This article contributes to research concerning the determinants of student mobility between public and private schools. The authors analyze a unique set of data collected as part of a new evaluation of Milwaukee’s citywide voucher program. The authors find several important patterns. Students who switch from the private to the public sector were performing lower than their peers on standardized tests in the prior year. African Americans were disproportionately more likely to leave the private sector, as were students in schools serving proportionally more voucher students. The authors argue that although these results indicate that a large voucher program may provide an educational home for some students, it may not provide a long-term solution to those who are among the most disadvantaged.
AlexanderK. L.EntwisleD. R.DauberS. L. (1996). Children in motion: School transfers and elementary school performance. Journal of Educational Research, 90(1), 3–12.
2.
BarnardJ.FrangakisC. E.HillJ. L.RubinD. B. (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), 299–311.
3.
BettingerE. P. (2005). The effect of charter schools on charter students and public schools. Economics of Education Review, 24(2), 133–147.
4.
BettsJ.FairlieR. W. (2001). Explaining ethnic, racial and immigrant differences in private school attendence. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), 26–51.
5.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2006). The impacts of charter schools on student achievement: Evidence from North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 1(1), 50–90.
6.
BifulcoR.LaddH. F. (2007). School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina’s charter school program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 26(1), 31–56.
7.
CampbellD. E.WestM. R.PetersonP. E. (2005). Participation in a national, means-tested voucher program. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(3), 523–541.
8.
Cohen-ZadaD.JustmanM. (2005). The religious factor in private education. Journal of Urban Economics, 57, 391–418.
9.
CowenJ. M. (2008). School choice as a latent variable: Estimating the “complier average causal effect” of vouchers in Charlotte. Policy Studies Journal, 36(2), 301–315.
10.
CowenJ. M. (2010). Who chooses, who refuses? Learning more from students who decline private school vouchers. American Journal of Education, 117(1), 1–24.
11.
FairlieR. W.ReschA. M. (2002). Is there “White flight” into private schools? Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84(1), 21–33.
FiglioD.HartC. M.MetzgerM. (2010). Who uses a means-tested scholarship and what do they choose?Economics of Education Review, 29(2), 301–317.
14.
FiglioD. N.StoneJ. A. (2001). Can public policy affect private school cream-skimming. Journal of Urban Economics, 49, 240–266.
15.
GasperJ.DeLucaS.EstacionA. (2011). Switching schools: Revisiting the relationship between student mobility and high school dropout. American Educational Research Journal. Advance online publication. doi: 10.3102/000283121141525010.3102/0002831211415250
16.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2009). National Board certification and teachers’ career paths: Does NBPTS certification influence how long teachers remain in the profession and where they teach?Education Finance and Policy, 4(3), 229–262.
17.
GoldringE. B.PhillipsK. J. (2008). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public-private decision about school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 209–230.
18.
GreeneJ. P.PetersonP. E.DuJ. (1998). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Education and Urban Society, 31(2), 190–213.
19.
HanushekE. A.KainJ. F.RivkinS. G. (2004). Disruption versus tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Economics, 88(9–10), 1721–1746.
20.
HowellW. G. (2004). Dynamic selection effects in means-tested, urban school voucher programs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 225–250.
21.
HowellW. G.PetersonP. E.WolfP. J.CampbellD. E. (2006). The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22.
IngersollG. M.ScammanJ. P.EckerlingW. D. (1989). Geographic mobility and student achievement in an urban setting. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11(2), 143–149.
23.
KerbowD.AzcoitiaC.BuellB. (2003). Student mobility and local school improvement in Chicago. Journal of Negro Education, 72(1), 158–164.
24.
KisidaB.JensenL. I.WolfP. J. (2011). The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Descriptive report on partcipating schools 2009–2010 (School Choice Demonstration Project Report No. 27). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
25.
KruegerA. B.ZhuP. (2004). Another look at the New York City voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47(5), 658–698.
26.
LankfordH.WyckoffJ. (1992). Primary and secondary school choice among public and religious alternatives. Economics of Education Review, 11, 317–337.
27.
LankfordH.WykoffJ. (2001). Who would be left behind by enhanced private school choice?Journal of Urban Economics, 50(2), 288-312.
28.
LashA. A.KirkpatrickS. L. (1990). A classroom perspective on student mobility. The Elementary School Journal, 91(2), 176–191.
29.
LashA. A.KirkpatrickS. L. (1994). Interrupted lessons: Teacher views of transfer student education. American Educational Research Journal, 31(4), 813–843.
30.
LongJ. E.TomaE. F. (1988). The determinants of private school attendance, 1970−1980. Review of Economics and Statistics, 70, 351–357.
31.
MetcalfK. K.WestS. D.LeganN. A.PaulK. M.BooneW. J. (2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Summary report 1998–2002. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University.
32.
PetersonP. E.HowellW. G.GreeneJ. P. (1999). An evaluation of the Cleveland voucher program after two years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance.
33.
RouseC. E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(2), 553–602.
34.
RumbergerR. W.LarsonK. A.ReamR. K.PalardyG. J. (1999). The educational consequences of mobility for California students and schools. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
35.
SouthS. J.HaynieD. L.BoseS. (2007). Student mobility and school dropout. Social Science Research, 36(1), 68–94.
36.
StewartT.WolfP. J. (2011). The evolution of parental school choice. In HessF. M.MannoB. (Eds.), The demand side of education reform (pp. 91-106). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
37.
TempleJ. A.ReynoldsA. J. (1999). School mobility and achievement: Longitudinal findings from an urban cohort. Journal of School Psychology, 37(4), 355–377.
38.
WitteJ. F. (2000). The market approach to education; an analysis of America’s first voucher program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
WitteJ. F.CarlsonD.CowenJ. M.FlemingD. J.WolfP. J. (2011). MPCP longitudinal educational growth study: Fourth year report (School Choice Demonstration Project Report No. 23). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
40.
WitteJ. F.WolfP. J.CowenJ. M.FlemingD. J.Lucas-McLeanJ. (2008). MPCP longitudinal educational growth study baseline report (Working paper). Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas.
41.
WolfP. J. (2010). School vouchers in Washington, DC: Achievement impacts and their implications for social justice. Educational Research and Evaluation, 16(2), 131–150.
42.
WolfP.GutmannB.EissaN.PumaM. (2005). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: First year report on participation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Institute for Education Sciences.
43.
WolfP.GutmannB.PumaM.KisidaB.RizzoL.EissaN.SilverbergM. (2010). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
44.
WolfP.GutmannB.PumaM.RizzoL.EissaN.SilverbegM. (2007). Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: Impacts after one year. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute for Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance .
45.
WolfP.KisidaB.GutmannB.RizzoL.EissaN. (2011). The evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program: A summary of experimental impacts. In BerendsM.CannataM.GoldringE. (Eds.), School choice and school improvement: Research in state, district and community contexts (pp. 17-33). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
46.
XuZ.HannawayJ.D’SouzaS. (2009). Student transience in North Carolina: The effect of school mobility on student outcomes using longitudinal data. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
