Private School Choice Programs Should and Will Continue to Expand

IF 2.8 3区 管理学 Q2 ECONOMICS
Patrick J. Wolf
{"title":"Private School Choice Programs Should and Will Continue to Expand","authors":"Patrick J. Wolf","doi":"10.1002/pam.70068","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Douglas Harris has written a cogent essay arguing that universal voucher and ESA programs are undesirable because public charter schools are better. While I disagree with Harris on several key points, I begin by emphasizing our areas of agreement.</p><p>We agree that public charter schools have a strong record of improving academic outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students. We agree that accountability tests sometimes fail to align with the curriculum taught to students, complicating comparisons between groups across time and school sectors. We agree that the ability of private schools to teach religion gives them an advantage relative to secular public schools. We agree that “public accountability is about more than just test scores. It is about ensuring that schools instill common language, values like tolerance, and belief in democracy” (Harris <span>2025</span>). We agree that expanding private school choice programs in the form of vouchers and ESAs increases freedom, axiomatically.</p><p>We agree that Levin's four-criterion evaluation scheme is useful for assessing the desirability of expanding private school choice. We tend to disagree on the evidence that is most relevant to the application of Levin's criteria, and how to characterize and interpret that evidence.</p><p>Harris claims that statewide voucher programs in Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio provide the best evidence regarding the likely effects of universal private school choice programs. Florida certainly is highly relevant, as it serves over half a million choice students, recently converted its voucher programs to ESAs, and is a model for many states, given its 28 years of experience publicly funding private schooling. The experiences of Indiana and Ohio are less instructive than those of Florida, since the Hoosier and Buckeye states are two of only three states with universal school voucher programs, the other being North Carolina. A total of 14 states combine universal eligibility with the more flexible ESA policy model, with Arizona the earliest adopter of that now popular approach.</p><p>The least relevant program for forecasting the future effects of universal ESAs is the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The LSP was a highly regulated school voucher program limited to low-income students. It was repealed and replaced with the Louisiana GATOR universal ESA program in 2025. The LSP taught policymakers how not to design and implement a private school choice program (Wolf <span>2019</span>). They have taken those lessons to heart, rendering the disappointing participant effects from my team's evaluation of the LSP the least informative findings for predicting the outcomes of current and future private school choice programs.</p><p>Since no private school choice program designed like the universal ESAs proliferating across the country has been rigorously evaluated, I draw the evidence for my assessment from all the voucher and ESA evaluations, via meta-analyses and systematic reviews, with a special focus on the model programs in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida, which best reflect the policies <i>du jour</i>.</p><p>I disagree with Harris about the proper counterfactual for assessing private school choice programs. Harris creates a false dichotomy when he states, “today's debate is really about whether we should continue to expand public school choice or expand religious and other private school choice” (Harris <span>2025</span>). Prominent commentators argue we should not expand either type of choice (Ravitch <span>2013</span>), we should expand public but not private forms (Osborne <span>2017</span>), we should expand private but not public forms (Kingsbury and Greene <span>2025</span>), or that we should expand school choice in all its forms (DeAngelis <span>2024</span>).</p><p>This policy debate is about whether to expand private school choice. The “main alternative” to private schooling and homeschooling is not public charter schools, as Harris claims. Charters enroll only 8% of all K–12 students. The main alternative to vouchers and ESAs is neighborhood public schools (NPS), which enroll 78% of all K–12 students. When random lotteries are held to award private school vouchers, most students who lose those lotteries subsequently attend NPS, not charter schools, even in cities like the District of Columbia with large charter sectors (Wolf et al. <span>2007</span>).