39 39.

Table 3-3 PARENT REPORTS OF SCHOOL OUTREACH BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS SERVING VOUCHER PARTIc.i.p.aNTS IN NEW YORK CITY, DAYTON, AND WASHINGTON, DC PARENT REPORTS OF SCHOOL OUTREACH BY PUBLIC AND PRIVATE SCHOOLS SERVING VOUCHER PARTIc.i.p.aNTS IN NEW YORK CITY, DAYTON, AND WASHINGTON, DC SOURCE: Adapted from Paul E. Peterson, "Thorough and Efficient Private and Public Schools," in Courting Failure, Courting Failure, ed. Erik A. Ha.n.u.shek (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univeristy Education Next Press, 2006). ed. Erik A. Ha.n.u.shek (Stanford, CA: Stanford Univeristy Education Next Press, 2006).

Outreach Private School % Public School % Parents receive notes from teachers 93 93.

78 78.

Parents receive newsletters about the school 88 88.

68 68.

Parents are notified when child is sent to office for first time because of disruptive behavior 93 93.

78 78.

Parents are informed about student progress halfway through the grading period 93 93.

84 84.

Low-income students in Milwaukee were first able to use vouchers in the 1990-91 school year. Since partic.i.p.ation was initially limited to only 1 percent of Milwaukee's enrollment, many were denied admission. After eight years of dispute about the cap for the program, policymakers raised the ceiling to 15 percent (about 14,700 students) of Milwaukee's total enrollment in public schools. Poor families are eligible to apply for vouchers (but are not guaranteed to receive them) if their income is at or below 175 percent of the federal poverty level ($17,463 for a family of four in 1999-2000), an amount roughly equal to the income eligibility threshold for free and reduced-price school lunches.

A case study of Milwaukee's public schools showed that the district made program decisions that likely account for its improved academic performance. After partic.i.p.ation in the voucher program was raised to 15 percent of public school enrollment, the public school system closed its six worst schools, developed more early childhood and full-day kindergarten programs, expanded before-and after-school programs from 1 to 82 from 1995 to 2001, and opened several new charter schools.20 Florida provides another setting for the study of the market effects of vouchers or even the threat of vouchers. Until a court struck it down in January 2006, the statewide A+ program graded schools on an achievement scale from A to F and provided vouchers to students to use at other private or public schools if their school received two Fs in any four-year period. Four independent evaluations of Florida's program each concluded that the program improved the performance of public schools.

An early detailed a.n.a.lysis conducted in 2001 by Greene indicated that student achievement improved at a faster rate in schools that received an F.21 Greene's research, using school-level achievement data, showed that academic test results were not significantly different among schools that received grades of A, B, or C. Schools that received a D, however, showed some improvement, and schools designated as failing demonstrated the greatest gains in test scores. Greene's research, using school-level achievement data, showed that academic test results were not significantly different among schools that received grades of A, B, or C. Schools that received a D, however, showed some improvement, and schools designated as failing demonstrated the greatest gains in test scores.

Greene and Winters22 studied Florida's A+ program in 2004 and reached similar conclusions: studied Florida's A+ program in 2004 and reached similar conclusions: The schools facing either the prospect or the reality of vouchers made substantial gains compared with the results achieved by the rest of Florida's public schools. They also made strong gains relative to those earned by schools serving similar student populations, which nonetheless avoided receiving an F. The schools facing either the prospect or the reality of vouchers made substantial gains compared with the results achieved by the rest of Florida's public schools. They also made strong gains relative to those earned by schools serving similar student populations, which nonetheless avoided receiving an F.

West and Peterson23 came to similar conclusions and also showed that the worst grades under the A+ system had greater effects than the longer-term threat of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, even though more than 75 percent of all Florida elementary schools were in "need of improvement" in 2003, most often because one or more subgroups did not make adequate yearly progress toward academic proficiency. came to similar conclusions and also showed that the worst grades under the A+ system had greater effects than the longer-term threat of the federal No Child Left Behind Act, even though more than 75 percent of all Florida elementary schools were in "need of improvement" in 2003, most often because one or more subgroups did not make adequate yearly progress toward academic proficiency.

