Prior research suggests that families prefer schools with higher test scores, shorter distances from home, and certain student demographics. We build on this using data from New Orleans, a context well suited to identification of parent preferences because of its deferred acceptance algorithm and extensive, standardized, and broadly accessible school information. This allows us to study revealed preferences for a richer set of characteristics. We find that families prefer schools with higher school value-added, more extracurricular activities, and after-school childcare. We also find heterogeneity by family income that is more consistent with income constraints than preference heterogeneity. Finally, we show how methodology and data shape the results.
AbdulkadiroğluA. (2009). Strategy-proofness versus efficiency in matching with indifferences: Redesigning the NYC High School Match. American Economic Review, 99(5), 1954–1978.
2.
AbdulkadiroğluA.AgarwalN.PathakP. A. (2017). The welfare effects of coordinated assignment: Evidence from the New York City high school match. American Economic Review, 107(12), 3635–3689.
3.
AbdulkadiroğluA.PathakP. A.RothA. E. (2005). The New York City High School Match. American Economic Review, 95, 364–367.
4.
AbdulkadiroğluA.PathakP. A.SchellenbergJ.WaltersC. (2020). Do parents value school effectiveness?American Economic Review, 110(5), 1502–1539.
5.
AbdulkadiroğluA.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2018). Free to choose: Can school choice reduce student achievement?American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 10(1), 175–206.
6.
AckerbergD.BenkardC. L.BerryS.PakesA. (2007). Econometric tools for analyzing market outcomes. In HeckmanJ. J.LeamerE. E. (Eds.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 6A, pp. 4171–4276). North Holland.
AngristJ. D.HullP. D.PathakP. A.WaltersC. R. (2017). Leveraging lotteries for school value-added: Testing and estimation. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 132(2), 871–919.
9.
AngristJ. D.PathakP.WaltersC. R. (2011, August). Explaining charter school effectiveness (Working Paper No. 17332). National Bureau of Economic Research.
10.
Arce-TrigattiP.HarrisD. N.JabbarH.LincoveJ. A. (2015). Many options in New Orleans choice system: School characteristics vary wildly. Education Next, 15(4), 25–33.
11.
BarseghyanL.ClarkD.CoateS. (2019). Peer preferences, school competition, and the effects of public school choice. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 11(4), 124–158.
12.
BerryS.LevinsohnJ.PakesA. (1995). Automobile prices in market equilibrium. Econometrica, 63(4), 841–890.
13.
BerryS.LevinsohnJ.PakesA. (2004). Estimating differentiated product demand systems from a combination of micro and macro data: The new car model. Journal of Political Economy, 112(1), 68–105.
14.
BeuermannD.JacksonC. K.Navarro-SolaL.PardoF. (2021, October). What is a good school, and can parents tell? Evidence on the multidimensionality of school output (Working Paper No. 25342). National Bureau of Economic Research.
15.
BlundellR.PowellJ. (2001). Endogeneity in semiparametric binary response models [Working paper]. Department of Economics, University College London.
16.
BrownB. (1992). Why governments run schools. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 287–300.
17.
BuddinR. J.CordesJ. J.KirbyS. N. (1998). School choice in California: Who chooses private schools?Journal of Urban Economics, 44(1), 110–134.
18.
BurgessS.GreavesE.VignolesA.WilsonD. (2015). What parents want: School preferences and school choice. The Economic Journal, 125(587), 1262–1289.
Center for Research on Education Outcomes. (2013). National Charter School Study. Stanford University.
21.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.RockoffJ. E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. American Economic Review, 104(9), 2593–2632.
22.
ChubbJ.MoeT. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Brookings Institution Press.
23.
Cowen Institute. (2014). State of public education in New Orleans. Tulane University.
24.
EhlertM.KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskuM. (2014). The sensitivity of value-added estimates to specification adjustments: Evidence from school- and teacher-level models in Missouri. Statistics and Public Policy, 1(1), 19–27.
25.
FriedmanB. A.BobrowskiP. E.MarkowD. (2007). Predictors of parents’ satisfaction with their children’s school. Journal of Educational Administration, 45(3), 278–288.
26.
FriedmanM. (1962). The role of government in education. In FriedmanM. (Ed.), Capitalism and freedom (pp. 85–107). The University of Chicago Press.
27.
GillB.BookerK. (2007). School competition and student outcomes. In LaddH.FiskeT. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 211–227). Routledge.