</p><p>There is no evidence that universal private school choice programs threaten public charter schools. Growth in charter school enrollments stalled in the years preceding the pandemic, but charters are expanding concurrently with the launch and expansion of private school choice programs. Private school choice appears to be catalyzing charter school growth, as all forms of school choice grow simultaneously.</p><p>I agree with Harris that public charter schools are an attractive school choice for many parents. Charters are not, however, a perfect substitute for private schools, as some parents desire that their child learn in a religious environment, and public charter schools are prohibited from teaching religion or incorporating religious activities into the school day.</p><p>History does not support Harris's claim that “secular teaching” and “non-discrimination” are “longstanding schooling traditions” in the United States. The Protestant version of Christianity was taught in public schools during the first 325 years of public schooling's existence in the United States and its antecedent, the American Colonies. Secular teaching represents a relatively recent break from the longstanding tradition of religious instruction and mandatory Bible reading in public schools, banned by the US Supreme Court in 1962. Sadly, discrimination is also a longstanding tradition of US public schools, most infamously by race in the Jim Crow South but more pervasively by residence, throughout the country, and up to the present day.</p><p>Harris argues that K12 education in the United States does not require “radical change.” Plenty of evidence indicates otherwise. Students have lost nearly a full grade level of learning since the pandemic, with the losses larger for disadvantaged students and showing little evidence of rebounding. Chronic absenteeism is more than twice as high now as it was pre-COVID. One out of every three students feels unsafe at school (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention <span>2024</span>). The United States is second only to Luxembourg in per-pupil spending (OECD <span>2024</span>). Nevertheless, US students scored between 12th and 22nd in achievement on the most recent international math and science tests, with comparatively large gaps between our high and low performers (U.S. Department of Education <span>2024</span>). A major course correction seems warranted.</p><p>Harris states, “While the evidence on this is limited, there are reasons for concern that vouchers will make us less socially cohesive” (Harris <span>2025</span>). School vouchers subsidize private schooling. There is a deep empirical literature on the differences between public and private schools regarding the tolerance, political participation, political knowledge and skills, and community engagement of their students and alumni. The findings from that research base favor private schools. Even if we focus only on the causal studies, private schools are at least as effective as public schools in preparing tolerant, active, informed, and engaged citizens. Private schools have advanced the public purposes of education for many decades and in various countries. I see no reason to think that will change if more students attend them with the support of public funding, especially since parents report that nurturing their child's civic values is an important reason why they send their child to a private school.</p><p>Like it or not, universal vouchers or ESAs are coming soon to a neighborhood near you, if they are not there already. The number of states with universal eligibility for private school choice subsidies soared from 0 to 17 in the past 3 years. Policymakers will continue to enact universal school choice programs because they are popular with voters. As these programs continue to grow and spread, we will garner more evidence of their effects, and the debate over their benefits and costs will continue.</p>","PeriodicalId":48105,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","volume":"45 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-10-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/pam.70068","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Policy Analysis and Management","FirstCategoryId":"91","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pam.70068","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"管理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"ECONOMICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Douglas Harris has written a cogent essay arguing that universal voucher and ESA programs are undesirable because public charter schools are better. While I disagree with Harris on several key points, I begin by emphasizing our areas of agreement.