A fourth study, by Figlio and Rouse,24 found public school achievement gains "consistent with the early results used by the state of Florida to claim large-scale improvements a.s.sociated with the threat of voucher a.s.signment," but noted that "much of this estimated effect may be due to other factors. . . . [T]he gains in reading scores," for example, were "explained largely by changing student characteristics." Figlio and Rouse did find small relative improvement on the high-stakes tests administered by the state but much smaller relative improvement on a lower-stakes, nationally norm-referenced test. They contended that improvements by low-performing schools "were more due to the stigma of receiving the low grade rather than the threat of vouchers," although the relative weighting seems difficult to estimate. Whatever the weighting of the psychological reasons, there is agreement about the program as a whole having a positive effect on public school performance. found public school achievement gains "consistent with the early results used by the state of Florida to claim large-scale improvements a.s.sociated with the threat of voucher a.s.signment," but noted that "much of this estimated effect may be due to other factors. . . . [T]he gains in reading scores," for example, were "explained largely by changing student characteristics." Figlio and Rouse did find small relative improvement on the high-stakes tests administered by the state but much smaller relative improvement on a lower-stakes, nationally norm-referenced test. They contended that improvements by low-performing schools "were more due to the stigma of receiving the low grade rather than the threat of vouchers," although the relative weighting seems difficult to estimate. Whatever the weighting of the psychological reasons, there is agreement about the program as a whole having a positive effect on public school performance.

Not all research has found a positive effect of vouchers on public schools. An evaluation of Washington, DC's, public voucher program after one year showed no significant effect on public school achievement.25 The evaluators proposed several reasons: the program had no adverse effects on the traditional public school budgets, which may have reduced the incentive to respond to the compet.i.tive voucher threat; a year may have been too little time to reveal effects; and the small number of voucher students may have been insufficient to produce systemwide effects in a large city. The evaluators proposed several reasons: the program had no adverse effects on the traditional public school budgets, which may have reduced the incentive to respond to the compet.i.tive voucher threat; a year may have been too little time to reveal effects; and the small number of voucher students may have been insufficient to produce systemwide effects in a large city.

In conclusion, substantial evidence shows that public and private voucher programs, and the threat of publicly funded vouchers, have positive effects on public school achievement levels. Fear that vouchers would siphon away good students and needed funding is not confirmed by the limited experience to date. Compet.i.tion and choice create benefits beyond those enjoyed by the students who partic.i.p.ate directly in voucher programs.

Effects of Education Vouchers on Special Needs Students Special needs students are categorized as having one or more physical and mental disabilities such as deafness, mental r.e.t.a.r.dation, specific learning disabilities, or "behavioral disorders" (disruptive and uncontrollable behavior). In any given traditional public school, only one or a few students may be in a given category, so school staff may have difficulty providing the specialized equipment and services best for each category of students. For this reason, some states and districts have provided specialized schools for categories of students such as the blind and the partially sighted. School officials have allocated as much as four times the cost of educating a nondisabled student to special needs students' education, and some students are transported out of state for special services.

On average, special education students perform relatively poorly in school but not necessarily as poorly in adult life. Specialized schools may devote themselves to a special need such as blindness, but some parents prefer that their children be "mainstreamed," that is, placed in cla.s.ses with nondisabled students-the situation they are likely to face as adults. Parents and experts differ in their views on both diagnosis and educational treatment, and the field is subject to much controversy and litigation.

Only one special needs voucher program has been evaluated, Florida's McKay Scholarship Program. Fortunately, it is large in scale and available statewide, and evaluators have compared voucher parents' opinions about their children's experiences with those of parents whose children attend nonchosen public schools.

McKay parents may choose schools that best meet their preferences for their children. This Florida program enrolls about 9,200 students with special learning needs in private schools chosen by their parents. The amount of their scholarship or voucher is equal to the tuition of the receiving school or the amount the state and district allocate to educate a student with the particular disability, whichever is lower. The scholarships range from $4,500 to $21,000 per student, with an average of $5,547.

