This article examines past and present research on school choice within its larger political context, focusing on market-driven choice programs such as vouchers and charter schools. Although methodologically and theoretically the domain of choice research is in its infancy, a growing number of increasingly sophisticated studies of choice programs allow us to start drawing more definitive conclusions about the effects of choice on students and schools. After a brief overview of the larger political context in which choice research takes place, we examine in detail the current state of knowledge on school choice: who is participating in choice programs, the effect of choice on parent and student satisfaction and student achievement, and the impact of choice programs on school districts and school reform. We conclude with a brief discussion of the implications of the politics of research on market-driven choice for American education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Alves, M. J.
, & Willie, C. V. (1987).Controlled choice assignment: A new and more effective approach to school desegregation. Urban Review, 19(2), 67-87.
2.
Beales J. R.
, & Wahl, M. (1995). Private vouchers in Milwaukee: The PAVE program. In Terry M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 41-73). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
3.
Blank, R. K.
(1989). Educational effects of magnet schools. Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Center in Effective Secondary Schools, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
4.
Bridge, R. G.
, & Blackman, J. (1978). Family choice in American education: A study of alternatives in American education (Vol. 4). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
5.
Chubb, J. E.
(1988, Winter).Why the current wave of school reform will fail. Public Interest, 90,28-49.
6.
Chubb, J. E.
, & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets and America’s schools. Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
7.
Coleman, J. S.
, & Hoffer, T. (1987). Public and private high schools: The impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.
8.
Coleman, J. S.
, Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York: Basic Books.
9.
Cookson, P W. Jr.
(1994). School choice: The struggle for the soul of American education. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
10.
Davis, B.
(1996, October 11). Class warfare: Dueling professors have Milwaukee dazed over vouchers. Wall Street Journal, pp. A1-A1, A7-A7.
11.
Domanico, R.
(1989). Model for choice: A report on Manhattan’s District 4. New York: Manhattan Institute Center for Educational Innovation.
12.
Finn, C. E. Jr.
, Manno, B. V., Bierlein, L., & Vanourek, G. (1997, July). Charter schools in action: Final report. Washington, DC: Hudson Institute.
13.
Fliegel, S.
(1990). Creative non-compliance. In W. H. Clune & J. F. Witte (Eds.), Choice and control in American education. Vol. 2: The practice of choice, decentralization, and school restructuring (pp. 199-216). New York: Falmer.
14.
Fowler, F. C.
(1996).Participation in Ohio’s interdistrict open enrollment option: Exploring the supply-side of choice. Educational Policy, 10(4), 518-536.
15.
Fuller, B.
, & Elmore, R. F. (1996). Empirical research on educational choice: What are the implications for policymakers? In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 187-201). New York: Teachers College Press.
16.
Fuller, B.
, Elmore, R. F., & Orfield, G. (Eds.). (1996). Who chooses? who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice. New York: Teachers College Press.
17.
Fuller, H. L.
(1997, January 21). New research bolsters case for school choice. Wall Street Journal, p. A18-A18.
18.
Greene, J. P.
, Howell, W., & Peterson, P. E. (1997, September). An evaluation of the Cleveland scholarship program. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
19.
Greene, J. P.
, & Peterson, P. E. (1996b, August 14). School choice data rescued from bad science. Wall Street Journal, p. A12-A12.
20.
Greene, J. P.
, & Peterson, P. E. (1996a). Methodological issues in evaluation research: The Milwaukee school choice plan. Occasional Paper 96-4. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
21.
Greene, J. P.
, Peterson, P. E., & Du, J. (1997, March). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee experiment. Occasional Paper 97-1. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
22.
Greene, J. P.
, Peterson, P. E., Du, J., Boeger, L., & Frazier, C. L. (1996). The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program’s evaluation. Occasional Paper 96-3. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, Program in Educational Policy and Governance.
23.
Heise, M.
, Colburn K. D. Jr., & Lamberti, J. F. (1995). Private vouchers in Indianapolis: The Golden Rule program. In Terry M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 100-119). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
24.
Henig, J. R.
(1994). Rethinking school choice: The limits of the market metaphor. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Henig, J. R.
(1996). The local dynamics of choice: Ethnic preferences and institutional responses. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 95-117). New York: Teachers College Press.
26.
Hill, P. T.
(1995). Private vouchers in New York City: The Student-Sponsor Partnership program. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 120-135). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
27.
Jimerson, L.
(1998, April). Hidden consequences of school choice: Impact on programs, finances, and accountability. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
28.
Little Hoover Commission
. (1996, March). The charter movement: Educational reform school by school. Sacramento: Milton Marks Commission on California State Government Organization and Economy.
29.
Martinez, V.
, Godwin, K., & Kemerer, F. R. (1995). Private vouchers in San Antonio: The CEO program. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 74-99). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
30.
Martinez, V.
, Godwin, K., & Kemerer, F. R. (1996). Public school choice in San Antonio: Who chooses and with what effects? In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 50-69). New York: Teachers College Press.
31.
Metz, M. H.
(1986). Different by design. New York: Routledge.
32.
Moe, T. M.
(Ed.). (1995a). Private vouchers. Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
33.
Moe, T. M.
(1995b). Private vouchers. In T. M. Moe (Ed.), Private vouchers (pp. 1-40). Stanford, CA: Hoover Institution Press.
34.
Paulu, N.
(1989). Improving schools and empowering parents: Choice in American education. Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
35.
Percy, S. L.
, & Maier, P. (1996).School choice in Milwaukee: Privatization of a different breed. Policy Studies Journal, 24(4), 649-665.
36.
Peterson, P. E.
(1997, 28 July). Value of school choice. Washington Post, p. A18-A18.
37.
Peterson, P. E.
, & Noyes, C. (1996, Fall).School choice in Milwaukee. Public Interest, 125,38-56.
38.
Peterson, P. E.
, & Noyes, C. (1997). School choice in Milwaukee. In D. Ravitch & J. P. Viteritti, (Eds.), New schools for a new century: The redesign of urban education (pp. 123-146). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
39.
Rofes, E.
(1998, April). How are school districts responding to charter laws and charter schools?: A study of eight states and the District of Columbia. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
40.
Rouse, C. E.
(1998). Schools and student achievement: More evidence from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Working Paper No. 396, Industrial Relations Section, Princeton University, Princeton, NJ.
41.
Rouse, C. E.
(in press). Private vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics.
42.
Viteritti, J.
(1996).Stacking the deck for the poor. The new politics of school choice. Brookings Review, 14(3), 10-13.
43.
Wells, A. S.
(1996). African American students’view of school choice. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 25-49). New York: Teachers College Press.
44.
Witte, J. F. (1996a). Who benefits from the Milwaukee choice program. In B. Fuller, R. F. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions and the unequal effects of school choice (pp. 118-137). New York: Teachers College Press.
45.
Witte, J. F.
(1996b). Reply to Greene, Peterson, and Du: The effectiveness of school choice in Milwaukee: A secondary analysis of data from the program’s evaluation. Department of Political Science and the Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
46.
Witte, J. F.
(1997, January). Achievement effects of the Milwaukee voucher program. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Economics Association, New Orleans, LA.
47.
Witte, J. F.
, Sterr, T. D., & Thorn, C. A. (1995). Fifth-year report: Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Department of Political Science and the Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
48.
Witte, J. F., Thorn, C. A., Pritchard, K. M., & Clairborn, M. (1994) Fourth-year report: Milwau-kee Parental Choice Program. Department of Political Science and the Robert LaFollette Institute of Public Affairs, University of Wisconsin–Madison.