We agree that public charter schools have a strong record of improving academic outcomes, especially for disadvantaged students. We agree that accountability tests sometimes fail to align with the curriculum taught to students, complicating comparisons between groups across time and school sectors. We agree that the ability of private schools to teach religion gives them an advantage relative to secular public schools. We agree that “public accountability is about more than just test scores. It is about ensuring that schools instill common language, values like tolerance, and belief in democracy” (Harris 2025). We agree that expanding private school choice programs in the form of vouchers and ESAs increases freedom, axiomatically.

We agree that Levin's four-criterion evaluation scheme is useful for assessing the desirability of expanding private school choice. We tend to disagree on the evidence that is most relevant to the application of Levin's criteria, and how to characterize and interpret that evidence.

Harris claims that statewide voucher programs in Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio provide the best evidence regarding the likely effects of universal private school choice programs. Florida certainly is highly relevant, as it serves over half a million choice students, recently converted its voucher programs to ESAs, and is a model for many states, given its 28 years of experience publicly funding private schooling. The experiences of Indiana and Ohio are less instructive than those of Florida, since the Hoosier and Buckeye states are two of only three states with universal school voucher programs, the other being North Carolina. A total of 14 states combine universal eligibility with the more flexible ESA policy model, with Arizona the earliest adopter of that now popular approach.

The least relevant program for forecasting the future effects of universal ESAs is the Louisiana Scholarship Program (LSP). The LSP was a highly regulated school voucher program limited to low-income students. It was repealed and replaced with the Louisiana GATOR universal ESA program in 2025. The LSP taught policymakers how not to design and implement a private school choice program (Wolf 2019). They have taken those lessons to heart, rendering the disappointing participant effects from my team's evaluation of the LSP the least informative findings for predicting the outcomes of current and future private school choice programs.

Since no private school choice program designed like the universal ESAs proliferating across the country has been rigorously evaluated, I draw the evidence for my assessment from all the voucher and ESA evaluations, via meta-analyses and systematic reviews, with a special focus on the model programs in Arizona, Arkansas, and Florida, which best reflect the policies du jour.

I disagree with Harris about the proper counterfactual for assessing private school choice programs. Harris creates a false dichotomy when he states, “today's debate is really about whether we should continue to expand public school choice or expand religious and other private school choice” (Harris 2025). Prominent commentators argue we should not expand either type of choice (Ravitch 2013), we should expand public but not private forms (Osborne 2017), we should expand private but not public forms (Kingsbury and Greene 2025), or that we should expand school choice in all its forms (DeAngelis 2024).

This policy debate is about whether to expand private school choice. The “main alternative” to private schooling and homeschooling is not public charter schools, as Harris claims. Charters enroll only 8% of all K–12 students. The main alternative to vouchers and ESAs is neighborhood public schools (NPS), which enroll 78% of all K–12 students. When random lotteries are held to award private school vouchers, most students who lose those lotteries subsequently attend NPS, not charter schools, even in cities like the District of Columbia with large charter sectors (Wolf et al. 2007).

There is no evidence that universal private school choice programs threaten public charter schools. Growth in charter school enrollments stalled in the years preceding the pandemic, but charters are expanding concurrently with the launch and expansion of private school choice programs. Private school choice appears to be catalyzing charter school growth, as all forms of school choice grow simultaneously.

I agree with Harris that public charter schools are an attractive school choice for many parents. Charters are not, however, a perfect substitute for private schools, as some parents desire that their child learn in a religious environment, and public charter schools are prohibited from teaching religion or incorporating religious activities into the school day.

History does not support Harris's claim that “secular teaching” and “non-discrimination” are “longstanding schooling traditions” in the United States. The Protestant version of Christianity was taught in public schools during the first 325 years of public schooling's existence in the United States and its antecedent, the American Colonies. Secular teaching represents a relatively recent break from the longstanding tradition of religious instruction and mandatory Bible reading in public schools, banned by the US Supreme Court in 1962. Sadly, discrimination is also a longstanding tradition of US public schools, most infamously by race in the Jim Crow South but more pervasively by residence, throughout the country, and up to the present day.

Harris argues that K12 education in the United States does not require “radical change.” Plenty of evidence indicates otherwise. Students have lost nearly a full grade level of learning since the pandemic, with the losses larger for disadvantaged students and showing little evidence of rebounding. Chronic absenteeism is more than twice as high now as it was pre-COVID. One out of every three students feels unsafe at school (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 2024). The United States is second only to Luxembourg in per-pupil spending (OECD 2024). Nevertheless, US students scored between 12th and 22nd in achievement on the most recent international math and science tests, with comparatively large gaps between our high and low performers (U.S. Department of Education 2024). A major course correction seems warranted.

