School choice research generally indicates marginal positive effects on student achievement for at least some students. In explaining results, researchers attribute positive findings to evidence that education markets are driving schools to improve, while others see null or negative findings as evidence that markets are not an effective reform. We examine whether findings are suggestive of theory failure or program design failures. Analyzing key policy components of seven publicly funded voucher programs, we find that the structures of programs generally have half the necessary components to create market forces among schools, suggesting program design failure, not a failure of the theory.
BarnardJ., FrangakisC., HillJ., & RubinD. (2003). Principal stratification approach to broken randomized experiments: A case study of school choice vouchers in New York City.Journal of the American Statistical Association,98(462), 299–323.
3.
BelfieldC., & LevinH. (2002). The effects of competition on educational outcomes: A review of the U.S. evidence.Review of Educational Research,27, 279–341.
4.
BelfieldC., & LevinH. (2005). Vouchers and public policy: When ideology trumps evidence.American Journal of Education,111, 548–567.
5.
CarnoyM. (2001). Do vouchers improve filing public schools? In CarnoyM. (Ed.), School vouchers: Examining the evidence (pp. 21–30). Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
6.
CarnoyM., AdamsonF., ChudgarA., LuscheiT., & WitteJ. (2007). Vouchers and public school performance: A case study of the Milwaukee Pa rental Choice Program.Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
7.
CarrM. (2011). The impact of Ohio's EdChoice on traditional public school performance.Cato Journal,31(2), 257–284.
8.
ChakrabartiR. (2008). Impact of voucher design on public school performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee voucher programs (Staff Report No. 315). New York: Federal Reserve Bank of New York.
9.
ChingosM., & PetersonP. (2012). The effect of school vouchers on college enrollment: Experimental evidence from New York City.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
CoulsonA. (1999). Market education: The unknown history.New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
12.
CowenJ. (2008). School choice as a latent variable: Estimating the “complier average causal effect” of vouchers in Charlotte.Policy Studies Journal,36(2), 301–315.
13.
CullenJ., JacobB., & LevittS. (2000). The impact of school choice on student outcomes: An analysis of the Chicago Public Schools (Working Paper No. 7888). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
FiglioD., & HartM. D. (2010). Competitive effects of means-tested school vouchers (Working Paper No. 16056). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
16.
FiglioD., & RouseC. (2005). Do accountability and voucher threat improve low-performing schools? (Working Paper No. 11597). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
17.
FiskeE., & LaddH. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
GreeneJ. (2001). An evaluation of the Florida A-Plus Accountability and School Choice Program.New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
22.
GreeneJ., PetersonP., & DuJ. (1998). School choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment. In PetersonP., & HasselB. (Eds.), Learing from school choice (pp. 335–372). Washington, DC: Brooking Institute Press.
23.
GreeneJ., & WintersM. (2003). When schools compete: The effects of vouchers on Florida public school achievement (Education Working Paper No. 2). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
24.
GreeneJ., & WintersM. (2006). An evaluation of the effect of D.C.'s voucher program on public school achievement and racial integration after one year (Education Working Paper No. 10). New York: Manhattan Institute for Policy Research.
25.
HenigJ. (1994). Rethinking school choice: Limits of the market metaphor.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
26.
HaxbyC. (1994). Do private schools provide competition for public schools? (Working Paper No. 4978). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
27.
HoxbyC. (2002). School choice and school productivity (or could school choice be a tide that lis all boats?) (Working Paper No. 8873). Cambridge, M: National Bureau of Economic Research.
28.
HowellW., WolfP., CampbellD., & PetersonP. (2002). School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,21, 191–217.
29.
KruegerA., & ZhuP. (2003). Another look at the New York City school voucher experiment.American Behavioral Scientist,47(5), 658–698.
30.
LevinH. (1999). Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management,17(3), 373–392.
31.
MerrifieldJ. (2001). The school choice wars.Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
32.
PetersonP., & HowellW. (2004). Efficiency, bias, and classification schemes: A response to Alan B. Krueger and Pei Zhu.American Behavioral Scientist,47(5), 699–717.
33.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education.New York: Basic Books.
34.
RouseC. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program.Quarterly Journal of Economics,108, 553–602.
35.
RouseC, & BarrowL. (2008). School vouchers: Recent findings and unanswered questions.Economic Perspectives,32(3), 2–16.
36.
SmithK., & MeierK. (1995). The case against school choice: Politics, markets, and fools.Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.
37.
WolfP. (2008). School voucher programs: What the research says about parental school choice.Brigham Young University Law Review,2, 415–446.
38.
WolfP., GutmannB., PumaP., KisidaB., RizzoL., EissaN (2010). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final report.Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences.
39.
YinR. (2003). Applications of case study research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
