Do vouchers lead to sorting under random private school selection? Evidence from the Milwaukee voucher program

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractThis paper analyzes the effect of school vouchers on student sorting-defined as a flight to private schools by high-income and committed public-school students-and whether vouchers can be designed to reduce or eliminate it. Much of the existing literature investigates sorting in cases where private schools can screen students. However, publicly funded U.S. voucher programs require a private school to accept all students unless it is oversubscribed and to pick students randomly if it is oversubscribed. This paper focuses on two crucial requirements of the Milwaukee voucher program: 1) private schools must select students randomly and 2) private schools must accept the voucher amount as full tuition payment (that is, "topping up" of vouchers is not permitted). Using a theoretical model, this study argues that random selection alone cannot prevent student sorting. However, random selection together with the absence of topping up can preclude sorting by income, although there is still sorting by ability. Sorting by ability is not caused here by private-school selection, but rather by parental self-selection. Using a logit model and student-level data from the first five years of the Milwaukee voucher program, 1990-94, this study establishes that random selection has indeed taken place, providing an appropriate setting for testing the corresponding theoretical predictions in the data. Next, using several alternative logit specifications, it demonstrates that these predications are validated empirically. These findings appear to have important policy implications.

Long-Term Trends in Private School Enrollments by Family Income

“…These are public schools that provide families with another schooling option free of tuition payments. Chakrabarti (2013) shows that the decisions of low-income families to enroll their children in a private school are very sensitive to modest costs such as paying for transportation, even when the schools charge no tuition. We know of only one study that examines the causal impact of greater charter school availability on private school enrollment rates.…”

The long-term effect of competition on public school achievement: Evidence from the Indiana Choice Scholarship Program

“…Studies from other states also revealed equivalent results on sorting. These studies found that voucher students have relatively higher initial achievement than their public-school peers who are also eligible for vouchers (Chakrabarti, 2013;Epple et al, 2004;Howell, 2004;McEwan, 2000). As a result, the long-lasting negative effect of the competition in public schools for the last five years of ICSP appears to result from a worsening learning environment (Epple et al, 2004;Epple & Romano, 1998), owed to the departure of relatively high achieving students.…”

New Tools for Old Problems: Inequality and Educational Opportunity for Ethnic Minority Youth and Parents

“…Voucher users are more likely to have attended private schools before being offered a voucher, begging the question of whether they are subsidizing the status quo, instead of increasing social mobility (Belfield 2006; Paul, Legan, and Metcalf 2007). Further, admission procedures at schools accepting vouchers can lead to increased sorting by both income and ability (Chakrabarti 2013). Voucher recipients are disproportionately Euro-American or Hispanic, with African Americans underrepresented (Metcalf et al 2002).…”