Surveys a.n.a.lyzed by Greene and Forster26 showed that more than 90 percent of McKay voucher parents were satisfied with the schools they chose, compared to one-third of parents of special needs students in nonchosen schools. Voucher parents also reported that their children endured less hara.s.sment and fewer physical attacks than did parents of similar children attending nonchosen public schools. In public schools, nearly half (46.8 percent) of the students with special needs were hara.s.sed regularly, and nearly one-fourth (24.7 percent) suffered physical a.s.saults. Only 5.3 percent of McKay voucher parents reported that their children were being hara.s.sed on a regular basis, and only 6.0 percent reported a physical a.s.sault. showed that more than 90 percent of McKay voucher parents were satisfied with the schools they chose, compared to one-third of parents of special needs students in nonchosen schools. Voucher parents also reported that their children endured less hara.s.sment and fewer physical attacks than did parents of similar children attending nonchosen public schools. In public schools, nearly half (46.8 percent) of the students with special needs were hara.s.sed regularly, and nearly one-fourth (24.7 percent) suffered physical a.s.saults. Only 5.3 percent of McKay voucher parents reported that their children were being hara.s.sed on a regular basis, and only 6.0 percent reported a physical a.s.sault.

The difference in students' behavioral problems was also striking. Only 18.8 percent of parents reported that their children exhibited behavior problems in their chosen schools in the McKay program, compared to 40.3 percent of parents reporting such behavior by their children in traditional public schools.

Effects of Education Vouchers on Racial Integration Many American public schools have historically been and still are racially segregated, with school racial concentrations often higher than 90 percent. Since the U.S. Supreme Court's 1954 ruling in Brown v. Board of Education Brown v. Board of Education, federal courts have distinguished de facto segregation attributable to housing patterns from de jure de jure segregation attributable to unconst.i.tutional government acts, usually by state and local public school boards and staff. Many states and hundreds of northern, southern, and western public school districts, particularly in large cities, remain under federal court supervision as adjudicated const.i.tutional violators. The Dallas public school system was only recently declared unitary (i.e., in compliance with the law against dual systems). segregation attributable to unconst.i.tutional government acts, usually by state and local public school boards and staff. Many states and hundreds of northern, southern, and western public school districts, particularly in large cities, remain under federal court supervision as adjudicated const.i.tutional violators. The Dallas public school system was only recently declared unitary (i.e., in compliance with the law against dual systems).

Subsequent to Brown, Brown, federal courts ordered mandatory bussing to achieve racial integration. This generally meant that African-American students were bussed, sometimes long distances, to schools in white neighborhoods and, to a lesser extent, vice versa. Since parents typically wanted their children to go to neighborhood schools close to home, middle-cla.s.s African Americans and whites often moved to the suburbs or enrolled their children in private schools to avoid bussing, thereby concentrating the poor in city systems. Since whites are, on average, wealthier and therefore more mobile, they moved in greater numbers, which made many urban public schools even more de facto segregated. federal courts ordered mandatory bussing to achieve racial integration. This generally meant that African-American students were bussed, sometimes long distances, to schools in white neighborhoods and, to a lesser extent, vice versa. Since parents typically wanted their children to go to neighborhood schools close to home, middle-cla.s.s African Americans and whites often moved to the suburbs or enrolled their children in private schools to avoid bussing, thereby concentrating the poor in city systems. Since whites are, on average, wealthier and therefore more mobile, they moved in greater numbers, which made many urban public schools even more de facto segregated.27 Just as charter schools enable families to send their children to schools outside their neighborhoods, vouchers make it far easier for poor and black families to send their children to private schools, if they so choose. Jay Greene and Marcus Winters's evaluation of the first year of the Washington, DC, voucher program28 showed that voucher students, 94 percent of whom are black, attended private schools that are more racially integrated than Washington public schools. The evaluators point out that neither public nor partic.i.p.ating private schools in Washington are racially integrated in proportion to the city's population, but the voucher program did help create more opportunities for integration than would have otherwise existed. showed that voucher students, 94 percent of whom are black, attended private schools that are more racially integrated than Washington public schools. The evaluators point out that neither public nor partic.i.p.ating private schools in Washington are racially integrated in proportion to the city's population, but the voucher program did help create more opportunities for integration than would have otherwise existed.

Vouchers with higher dollar values offer students greater opportunity to attend less-segregated, more costly private schools. In 1999-2000, the average elementary school tuition in the United States was $3,267-$2,451 at Catholic schools, $3,503 at other religiously affiliated schools, and $7,884 at nonsectarian private schools.29 The Washington voucher program provides up to $7,500 for students to transfer to private schools, which may contribute to its positive effects on racial segregation, compared with other programs offering smaller amounts that do not cover private school tuition and expenses. The Washington voucher program provides up to $7,500 for students to transfer to private schools, which may contribute to its positive effects on racial segregation, compared with other programs offering smaller amounts that do not cover private school tuition and expenses.