Harris states, “While the evidence on this is limited, there are reasons for concern that vouchers will make us less socially cohesive” (Harris 2025). School vouchers subsidize private schooling. There is a deep empirical literature on the differences between public and private schools regarding the tolerance, political participation, political knowledge and skills, and community engagement of their students and alumni. The findings from that research base favor private schools. Even if we focus only on the causal studies, private schools are at least as effective as public schools in preparing tolerant, active, informed, and engaged citizens. Private schools have advanced the public purposes of education for many decades and in various countries. I see no reason to think that will change if more students attend them with the support of public funding, especially since parents report that nurturing their child's civic values is an important reason why they send their child to a private school.

Like it or not, universal vouchers or ESAs are coming soon to a neighborhood near you, if they are not there already. The number of states with universal eligibility for private school choice subsidies soared from 0 to 17 in the past 3 years. Policymakers will continue to enact universal school choice programs because they are popular with voters. As these programs continue to grow and spread, we will garner more evidence of their effects, and the debate over their benefits and costs will continue.

私立学校选择项目应该也将继续扩大
道格拉斯·哈里斯(Douglas Harris)写了一篇令人信服的文章,认为普遍的代金券和ESA计划是不可取的,因为公立特许学校更好。虽然我在几个关键点上与哈里斯意见不一致,但我首先强调一下我们的共识领域。我们同意,公立特许学校在提高学业成绩方面有着良好的记录,尤其是对弱势学生而言。我们同意,问责制测试有时与教授给学生的课程不一致,使不同时间和学校部门的群体之间的比较复杂化。我们同意,私立学校教授宗教的能力使它们相对于世俗公立学校具有优势。我们一致认为,“公共问责制不仅仅关乎考试成绩。它是关于确保学校灌输共同语言、宽容等价值观和民主信仰”(哈里斯2025)。我们一致认为,以教育券和教育储蓄计划的形式扩大私立学校的选择项目可以增加自由,这是不言自明的。我们同意莱文的四标准评估方案对于评估扩大私立学校选择的可取性是有用的。对于与莱文标准的应用最相关的证据,以及如何描述和解释这些证据,我们往往存在分歧。哈里斯声称,佛罗里达州、印第安纳州、路易斯安那州和俄亥俄州的全州教育券计划为普及私立学校选择计划可能产生的影响提供了最好的证据。佛罗里达州当然是高度相关的,因为它为50多万优等学生提供服务,最近将其代金券计划转变为教育储蓄计划,鉴于其28年的公共资助私立学校的经验,它是许多州的榜样。印第安纳州和俄亥俄州的经验不如佛罗里达州那么有教育意义,因为只有三个州实行了普及教育券计划,印第安纳州和七叶树州是其中两个,另一个是北卡罗来纳州。共有14个州将普遍资格与更灵活的ESA政策模式结合起来,亚利桑那州是最早采用这种现在流行的方法的州。预测通用esa未来影响的最不相关的计划是路易斯安那奖学金计划(LSP)。LSP是一个严格监管的学校券计划,仅限于低收入家庭的学生。