IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/wly/jpamgt/v21y2002i2p191-217.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

School vouchers and academic performance: results from three randomized field trials

Author

Listed:
  • William G. Howell

    (Department of Political Science, University of Wisconsin-Madison)

  • Patrick J. Wolf

    (Georgetown University Public Policy Institute, Washington, DC)

  • David E. Campbell

    (Princeton University's Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Princeton University)

  • Paul E. Peterson

    (Program on Education Policy and Governance, J.F.K. School of Government, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA)

Abstract

This article examines the effects of school vouchers on student test scores in New York, New York, Dayton, Ohio, and Washington, DC. The evaluations in all three cities are designed as randomized field trials. The findings, therefore, are not confounded by the self-selection problems that pervade most observational data. After 2 years, African Americans who switched from public to private school gained, relative to their public-school peers, an average of 6.3 National Percentile Ranking points in the three cities on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills. The gains by city were 4.2 points in New York, 6.5 points in Dayton, and 9.2 points in Washington. Effects for African Americans are statistically significant in all three cities. In no city are statistically significant effects observed for other ethnic groups, after either 1 or 2 years. © 2002 by the Association for Policy Analysis and Management.

Suggested Citation

  • William G. Howell & Patrick J. Wolf & David E. Campbell & Paul E. Peterson, 2002. "School vouchers and academic performance: results from three randomized field trials," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 21(2), pages 191-217.
    • Handle: RePEc:wly:jpamgt:v:21:y:2002:i:2:p:191-217
    DOI: 10.1002/pam.10023
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1002/pam.10023
    File Function: Link to full text; subscription required
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1002/pam.10023?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Henry M. Levin, 1998. "Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 17(3), pages 373-392.
    2. Derek Neal, 1998. "What have we learned about the benefits of private schooling?," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 4(Mar), pages 79-86.
    3. King, Gary & Honaker, James & Joseph, Anne & Scheve, Kenneth, 2001. "Analyzing Incomplete Political Science Data: An Alternative Algorithm for Multiple Imputation," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 95(1), pages 49-69, 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. Jesse M. Rothstein, 2006. "Good Principals or Good Peers? Parental Valuation of School Characteristics, Tiebout Equilibrium, and the Incentive Effects of Competition among Jurisdictions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 1333-1350, September.
    2. Lovenheim, Michael F. & Walsh, Patrick, 2018. "Does choice increase information? Evidence from online school search behavior," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 91-103.
    3. Ludger Wößmann, 2006. "Bildungspolitische Lehren aus den internationalen Schülertests: Wettbewerb, Autonomie und externe Leistungsüberprüfung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(3), pages 417-444, August.
    4. Susan Dynarski & Jonathan Gruber & Danielle Li, 2009. "Cheaper By the Dozen: Using Sibling Discounts at Catholic Schools to Estimate the Price Elasticity of Private School Attendance," NBER Working Papers 15461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. Nancy E. Hill & Julia R. Jeffries & Kathleen P. Murray, 2017. "New Tools for Old Problems: Inequality and Educational Opportunity for Ethnic Minority Youth and Parents," The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, , vol. 674(1), pages 113-133, November.
    6. Lai, Fang & Sadoulet, Elisabeth & de Janvry, Alain, 2009. "The adverse effects of parents' school selection errors on academic achievement: Evidence from the Beijing open enrollment program," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 485-496, August.
    7. Erdmann, Melinda & Pietrzyk, Irena & Helbig, Marcel & Jacob, Marita & Stuth, Stefan, 2022. "Können intensive Beratungsprogramme soziale Ungleichheit beim Übergang in die Hochschule reduzieren? Ergebnisse eines Feldexperiments [Do Intensive Guidance Programs Reduce Social Inequality in the," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 48(1), pages 137-162.
    8. David M. Brasington & Diane Hite, 2014. "School Choice: Supporters And Opponents," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 32(1), pages 76-92, January.
    9. Lazaretti, Lauana Rossetto & França, Marco Túlio Aniceto, 2023. "Does admission type matter? An analysis of the performance of federal high school students in Brazil," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 897-912.
    10. Leanna Stiefel & Amy Ellen Schwartz & Ingrid Gould Ellen, 2007. "Disentangling the racial test score gap: Probing the evidence in a large urban school district," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 7-30.
    11. Philip J. Cook & Jens Ludwig, 2005. "Assigning Deviant Youths to Minimize Total Harm," NBER Working Papers 11390, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Robert Bifulco & Helen F. Ladd, 2007. "School choice, racial segregation, and test-score gaps: Evidence from North Carolina's charter school program*," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 26(1), pages 31-56.
    13. Hungerman, Daniel M. & Rinz, Kevin, 2016. "Where does voucher funding go? How large-scale subsidy programs affect private-school revenue, enrollment, and prices," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 136(C), pages 62-85.
    14. Ludger Woessmann, 2006. "Public-Private Partnership and Schooling Outcomes across Countries," CESifo Working Paper Series 1662, CESifo.
    15. Sandstrom, F. Mikael & Bergstrom, Fredrik, 2005. "School vouchers in practice: competition will not hurt you," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(2-3), pages 351-380, February.
    16. John M. Krieg & Paul Storer, 2006. "How Much Do Students Matter? Applying The Oaxaca Decomposition To Explain Determinants Of Adequate Yearly Progress," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(4), pages 563-581, October.
    17. Marianne P. Bitler & Thurston Domina & Emily K. Penner & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2013. "Distributional Effects of a School Voucher Program: Evidence from New York City," NBER Working Papers 19271, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Sohn, Hosung, 2016. "Mean and distributional impact of single-sex high schools on students’ cognitive achievement, major choice, and test-taking behavior: Evidence from a random assignment policy in Seoul, Korea," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 52(C), pages 155-175.