Research on Cleveland's voucher program similarly indicates greater racial integration of voucher users. The Cleveland Scholarship Program began in the 1996-97 school year and provides up to $2,250 per student to attend 1 of 51 private schools. Greene30 found that nearly a fifth (19 percent) of voucher students attended a racially integrated school (within 10 percent of the average proportion of minorities in metropolitan Cleveland) compared with only 5.2 percent of Cleveland public school students. Greene's research also showed "61 percent of public school students in the metropolitan area attended schools that were racially segregated (where more than 90 percent of students were of the same background) compared to 50 percent of the students attending private schools with voucher students." found that nearly a fifth (19 percent) of voucher students attended a racially integrated school (within 10 percent of the average proportion of minorities in metropolitan Cleveland) compared with only 5.2 percent of Cleveland public school students. Greene's research also showed "61 percent of public school students in the metropolitan area attended schools that were racially segregated (where more than 90 percent of students were of the same background) compared to 50 percent of the students attending private schools with voucher students."31 Religious schools were initially ineligible to partic.i.p.ate in Milwaukee's voucher program. That prohibition was subsequently lifted, and an evaluation of the program showed that Milwaukee's voucher-accepting religious schools are better integrated than the city's public schools.32 In 1990-91, 341 students used vouchers to attend 7 schools, and by 2001-02, 10,882 students used vouchers to attend 106 different schools. In 1990-91, 341 students used vouchers to attend 7 schools, and by 2001-02, 10,882 students used vouchers to attend 106 different schools.33 While 54.4 percent of Milwaukee public school students attended racially isolated schools in 2001-02, only 41.8 percent attended similarly racially isolated private religious schools in the voucher program. While 54.4 percent of Milwaukee public school students attended racially isolated schools in 2001-02, only 41.8 percent attended similarly racially isolated private religious schools in the voucher program.34 The program allowed some students who would otherwise have been racially isolated to attend less-segregated private religious schools. In late 2006 Gregg Forster reviewed seven valid research studies of voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington, DC, and concluded that each one showed that voucher-partic.i.p.ating private schools were less racially segregated than public schools. The program allowed some students who would otherwise have been racially isolated to attend less-segregated private religious schools. In late 2006 Gregg Forster reviewed seven valid research studies of voucher programs in Milwaukee, Cleveland, and Washington, DC, and concluded that each one showed that voucher-partic.i.p.ating private schools were less racially segregated than public schools.35 Parent Satisfaction Studies of private scholarship programs in New York; Dayton, Ohio; and Washington, DC, find high degrees of satisfaction among voucher parents. According to a comprehensive Government Accountability Office review: In all three cities in each year for which data are available, parents of voucher users were more likely than parents of control group students to give their child's school an "A" on an A to F scale. These findings held true for all parents of voucher users, not only for African Americans. In all three cities in each year for which data are available, parents of voucher users were more likely than parents of control group students to give their child's school an "A" on an A to F scale. These findings held true for all parents of voucher users, not only for African Americans.36 In all three cities, "parents of voucher users were more likely than the parents of control group students to report they were 'very satisfied' with school safety, teaching, and school curricula."37 In all three years in New York, and in the second year in Dayton, parents of voucher users were more likely to report being very satisfied with the academic quality of their child's school than were the parents of students who did not use vouchers. In all three years in New York, and in the second year in Dayton, parents of voucher users were more likely to report being very satisfied with the academic quality of their child's school than were the parents of students who did not use vouchers.

Voucher parents expressed greater satisfaction with their school's discipline, compared to parents who did not use a voucher, for all three years of the New York study and for the first year of the Dayton and Washington studies. a.n.a.lysts of these results considered the estimates based on the New York study the most reliable because that study had the fewest problems with partic.i.p.ants not returning for follow-up and families declining voucher offers.38 Parents who choose the schools their children attend report being satisfied with their choices, but are they making wise decisions? Survey data indicate that parents commonly choose schools for academic quality rather than other reasons such as convenience or sports opportunities. In a free society, of course, they should have the right to choose what they think is best for their children.

