CravensX. (2008). Teachers’ academic focus on learning in charter and traditional public schools 1. In BerendsM. A. R. K.SpringerMatthew G.WalbergHerbert J. (Eds.), Charter School Outcomes (pp. 39–60). Routledge.
39.
GranerW. C. (2016). The curious case of charter school innovation [Doctoral dissertation], The University of North Carolina at Greensboro.
40.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2010). Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. The American Economic Review, 100(2), 267–271. https://doi.org/0.1257/aer.100.2.267
41.
HofmanR. H.de BoomJ.MeeuwisseM.HofmanW. H. A. (2013). Educational Innovation, quality, and effects: An exploration of innovations and their effects in secondary education. Educational Policy, 27(6), 843–866. https://doi.org/10.1177/0895904811429288
42.
HolzbergerD.ReinholdS.LüdtkeO.SeidelT. (2020). A meta-analysis on the relationship between school characteristics and student outcomes in science and maths – Evidence from large-scale studies. Studies in Science Education, 56(1), 1–34. https://doi.org/10.1080/03057267.2020.1735758
43.
HolzbergerD.Schiepe-TiskaA. (2021). Is the school context associated with instructional quality? The effects of social composition, leadership, teacher collaboration, and school climate. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 32(3), 465–485. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2021.1913190
44.
HoxbyC. M.RockoffJ. E. (2004). The impact of charter schools on student achievement. Department of Economics, Harvard University.
45.
HuertaL. A. (2009). Institutional v. Technical Environments: Reconciling the goals of decentralization in an evolving charter school organization. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(2), 244–261. https://doi.org/10.1080/01619560902810179
46.
ImbensG. W.RubinD. B. (2015). Causal inference in statistics, social, and biomedical sciences. Cambridge University Press.
47.
JabbarH. (2015). Every kid is Money”: Market-like competition and school leader strategies in New Orleans. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(4), 638–659. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715577447
KeeleL. (2010). An Overview of Rbounds: An R Package for Rosenbaum Bounds Sensitivity Analysis with Matched Data, White Paper.
50.
KelceyB.HillH. C.ChinM. J. (2019). Teacher mathematical knowledge, instructional quality, and student outcomes: A multilevel quantile mediation analysis. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 30(4), 398–431. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2019.1570944
51.
KingG.NielsenR. (2019). Why propensity scores should not Be used for matching. Political Analysis, 27(4), 435–454. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.11
52.
KliemeE.PauliC.ReusserK. (2009). The Pythagoras study: Investigating the effects of teaching and learning in Swiss and German mathematics classrooms. In Tomas Janik & Tina Seidel (Eds.), The power of video studies in investigating teaching and learning in the classroom (pp. 137–160). Waxmann.
53.
KraftM. A. (2023). The effect-size benchmark that matters most: Education interventions often fail. Educational Researcher, 52(3), 183–187. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x231155154
54.
KunterM.BaumertJ.BlumW.KlusmannU.KraussS.NeubrandM. (2013). Cognitive activation in the mathematics classroom and professional competence of teachers: Results from the COACTIV Project. Springer Science & Business Media.
LiF.MorganK. L.ZaslavskyA. M. (2018). Balancing covariates via propensity score weighting. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 113(521), 390–400. https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2016.1260466
57.
LipowskyF.RakoczyK.PauliC.Drollinger-VetterB.KliemeE.ReusserK. (2009). Quality of geometry instruction and its short-term impact on students’ understanding of the Pythagorean theorem. Learning and Instruction, 19(6), 527–537. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.learninstruc.2008.11.001
58.
LittleT. D.CardN. A.BovairdJ. A.PreacherK. J.CrandallC. S. (2007). Structural equation modeling of mediation and moderation with contextual factors. In BovairdJames A.CardNoel A.LittleTodd D. (Eds.), Modeling contextual effects in longitudinal studies (Vol. 1, pp. 207–230). Taylor & Francis.
59.
LubienskiC. (2003). Innovation in Education Markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competitionCharteroSchoolscharter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002395
60.
LubienskiC. (2009). Do Quasi-markets Foster Innovation in Education?: A Comparative Perspective (OECD Education Working Papers 25). https://doi.org/10.1787/221583463325
61.
LubienskiC.LubienskiS. T. (2013). The public school advantage: Why public schools outperform private schools. University of Chicago Press.
62.
MartinM. O.MullisI. V. S.FoyP. (2013). TIMSS 2015 assessment design. In MullisIna V. S.MartinM. O. (Eds.), TIMSS 2015 assessment frameworks (pp. 85–96). TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Lynch School of Education, Boston College.
63.
MartinM. O.von DavierM.MullisI. V. (2020). Methods and Procedures: TIMSS 2019 Technical Report. International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement.
64.
MarshJ. A.AllbrightT. N.BulkleyK. E.KennedyK. E.DhaliwalT. K. (2020). Institutional logics in Los Angeles schools: Do multiple models disrupt the grammar of schooling?. American Journal of Education, 126(4), 603-651.
