I can't wait for more states to adopt school vouchers.
Vouchers don't improve student achievement (Stanford): https://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-st...
Students who received vouchers in Louisiana learned less than their peers: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Looks like that study wasn't peer-reviewed, and compared voucher students with those of the general population. A later study compared voucher students with those who applied for vouchers but didn't win the vouchers, and the bad effects largely disappeared: https://www.chalkbeat.org/2017/6/26/21107301/students-given-...
With school choice, bad schools are finally allowed to die and be replaced with good schools.
The Steve Jobs 95 Interview on Education - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-8JiOQOe6U&t=6s
I'm not here to defend the status quo, but reformers should carefully consider "how do we prevent turning American K12 into American higher ed."
I don't think it's been established that competitive incentives are driving the price through the roof. There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
Parents obviously want to minimize the amount they're paying out of pocket, and they'd like to keep some of the voucher money, so high-end schools as well as low-end schools are incentivized to keep their costs down.
It's true that many families will pay more to buy a house in a good school district, but I suspect that the school itself isn't the whole story: rather, many people interpret the school district's reputation as a proxy for the safety of the neighborhood and socio-economic status of its residents, as well as a proxy for their own socio-economic status.
Ulimately, I suspect that with the free market voucher system I described in my parent comment, legacy private schools would continue to charge outrageous tuition. But I think we'd also see some new, possibly virtual "bang for your buck" schools which would compete on price and which would be exclusive due to entrance exams and high academic expectations for enrolled students.
[1] https://www.edweek.org/leadership/education-statistics-facts...
This spherical cow is fully confirmed by the higher ed market /s.
I suppose the money for fancy facilities and armies of recruiting staff grew on a tree in the quad?
> There are other theories, e.g. that massive increases in subsidization via guaranteed loans and other mechanisms are driving the price from the demand-side.
As I stated,
>> When public funding is cut, it's replaced with debt
And, actually, that's the good outcome! The more realistic outcome is folks can't afford the price spiral and decide that Johnny doesn't need much more than a 6th grade education. Which I'm sure will bode well for our country.
Vouchers are a subsidy, are they not? This "other theory" leads to the same conclusion.
And also for health care delivery.
And for the reconstruction of Iraq after Desert Storm.
They vote with their vouchers for truly terrible schools. It siphons a tremendous amount of money from "traditional" public schools and delivers a hugely negative return.
It's a mistake, but it's a mistake we can't help but keep making because we're so determined to make everything function like a pseudo market.
Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math: https://www.theadvocate.com/baton_rouge/news/education/artic...
Not every hard-right ultra-religious parent has the means to homeschool their kid or to enroll them in private school. Vouchers really help lower that barrier.
So not worse, then.
> Students in Louisiana's voucher program showed a decline in scores, especially math:
Let's see...
> Any changes in the second year of reading were unclear.
Hmm.
> Past research on Louisiana’s school-voucher program came to a bleak conclusion: Students who used the program to transfer to a private school saw their test scores plummet.
> A new study complicates that narrative, finding some good—or at least, less bad—news about the closely watched program.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
> The research shows that, for students who received a voucher at the middle or end of elementary school, there were no statistically significant effects on their math or reading test scores by the third year in the program. That’s a boon for voucher advocates who have argued against judging a program by its initial impacts.
They deliberately cut the results off in the second year because the study was conducted by those whose livelihoods are threatened by vouchers.
What evidence is there that vouchers are helpful?
Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
> James also said that school choice has “not proven effective at improving education.” That is also highly misleading. Ten of the 16 random assignment evaluations on the topic find that private school choice programs increased math or reading test scores overall or for student subgroups at a fraction of the cost. Only two of the 16 random assignment studies, both of which examined the highly regulated Louisiana voucher program, found negative effects on test scores. And four of the six rigorous studies on the topic found that private school choice increased educational attainment overall or for student subgroups. None of the six studies found that school choice reduced educational attainment.
https://www.cato.org/commentary/setting-record-straight-scho...
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
Of course not everybody. Public school teachers and administrators will suffer tremendously should school choice be more widely adopted.
> Who benefits? (the answer here isn't "everybody")
In areas that have done charter schools, the result is that poor-performing school administrations/companies (in terms of standardized tests) lose their charter and effectively "close down." Better performing ones are allowed to replace them.
The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations. They're no longer forced to go to terrible schools that keep getting money thrown at them despite having deeply-rooted problems: problems that the school has no incentive to fix due to the way the current public schooling system works.
> The students benefit because they end up with better quality educations.
Citation needed. In fact, in many cases, students end up worse off.
https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257/aer.96.3.847
> The District of Columbia Opportunity Scholarship Program (OSP) has operated in the nation's capital since 2004, funded by a federal government appropriation. Because the program was oversubscribed in its early years of operation, and vouchers were awarded by lottery, we were able to use the “gold standard” evaluation method of a randomized experiment to determine what impacts the OSP had on student outcomes. Our analysis revealed compelling evidence that the DC voucher program had a positive impact on high school graduation rates, suggestive evidence that the program increased reading achievement, and no evidence that it affected math achievement.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/pam.21691
> We use the introduction of a means-tested voucher program in Florida to examine whether increased competitive pressure on public schools affects students' test scores. We find greater score improvements in the wake of the program introduction for students attending schools that faced more competitive private school markets prior to the policy announcement, especially those that faced the greatest financial incentives to retain students. These effects suggest modest benefits for public school students from increased competition. The effects are consistent across several geocoded measures of competition and isolate competitive effects from changes in student composition or resource levels in public schools.
1. The state has to remain in the school business as a back-up for schools that fail, kids who get kicked out, and regions that have insufficient capacity because it's not profitable to run schools there. The public schools need to provide excess capacity so the private ones can operate at capacity and take financial risks. As a result, the state bears the risk.
2. A fleet of SUV's hit the road at 6:00 AM every day to carry kids to the far flung schools that their parents managed to get them into.
3. A shortage of available capacity, turnover in administration and ownership of schools, statistical variance, and opaque metrics make it impossible for parents to actually make an informed choice based on the quality of schools. It will be a crap shoot.
Nope, people will probably figure out the "best schools" via their private social networks and cloistered communities, and find ways to pull up the ladders behind them.
Religious hospitals and medical clinics can do the same thing in rural areas.
#3 I think would solve itself. Wow is US News college rankings big business and important. And uppity New Yorkers seem to know quite well what the pecking order is in elite preschools (I'm facepalming that this is true)
Class paranoia is too strong. Something would serve it.
Vouchers would likely involve a lot of fraud, the charter school system already has. A shift to full vouchers would be an expensive cost, one that democrats won't get past republicans.
Also, it would remain to be seen if K-12 schools stay in business long enough to gain a reputation without becoming franchises of one or two giant nationwide corporations.
I think the problem is that, at least at the high school level, a school under 1000 kids starts to suffer in terms of services: not enough smart kids, not enough activity participants, not enough special needs for the special teacher. Perhaps "specialty" schools would help a bit ...
They'll only be used by rich people to avoid subsidizing public education.