John Witte's a.n.a.lysis of America's first public voucher program showed that 88.6 percent of the Milwaukee voucher parents ranked the "educational quality in chosen school" very important. Similarly, 85.7 percent of partic.i.p.ating parents said "teaching approach or style" was very important.39 More than 80 percent of partic.i.p.ants in the Milwaukee, San Antonio, and Indianapolis voucher programs said academic quality was their most important reason for choosing their children's schools. More than 80 percent of partic.i.p.ants in the Milwaukee, San Antonio, and Indianapolis voucher programs said academic quality was their most important reason for choosing their children's schools.40 The data show that parents who partic.i.p.ate in education voucher programs are more satisfied with the results than are parents whose children must attend schools a.s.signed to them by administrators or by their place of residence. The data show that parents who partic.i.p.ate in education voucher programs are more satisfied with the results than are parents whose children must attend schools a.s.signed to them by administrators or by their place of residence.

The research discussed so far suggests that voucher programs yield results at least as good as those of traditional public schools, that they work particularly well for African-American students, and that in no case have any categories of students fared worse under voucher programs than under the status quo. Voucher programs also benefit traditional public schools and are popular with parents, who ultimately are the consumers of educational services and, as taxpayers, are usually footing part of the bill.

Effects of Education Vouchers in Other Countries Less research evidence is available on the modest U.S. voucher efforts than policymakers might wish to see before undertaking the major changes that extensive voucher programs would require. To gain a better understanding of the effects of large-scale programs, the next section turns to countries in Northern and Eastern Europe and Latin America where voucher programs have been operating for anywhere between one and nine decades, some on an extensive national scale.

Sweden In 1993 the Swedish government required all local education authorities to fund schools of choice at a per student expenditure level of 85 percent of the per student cost of traditional public schools. As a result, Sweden's families did not have to pay tuition at most private schools and acquired new educational opportunities provided by schools abiding by a new open-admission policy under which schools accepted students of varying ability, ethnicity, and socioeconomic level.

Sweden formed a national agency responsible for approving new independent schools. Swedish students are able to chose any public or partic.i.p.ating private school, including those governed and operated by for-profit firms. This newly created nationwide educational marketplace-though limited by price controls, an official curriculum, and other government regulations-led to increased compet.i.tiveness, improved student achievement, and greater parental satisfaction with children's schools.41 New voucher schools were established in a broad cross section of neighborhoods, including high-income areas as well as locales serving predominately working-cla.s.s and immigrant populations. In terms of scale, the number of independent schools saw a fivefold increase, and private-sector student enrollment increased fourfold. Contrary to antic.i.p.ated fears, neither economic segregation nor isolation of special needs students materialized.

Netherlands The Dutch voucher system began in 1917, and the private education sector now enrolls 76 percent of all primary and secondary students.42 Religious foundations (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim) run most private schools, though some are nondenominational schools or schools with special pedagogical approaches. State funding covers capital costs, and the local munic.i.p.ality covers operating expenses for private voucher schools. The Netherlands does not allow voucher-accepting private schools to be operated for profit. Religious foundations (Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, and Muslim) run most private schools, though some are nondenominational schools or schools with special pedagogical approaches. State funding covers capital costs, and the local munic.i.p.ality covers operating expenses for private voucher schools. The Netherlands does not allow voucher-accepting private schools to be operated for profit.

Government regulations hold schools accountable to a standard curriculum, a certain number of teaching hours, information reporting, and a.s.sessment methods. Belfield and Levin report, "Evaluations of the education system in the Netherlands show positive reports both for freedom of choice and academic effectiveness, and without any dramatic inequities or apparent loss in social cohesion." 43 43 Parents report high satisfaction in finding schools to meet their children's needs, and the Netherlands performs well in international test score comparisons. Catholic schools in the Netherlands demonstrate better academic gains than do public schools, and yet religious differences among schools do not incite social divisiveness. Parents report high satisfaction in finding schools to meet their children's needs, and the Netherlands performs well in international test score comparisons. Catholic schools in the Netherlands demonstrate better academic gains than do public schools, and yet religious differences among schools do not incite social divisiveness. 44 44 Czech Republic The Czech Republic introduced voucher programs after the fall of communism, which spurred the creation of private schools in areas of pent-up demand and poor-quality government-run schools. In the 1990s the Czech Republic expanded educational choice by funding private schools with a "two-part tariff," that is, 50 percent of the total support for a state school is automatically given to a private school, and state officials determine an additional amount such that total funding does not exceed 90 percent of what is received by a state school. Given this small disparity between public funding levels for private and public schools, private schools introduced additional fees for supplemental education services, which may limit access to low-income students with greater educational needs.