65.
MehtaJ. (2022). Reimagining American Education: Possible Futures: Toward a new grammar of schooling. Phi Delta Kappan, 103(5), 54–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/00317217221079980
66.
MeyerJ. W. (1992). Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality. In Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality (MeyerJ. W.ScottW. R., pp. 233–260). Sage Publications.
MullisI. V. S.MartinM. O.FoyP.KellyD. L.FishbeinB. (2020). TIMSS 2019 international results in mathematics and science. Boston College, TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center.
OttmarE. R.Rimm-KaufmanS. E.LarsenR. A.BerryR. Q. (2015). Mathematical Knowledge for teaching, standards-based mathematics teaching practices, and student achievement in the context of the responsive classroom approach. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 787–821. https://doi.org/10.3102/0002831215579484
76.
O’BrienR.PiantaR. (2010). Public and private schools: Do classroom processes vary by school type?The Elementary School Journal, 110(3), 409–419.
77.
PiantaR. C.AnsariA. (2018). Does attendance in private schools predict student outcomes at age 15? Evidence from a longitudinal study. Educational Researcher, 47, 419–434. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x18785632
78.
PiantaR. C.HamreB. K. (2009). Conceptualization, measurement, and improvement of classroom processes: Standardized observation can leverage capacity. Educational Researcher, 38(2), 109–119. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x09332374
79.
PrestonC.GoldringE.BerendsM.CannataM. (2012). School innovation in district context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.016
80.
ReardonS. F.CheadleJ. E.RobinsonJ. P. (2009). The effect of Catholic schooling on math and reading development in kindergarten through fifth grade. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2(1), 45–87.
81.
RenzulliL. A.BarrA. B.PainoM. (2015). Innovative Education? A test of specialist mimicry or generalist assimilation in trends in charter school specialization over time. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 83–102. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714561866
82.
RoloffJ.KlusmannU.LüdtkeO.TrautweinU. (2020). The predictive validity of Teachers’ personality, cognitive and academic abilities at the end of High School on instructional quality in Germany: A longitudinal study. AERA Open, 6(1), 2332858419897884. https://doi.org/10.1177/2332858419897884
83.
RosenbaumP. R. (2005). Observational study. In Brian S. Everitt & David C. Howell (Eds.), Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science (pp. 1809–1814). Wiley.
84.
RosenbaumP. R.RubinD. B. (1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41–55.
85.
RubinD. B. (1978). Multiple imputations in sample surveys-a phenomenological Bayesian approach to nonresponse. In Proceedings of the survey research methods section of the American Statistical Association (Vol. 1, pp. 20–34). Alexandria, VA, USA: American Statistical Association.
86.
RutkowskiD.RutkowskiL. (2009). Private and Public Education: A Cross-National Exploration with TIMSS 2003.
87.
RutkowskiD.RutkowskiL.WildJ.BurroughsN. (2018). Poverty and educational achievement in the US: A less-biased estimate using PISA 2012 data. Journal of Children and Poverty, 24(1), 47–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/10796126.2017.1401898
88.
RutkowskiL.GonzalezE.JoncasM.von DavierM. (2010). International large-scale assessment data: Issues in secondary analysis and Reporting. Educational Researcher, 39(2), 142–151. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189x10363170
89.
SteinbergM. P.SartainL. (2021). What explains the race gap in teacher performance ratings? Evidence from Chicago Public Schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 43(1), 60–82. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373720970204
90.
StuartE. A.LeeB. K.LeacyF. P. (2013). Prognostic score-based balance measures can be a useful diagnostic for propensity score methods in comparative effectiveness research. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 66(8 Suppl), S84–S90.e1. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.013
91.
TorresA. C.BulkleyK.KimT. (2020). Shared Leadership for learning in Denver’s Portfolio Management Model. Educational Administration Quarterly: EAQ, 56(5), 819–855. https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161x20906546
92.
TyackD. B.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia. Harvard University Press.
93.
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
94.
WalbergH. J.BastJ. (2003). Education and capitalism: How overcoming our fear of markets and economics can improve. Hoover Institution Press.
95.
WelnerK.OrfieldG.HuertaL. A. (2023). The school voucher illusion: Exposing the pretense of equity. Teachers College Press.
96.
WengerM.GärtnerH.BrunnerM. (2020). To what extent are characteristics of a school’s student body, instructional quality, school quality, and school achievement interrelated?School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 31(4), 548–575. https://doi.org/10.1080/09243453.2020.1754243
97.
WestM. R.KraftM. A.FinnA. S.MartinR. E.DuckworthA. L.GabrieliC. F. O.GabrieliJ. D. E. (2016). Promise and Paradox: Measuring Students’ Non-Cognitive Skills and the Impact of Schooling. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 148–170. https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373715597298
ZimmerR.BuddinR. (2006). Charter school performance in two large urban districts. Journal of Urban Economics, 60(2), 307–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.03.003
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.