该计划于2025年被废除,并被路易斯安那州GATOR通用ESA计划所取代。LSP教会了政策制定者如何不设计和实施私立学校选择计划(Wolf 2019)。他们把这些教训牢记于心,使我的团队对LSP的评估中令人失望的参与者效应成为预测当前和未来私立学校选择项目结果的最不具信息性的发现。由于没有一个私立学校选择项目像全国范围内普及的全民教育辅助教育项目那样被严格评估过,我通过荟萃分析和系统回顾,从所有代金券和教育辅助教育项目的评估中提取证据,特别关注亚利桑那州、阿肯色州和佛罗里达州的示范项目,这些项目最能反映当前的政策。我不同意哈里斯关于评估私立学校选择项目的正确反事实。当哈里斯说:“今天的辩论实际上是关于我们是否应该继续扩大公立学校的选择,还是扩大宗教和其他私立学校的选择”时,他制造了一个错误的二分法。著名评论家认为我们不应该扩大任何一种类型的选择(拉维奇2013),我们应该扩大公共而不是私人形式(奥斯本2017),我们应该扩大私人而不是公共形式(金斯伯里和格林2025),或者我们应该扩大所有形式的学校选择(DeAngelis 2024)。这场政策辩论是关于是否扩大私立学校的选择。正如哈里斯所说,私立学校和家庭教育的“主要替代方案”不是公立特许学校。特许学校只招收了所有K-12学生的8%。代金券和ESAs的主要替代方案是社区公立学校(NPS),它招收了所有K-12学生的78%。当随机抽奖来奖励私立学校券时,大多数失去这些彩票的学生随后进入NPS,而不是特许学校,即使在像哥伦比亚特区这样拥有大型特许学校的城市也是如此(Wolf et al. 2007)。没有证据表明普遍的私立学校选择计划会威胁到公立特许学校。在大流行之前的几年里,特许学校入学人数的增长停滞不前,但随着私立学校选择计划的启动和扩大,特许学校也在不断扩大。私立学校的选择似乎促进了特许学校的增长,因为所有形式的学校选择同时增长。我同意哈里斯的观点,公立特许学校对许多家长来说是一个有吸引力的学校选择。 然而,特许学校并不是私立学校的完美替代品,因为一些家长希望他们的孩子在宗教环境中学习,而公立特许学校被禁止教授宗教或将宗教活动纳入上学日。历史并不支持哈里斯关于“世俗教学”和“不歧视”是美国“长期存在的学校传统”的说法。在美国及其前身美国殖民地公立学校存在的前325年里,公立学校教授基督教的新教版本。世俗教学是相对近期的一种突破,打破了美国最高法院1962年禁止在公立学校进行宗教教学和强制读圣经的长期传统。可悲的是,歧视也是美国公立学校的一个长期传统,最臭名昭著的是在南方的种族歧视,但更普遍的是在全国各地,直到今天。哈里斯认为,美国的K12教育不需要“彻底改变”。大量证据表明并非如此。自大流行以来,学生们几乎失去了整整一个年级的学习水平,弱势学生的损失更大,而且几乎没有反弹的迹象。现在的慢性缺勤率是covid前的两倍多。三分之一的学生在学校感到不安全(美国疾病控制与预防中心,2024年)。美国的学生人均教育支出仅次于卢森堡(OECD 2024)。然而,在最近的国际数学和科学测试中,美国学生的成绩在12到22之间,我们的优等生和低等生之间的差距相对较大(美国教育部2024年)。一次重大的航向调整似乎是合理的。哈里斯说:“虽然这方面的证据有限,但有理由担心代金券会降低我们的社会凝聚力”(哈里斯2025)。学校券补贴私立学校。关于公立和私立学校在宽容、政治参与、政治知识和技能以及学生和校友的社区参与方面的差异,有深入的实证文献。该研究基地的调查结果有利于私立学校。即使我们只关注因果研究,私立学校在培养宽容、积极、知情和参与的公民方面至少与公立学校一样有效。几十年来,在许多国家,私立学校推动了公共教育的发展。如果有更多的学生在公共资金的支持下上私立学校,我认为没有理由认为这种情况会改变,尤其是因为家长们报告说,培养孩子的公民价值观是他们把孩子送到私立学校的一个重要原因。不管你喜不喜欢,如果你附近的社区还没有普及代金券或esa,那么它们很快就会到来。在过去的三年里,拥有普遍资格享受私立学校选择补贴的州从0个猛增到17个。政策制定者将继续推行全民择校计划,因为这些计划受到选民的欢迎。随着这些项目的不断发展和推广,我们将获得更多的证据来证明它们的效果,关于它们的收益和成本的辩论将继续下去。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
2.60%
发文量
82
期刊介绍: This journal encompasses issues and practices in policy analysis and public management. Listed among the contributors are economists, public managers, and operations researchers. Featured regularly are book reviews and a department devoted to discussing ideas and issues of importance to practitioners, researchers, and academics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书