According to Belfield and Levin: "Even as the number of private schools grew from zero to over 440 within a decade, the absorption of students into these schools was correspondingly high: most private schools are smaller than public schools."45 Since the new school choice policies increased options in low-income areas, which tend to have the worst-performing schools, low-income families have the widest range of choice and benefit from increased privatization in the Czech Republic. Since the new school choice policies increased options in low-income areas, which tend to have the worst-performing schools, low-income families have the widest range of choice and benefit from increased privatization in the Czech Republic.

Chile In 1982 Chile introduced a universal voucher program that decentralized education governance to local munic.i.p.alities.46 Enrollment-driven subsidies were given to public and private schools that elected to partic.i.p.ate. All students could choose to enroll at either type of school. Under this policy, private school enrollments increased as both religious and independent for-profit private schools proliferated. Enrollment-driven subsidies were given to public and private schools that elected to partic.i.p.ate. All students could choose to enroll at either type of school. Under this policy, private school enrollments increased as both religious and independent for-profit private schools proliferated.

Some early test score comparisons showed that students attending for-profit voucher schools performed similarly to students in public schools, while Catholic school students performed slightly better. Students in elite private schools that did not partic.i.p.ate in the voucher program scored the highest in test score comparisons.47 The students, however, may have been different from one another in ways not considered by these early studies, which makes their results questionable. The students, however, may have been different from one another in ways not considered by these early studies, which makes their results questionable.

Claudio Sapelli found in later research that, after controlling for budget differences and for socioeconomic characteristics of students and their peers, students in private subsidized (that is, voucher) schools outperformed those in public schools.48 Sapelli, moreover, pointed out that public schools that saw an exodus of students to the private sector are not closed; rather, they receive extra funding from munic.i.p.al governments to ensure that teachers' salaries can still be paid. This extra funding was not offered to private schools. Hence, he explains: "[P]ublic schools do not have to choose between supplying an education that attracts enough students to allow the school to pay its wage bill and laying off staff. The choice those schools actually face is whether public school teachers are to be paid to teach large or small cla.s.ses." Sapelli, moreover, pointed out that public schools that saw an exodus of students to the private sector are not closed; rather, they receive extra funding from munic.i.p.al governments to ensure that teachers' salaries can still be paid. This extra funding was not offered to private schools. Hence, he explains: "[P]ublic schools do not have to choose between supplying an education that attracts enough students to allow the school to pay its wage bill and laying off staff. The choice those schools actually face is whether public school teachers are to be paid to teach large or small cla.s.ses."49 Subsidized public schools also received extra funding to educate poorer students, which put private schools at a compet.i.tive disadvantage in their efforts to serve such students. Subsidized public schools also received extra funding to educate poorer students, which put private schools at a compet.i.tive disadvantage in their efforts to serve such students.

As Andrew Coulson has pointed out, test score a.n.a.lyses by Francisco Gallego show that both public and private voucher schools have been closing the gap with elite nonvoucher private schools.50 Market forces, in other words, may be the tide that indeed lifts all boats-and this result was achieved even though unsubsidized Chilean private schools could set their own admissions policies, just as such schools can in the United States. Market forces, in other words, may be the tide that indeed lifts all boats-and this result was achieved even though unsubsidized Chilean private schools could set their own admissions policies, just as such schools can in the United States.

Colombia Beginning in 1991, more than 125,000 students in Colombia received vouchers covering about half the cost of private schooling. The Programa de Ampliacion de Cobertura de la Education Secundaria offers families residing in low-income communities with children in the public schools the option of using a voucher at a nonprofit school.

In a randomized field experiment, evaluators found that vouchers considerably increased the probability of a student receiving a private school scholarship (though only half of the private schools accepted vouchers).51 Voucher recipients remained in school for a slightly longer length of time, and fewer of them repeated a grade, as a result of choosing a school that met their satisfaction. Three years after the program began, and controlling for other factors, voucher students scored higher than other students, the equivalent of attaining an extra year of schooling. Voucher recipients remained in school for a slightly longer length of time, and fewer of them repeated a grade, as a result of choosing a school that met their satisfaction. Three years after the program began, and controlling for other factors, voucher students scored higher than other students, the equivalent of attaining an extra year of schooling.52 Conclusion Considering the research reviewed in this chapter as a whole, it may be concluded that public and private education vouchers almost certainly have positive effects on academic achievement by students attending both chosen and nonchosen schools. Claims that vouchers would disadvantage poor and minority children or children with special educational needs, or lead to greater segregation, are unsupported by the research on existing voucher programs.

