IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/ecoedu/v28y2009i2p227-236.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Effects of school choice on the margin: The cream is already skimmed

Author

Listed:
  • Walsh, Patrick

Abstract

Critics of school choice argue that cream-skimming will worsen outcomes for those left behind in public schools. Since "high ability" families may have already sorted themselves out of the schools in question, this paper will examine whether existing within-school heterogeneity leaves any scope for cream-skimming to operate. It asks, "given the current level of within-school heterogeneity, how strong would peer effects have to be to significantly worsen outcomes for those left behind?" In order for cream-skimming to lower math test scores by one half-year's progress, the peer effect would have to be as strong as increasing class sizes by 8-20 students, or cutting per-student funding by $400-2000. These results indicate that current levels of within-school heterogeneity are so low that peer effects would have to be unrealistically strong to give cream-skimming any bite.

Suggested Citation

  • Walsh, Patrick, 2009. "Effects of school choice on the margin: The cream is already skimmed," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 227-236, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:ecoedu:v:28:y:2009:i:2:p:227-236
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0272-7757(08)00075-7
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lankford, Hamilton & Wyckoff, James, 2001. "Who Would Be Left Behind by Enhanced Private School Choice?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 50(2), pages 288-312, September.
    2. Adnett, Nick & Bougheas, Spiros & Davies, Peter, 2002. "Market-based reforms of public schooling: some unpleasant dynamics," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 323-330, August.
    3. Charles M. Tiebout, 1956. "A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 64(5), pages 416-416.
    4. Elizabeth M. Caucutt, 2002. "Educational Vouchers When There Are Peer Group Effects--Size Matters," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 43(1), pages 195-222, February.
    5. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Akyol, Metin, 2016. "Do educational vouchers reduce inequality and inefficiency in education?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 149-167.
    2. Paul Anand & Jere R. Behrman & Hai-Anh H. Dang & Sam Jones, 2018. "Inequality of opportunity in education: Accounting for the contributions of Sibs, schools and sorting across East Africa," Working Papers 480, ECINEQ, Society for the Study of Economic Inequality.
    3. Lefebvre, Pierre & Merrigan, Philip & Verstraete, Matthieu, 2011. "Public subsidies to private schools do make a difference for achievement in mathematics: Longitudinal evidence from Canada," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(1), pages 79-98, February.
    4. Schneider, Kerstin & Schuchart, Claudia & Weishaupt, Horst & Riedel, Andrea, 2012. "The effect of free primary school choice on ethnic groups — Evidence from a policy reform," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 430-444.
    5. Paul Anand & Jere R. Behrman & Hai‐Anh H. Dang & Sam Jones, 2019. "Does sorting matter for learning inequality?: Evidence from East Africa," WIDER Working Paper Series wp-2019-110, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    6. Lazaretti, Lauana Rossetto & Aniceto França, Marco Túlio, 2020. "School competition and performance indicators: evidence from the creation of federal education institutions in Brazil," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    7. Paul Anand & Jere R Behrman & Hai-Anh H Dang & Sam Jones, 2022. "Decomposing Learning Inequalities in East Africa: How Much Does Sorting Matter?," The World Bank Economic Review, World Bank, vol. 36(1), pages 219-243.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Sinan Sarpça & Kuzey Yılmaz & Eric Hanushek, 2007. "School Choice: Traditional Mechanisms and Extending the Poor's Ability to Choose," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 0709, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    2. Dennis N. Epple & Richard Romano, 2003. "Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 227-286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Hanushek Eric A & Sarpça Sinan & Yilmaz Kuzey, 2011. "Private Schools and Residential Choices: Accessibility, Mobility, and Welfare," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 11(1), pages 1-34, August.
    4. Fernández, Raquel, 2001. "Sorting, Education and Inequality," CEPR Discussion Papers 3020, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    5. Eric J. Brunner & Jennifer Imazeki, 2006. "Tiebout Choice and the Voucher," Working papers 2006-10, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
    6. Patrick Bayer & Fernando Ferreira & Robert McMillan, 2007. "A Unified Framework for Measuring Preferences for Schools and Neighborhoods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 115(4), pages 588-638, August.
    7. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    8. Eric A. Hanushek & Kuzey Yilmaz, 2007. "Schools and Location: Tiebout, Alonso, and Government Policy," NBER Working Papers 12960, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Chang-Tai Hsieh & Miguel Urquiola, 2002. "When Schools Compete, How Do They Compete? An Assessment of Chile's Nationwide School Voucher Program," Working Papers 123, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Center for Economic Policy Studies..
    10. Francisco Martínez Mora, 2004. "The impact of fiscal decentralization on income segregation," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2004/68, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    11. Helmuth Cremer & Dario Maldonado, 2013. "Mixed oligopoly in education," Documentos de Trabajo 10500, Universidad del Rosario.
    12. Verena Wondratschek & Karin Edmark & Markus Frolich, 2013. "The Short- and Long-term Effects of School Choice on Student Outcomes - Evidence from a School Choice Reform in Sweden," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 111-112, pages 71-101.
    13. Joseph G. Altonji & Ching-I Huang & Christopher R. Taber, 2015. "Estimating the Cream Skimming Effect of School Choice," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 123(2), pages 266-324.
    14. Francisco Martínez Mora, 2003. "Opting-out of Public Education in Urban Economies," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/52, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    15. Mary A. Burke & Tim R. Sass, 2013. "Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 51-82.
    16. Loumeau, Gabriel, 2023. "Locating Public Facilities: Theory and Micro Evidence from Paris," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 135(C).
    17. Patrick Bayer & Robert McMillan, 2005. "Choice and Competition in Local Education Markets," NBER Working Papers 11802, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Takashi Oshio & Shinpei Sano & Yuko Ueno & Kouichiro Mino, 2010. "Evaluations by parents of education reforms: evidence from a parent survey in Japan," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(2), pages 229-246.
    19. M J Mancebón & M A Muñiz, 2008. "Private versus public high schools in Spain: disentangling managerial and programme efficiencies," Journal of the Operational Research Society, Palgrave Macmillan;The OR Society, vol. 59(7), pages 892-901, July.
    20. Chakrabarti, Rajashri, 2008. "Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1371-1393, June.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    School choice Privatization;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:ecoedu:v:28:y:2009:i:2:p:227-236. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/econedurev .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.