    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. Patrick McEwan, 2001. "The Effectiveness of Public, Catholic, and Non-Religious Private Schools in Chile's Voucher System," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 9(2), pages 103-128.
    2. Pablo González, 2002. "Lecciones de la investigación económica sobre el rol del sector privado en educación," Documentos de Trabajo 117, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    3. Scott Gehlbach & Konstantin Sonin & Ekaterina Zhuravskaya, 2010. "Businessman Candidates," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 54(3), pages 718-736, July.
    4. Song, Yang, 2019. "Sorting, school performance and quality: Evidence from China," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(1), pages 238-261.
    5. Matthew Blackwell & James Honaker & Gary King, 2017. "A Unified Approach to Measurement Error and Missing Data: Overview and Applications," Sociological Methods & Research, , vol. 46(3), pages 303-341, August.
    6. Cohen, Joseph N, 2010. "Neoliberalism’s relationship with economic growth in the developing world: Was it the power of the market or the resolution of financial crisis?," MPRA Paper 24527, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Sergei Guriev & Daniel Treisman, 2020. "The Popularity of Authoritarian Leaders: A cross-national investigation," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03878626, HAL.
    8. Sebastian Barfort & Nikolaj Harmon & Frederik Hjorth & Asmus Leth Olsen, 2015. "Dishonesty and Selection into Public Service in Denmark: Who Runs the World’s Least Corrupt Public Sector?," Discussion Papers 15-12, University of Copenhagen. Department of Economics.
    9. Alessandro Bitetto & Paola Cerchiello & Charilaos Mertzanis, 2021. "A data-driven approach to measuring epidemiological susceptibility risk around the world," DEM Working Papers Series 200, University of Pavia, Department of Economics and Management.
    10. Ludger Wößmann, 2006. "Bildungspolitische Lehren aus den internationalen Schülertests: Wettbewerb, Autonomie und externe Leistungsüberprüfung," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 7(3), pages 417-444, August.
    11. Michael Mousseau, 2012. "The Democratic Peace Unraveled: It’s the Economy," Koç University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum Working Papers 1207, Koc University-TUSIAD Economic Research Forum.
    12. Kamali Shahdadi, Behrang, 2021. "The effects of student composition on teachers' effort and students' performance: Implications for tracking, school choice, and affirmative action," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 130(C), pages 384-399.
    13. Marcel Lubbers & Peer Scheepers, 2005. "Political versus Instrumental Euro-scepticism," European Union Politics, , vol. 6(2), pages 223-242, June.
    14. Osterloh, Steffen & Heinemann, Friedrich, 2013. "The political economy of corporate tax harmonization — Why do European politicians (dis)like minimum tax rates?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 29(C), pages 18-37.
    15. Zhong, Hua & Hu, Wuyang, 2015. "Farmers’ Willingness to Engage in Best Management Practices: an Application of Multiple Imputation," 2015 Annual Meeting, January 31-February 3, 2015, Atlanta, Georgia 196962, Southern Agricultural Economics Association.
    16. Seiler, Christian & Heumann, Christian, 2013. "Microdata imputations and macrodata implications: Evidence from the Ifo Business Survey," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 722-733.
    17. Bekkouche, Yasmine & Cagé, Julia & Dewitte, Edgard, 2022. "The heterogeneous price of a vote: Evidence from multiparty systems, 1993–2017," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 206(C).
    18. repec:mpr:mprres:3181 is not listed on IDEAS
    19. Haeussler, Carolin & Sauermann, Henry, 2013. "Credit where credit is due? The impact of project contributions and social factors on authorship and inventorship," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(3), pages 688-703.
    20. Stocké, Volker & Stark, Tobias, 2005. "Stichprobenverzerrung durch Item-Nonresponse in der international vergleichenden Politikwissenschaft," Sonderforschungsbereich 504 Publications 05-43, Sonderforschungsbereich 504, Universität Mannheim;Sonderforschungsbereich 504, University of Mannheim.
    21. José Navarro Pastor, 2003. "Methods for the Analysis of Explanatory Linear Regression Models with Missing Data Not at Random," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 37(4), pages 363-376, November.

    More about this item

    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:wly:jpamgt:v:21:y:2002:i:2:p:191-217. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/34787/home .

    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.