Studies show that voucher parents choose schools mainly for academic reasons and that they are generally much more satisfied with their schools' services than are public school parents. Parents also report that voucher schools are safer, more secure environments for their children. Voucher programs in the United States may be too small to provide definitive evidence that universal vouchers would produce the positive outcomes predicted by advocates, but large-scale foreign voucher programs demonstrate considerable success despite the extensive government regulation to which they are subjected.

Appendix: Features of Voucher Programs in Various Nations A growing body of international research on school voucher programs uncovers significant gains in parent satisfaction, student achievement, and school diversity. With dramatic increases in governmental funding for private schools, families benefit from the widening selection of schools and indicate greater satisfaction with the schools they choose. Student achievement is at least as good, and usually better, in private voucher schools. This research literature also indicates that universal voucher programs do not create social divisiveness. With public funding for schools of choice regardless of family income, student performance increases overall (see Table 3-A1 Table 3-A1).

Table 3-A1 FEATURES OF VOUCHER PROGRAMS.

Sources : David Salisbury and James Tooley,eds. what America Can Learn From School Choic in Other Country what America Can Learn From School Choic in Other Country(Washington: Cato Inst.i.tute,2005 ) and Clive R. Belfield and Henry M.Levin, Education Privatization : Causes , Consequences, and Planning Implications Education Privatization : Causes , Consequences, and Planning Implications (Paris UNESCO/International Inst.i.tute for Educational Planning , 2002). (Paris UNESCO/International Inst.i.tute for Educational Planning , 2002).

4. Private School Effects

Private schools in the United States and in other countries offer another opportunity to measure the effects of school choice. Before the spread of charter schools and voucher programs, comparisons of public and private schools were the most common source of data invoked in debates about school choice. Such comparisons are still instructive. While controlling for parental motivation and other confounding factors is challenging, the number of students attending private schools around the country is typically much larger than the number of students attending charter schools or partic.i.p.ating in voucher programs, and students usually remain enrolled for longer periods, which allows any effects to become more clear. Parent-funded private schools are also less regulated than charter schools and schools partic.i.p.ating in voucher programs, which allows for a sharper comparison of chosen and unchosen schools.

This chapter reviews research on the effects of private schools on academic achievement, efficiency, racial integration, parental satisfaction, and civic engagement by students. Also included is a review of international data, which can be revealing because the share of students in private schools and the possibility of measuring choice effects are often greater in other countries than in the United States.

Private Schools in the United States For two centuries, private schools were the dominant form of American K-12 schooling. From the founding of the first colonies through the middle of the 19th century, most schools, many of them with only one room for all grades, were privately owned, privately managed, and funded by tuition and government subsidies from tiny units of local government.1 Curricula, instruction, and tests emphasized English literacy, mathematics, history, and science. Most historians agree that by 1840 the northern states had the highest literacy rate in the world-about 90 percent-unlike today's poor showing of the United States among industrialized countries, described in Chapter 1. Curricula, instruction, and tests emphasized English literacy, mathematics, history, and science. Most historians agree that by 1840 the northern states had the highest literacy rate in the world-about 90 percent-unlike today's poor showing of the United States among industrialized countries, described in Chapter 1.2

Table 4-1 PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2004 PRIVATE SCHOOL ENROLLMENT IN THE UNITED STATES IN 2004 SOURCE: National Center for Education Statistics, The Condition of Education 2006 The Condition of Education 2006, pp. 112, 134, http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/2006/pdf/04/2006.pdf.

School Characteristic Number (in thousands) Percentage Roman Catholic 2,365 2,365.

46.2 46.2.

Other religious 1,836 1,836.

35.8 35.8.

Independent 922 922.

18.0 18.0.

Total 5,123 5,123.

100.0 100.0.

Despite such early success, local governments around 1850 began placing restrictions on private schools, reducing aid to them, and founding government-owned and government-operated schools. Prominent advocates of government schooling, including Horace Mann in Ma.s.sachusetts and Henry Barnard in Connecticut, successfully argued for tuition-free government-operated schools for all children. Compulsory school attendance laws were introduced in 1852, and by 1918 all states had pa.s.sed laws requiring children to attend at least elementary school.