28.
GlazermanS.DotterD. (2017). Market signals: Evidence on the determinants and consequences of school choice from a citywide lottery. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 39(4), 593–619.
29.
GoldringE. B.PhillipsK. J. R. (2008). Parent preferences and parent choices: The public–private decision about school choice. Journal of Education Policy, 23(3), 209–230.
30.
HaderleinS. A. K. (2022). How do parents evaluate and select schools? Evidence from a survey experiment. American Educational Research Journal, 59, 381–414.
31.
HaileyC. (2022). Racial preferences for schools: Evidence from an experiment with White, Black, Latinx, and Asian parents and students. Sociology of Education, 95(2), 110–132.
32.
HarrisD. N. (2011). Value-added measures in education. Harvard Education Press.
33.
HarrisD. N. (2020). Charter school city: What the end of traditional public schools in New Orleans means for American education. The University of Chicago Press.
34.
HarrisD. N.WitteJ. F.ValantJ. (2017). The market for schooling. In MitchellD. E.ShippsD.CrowsonR. L. (Eds.), Shaping education policy (pp. 130–161). Routledge.
35.
HartC.FiglioD. (2014). Competitive effects of means-tested school vouchers. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6, 133–156.
36.
HastingsJ. S.KaneT.StaigerD. (2010). Heterogeneous preferences and the efficacy of public school choice [Unpublished manuscript].
37.
HastingsJ. S.WeinsteinJ. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123, 1373–1414.
38.
HausmanJ. A.RuudP. A. (1987). Specifying and testing econometric models for rank-ordered data. Journal of Econometrics, 34(1–2), 83–104.
39.
HerrmannM.WalshE.IsenbergE. (2016). Shrinkage of value-added estimates and characteristics of students with hard-to-predict achievement levels. Statistics and Public Policy, 3(1), 1–10.
40.
HowellW.PetersonP. (2006). The education gap. Brookings Institution Press.
41.
HoxbyC. M. (2002, April). School choice and school productivity (or could school choice be a tide that lifts all boats?) (NBER Working Paper No. 8873). National Bureau of Economic Research.
42.
HoxbyC. M.WeingarthG. (2005). Taking race out of the equation: School reassignment and the structure of peer effects [Unpublished working paper].
JacksonC. K.JohnsonR. C.PersicoC. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(1), 157–218.
45.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 91–114.
46.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2008, December). Estimating teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation (NBER Working Paper No. 15607). National Bureau of Economic Research.
47.
LaddH. F.FiskeE. B. (2020). International perspectives on school choice. In BerendsM.PrimusA.SpringerM. (Eds.), Handbook of research on school choice (2nd ed., pp. 87–100). Routledge.
McFaddenD. L. (1984). Econometric analysis of qualitative response models. In McFaddenD. L. (Ed.), Handbook of econometrics (Vol. 2, pp. 1395–1457). Elsevier.
50.
PlankD.SykesG. (2003). Choosing choice: School choice in international perspective. Teachers College Press.
51.
ReardonS. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In MurnaneR.DuncanG. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality and the uncertain life chances of low-income children (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.
52.
RebackR. (2008). Demand (and supply) in an inter-district public school choice program. Economics of Education Review, 27(4), 402–416.
53.
RothA. E. (1982). The economics of matching: Stability and incentives. Mathematics of Operations Research, 7, 617–628.
54.
RothA. E.XingX. (1997). Turnaround time and bottlenecks in market clearing: Decentralized matching in the market for clinical psychologists. Journal of Political Economy, 105, 284–329.
55.
SchneiderM.BuckleyJ. (2002). What do parents want from schools? Evidence from the Internet. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(2), 133–144.
56.
ThalerR. H.BenartziS. (2004). Save more tomorrow: Using behavioral economics to increase employee saving. Journal of Political Economy, 112, 164–187.
57.
TieboutC. (1956). A pure theory of local expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64(5), 416–424.
58.
TrainK. (2009). Discrete choice methods with simulation. Cambridge University Press.
59.
ValantJ.WeixlerL. (2020). Informing school-choosing families about the options: A field experiment from New Orleans [Technical report]. Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
WojcikC. (2000). Alternative models of demand for automobiles. Economics Letters, 68(2), 113–118.
62.
WolfP. J.MacedoS. (2004). Educating citizens: International perspectives on civic values and school choice. Brookings Institution Press.
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.