Catholics and other religious groups opposed what they saw as Protestant favoritism in government schools and created their own private sectarian schools. In 1925 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in Pierce v. Society of Sisters Pierce v. Society of Sisters that states could not compel children to attend public schools, ensuring a continued place for sectarian schools in the United States. that states could not compel children to attend public schools, ensuring a continued place for sectarian schools in the United States.

Today, private schools account for about 11 percent of total K-12 enrollment in the United States. Nearly half of all private schools are Catholic (see Table 4-1 Table 4-1). About a third are operated by other religious groups, and the remainder are secular (that is, independent of religious groups).

Although the performance of private schools provides some insight into what an extensive school choice program might look like, today's private schools operate in a distorted marketplace that often reduces real compet.i.tion. As economist John Wenders writes: [P]rivate schools have been forced into a niche market that operates under the inferior quality umbrella held up by the public schools. While private schools must be more market oriented, and leaner, than their public counterparts, they are also protected in their niches by the inferior quality public school umbrella under which they serve. Faced with a clumsy, bureaucratic monopolist as a compet.i.tor, the private schools may not be anywhere near as efficient as their reliance on parental choice would suggest. [P]rivate schools have been forced into a niche market that operates under the inferior quality umbrella held up by the public schools. While private schools must be more market oriented, and leaner, than their public counterparts, they are also protected in their niches by the inferior quality public school umbrella under which they serve. Faced with a clumsy, bureaucratic monopolist as a compet.i.tor, the private schools may not be anywhere near as efficient as their reliance on parental choice would suggest.3 Thus, if private schools themselves were subject to greater compet.i.tion, they might be expected to respond with substantially greater effectiveness, efficiency, and consumer satisfaction. Were sizable numbers for-profit, they might be expected to respond more quickly and more fully, and such schools might further be expected to stimulate other schools to improve substantially.

Private Schools and Elite University Attendance If compet.i.tion and choice work well in education, and if the absence of the profit motive does not excessively undermine their benefits, then students attending private schools ought to have higher achievement levels than similarly prepared students attending government schools. Achievement comparisons have been a source of controversy since the seminal and provocative 1981 study of Catholic schools by James Coleman.4 Like his successors, Coleman investigated Catholic schools because they are numerous and relatively h.o.m.ogeneous. Before turning to this research, consider the general comparison of public and private schools. Like his successors, Coleman investigated Catholic schools because they are numerous and relatively h.o.m.ogeneous. Before turning to this research, consider the general comparison of public and private schools.

The data clearly show that students attending private schools score higher on standardized tests and graduate and enter college at higher rates than students attending public schools.5 For example, private schools have outstanding records for their graduates gaining admission to elite public and private universities. A 2006 survey For example, private schools have outstanding records for their graduates gaining admission to elite public and private universities. A 2006 survey6 of elite public and private college and university admissions offices reveals that in 2005, on average, 41 percent of the freshman enrollees attended private K-12 schools (see of elite public and private college and university admissions offices reveals that in 2005, on average, 41 percent of the freshman enrollees attended private K-12 schools (see Table 4-2 Table 4-2). Since the enrollment in private schools in the United States is only about 11 percent of all U.S. K-12 students, private school students are four times as likely as public school students to gain admission to elite private colleges and universities. Even if private schools did not yield superior achievement and achievement gains, it seems likely that many parents would like to have their children exposed to peer groups bound for such prestigious inst.i.tutions.

Table 4-2 ENROLLMENTS OF PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ELITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES ENROLLMENTS OF PRIVATE HIGH SCHOOL STUDENTS IN ELITE COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITIES SOURCE: "Enrollments of Private High School Students in Elite Colleges and Universities," Wall Street Journal, Wall Street Journal, September 15, 2006, p. W10. September 15, 2006, p. W10.

College or University Percent of Private School Students among Enrolled Freshmen Amherst College 40 40.

Bowdoin College 46 46.

Brown University 42 42.

Cornell University 23 23.

Dartmouth College 38 38.

Duke University 37 37.

Georgetown University 49 49.

Middlebury College 48 48.

Ma.s.sachusetts Inst.i.tute of Technology 22 22.

Pomona College 35 35.

Princeton University 40 40.

Stanford University 30 30.

Swarthmore College 35 35.

University of California, Berkeley 86 86.

University of Chicago 33 33.

University of Pennsylvania 48 48.

Yale University 46 46.