**The Edvocate is pleased to publish guest posts as way to fuel important conversations surrounding a P-20 education in America. The opinions contained within guest posts are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official opinion of The Edvocate or Dr. Matthew Lynch.**
Does school choice help or hurt students?
Last week over 10,000 schools and organizations across the country celebrated National School Choice Week with yellow scarves, marches on state capitols and a variety of independently planned events in all 50 states.
In some instances, these gatherings were met with resistance from teacher’s unions who accuse the organizers of the week of trying to create a hostile environment for traditional public schools by touting a family’s ability to choose other options. I don’t know the official motives of the week itself but it does bring up a point I’ve discussed before: Does the school choice movement hurt public schools?
Mississippi, which ranks last in student achievement in the nation, does not have charter school options just yet. It seems to me that any attempt to offer solutions to this cycle of student non-achievement would be welcomed, especially since public charter and magnet schools have shown some success in other low-performing states. On the other hand, by essentially privatizing education are we taking away precious resources from public school reform and hurting the students who stay in them?
National School Choice Week does not just emphasize magnet and charter schools. The official releases from the organization call it an all-inclusive “celebration of educational opportunity” that encompasses traditional public schools, magnet schools, charter schools, private schools, virtual schools and even homeschooling. No type of schooling is promoted over another and all positive celebrations are accepted.
By highlighting all the options, are parents more empowered (and students set up better for success) or are we undermining the great equalizer of our youth — the public school system?
Do school vouchers improve results? It depends on what we ask
Joshua Cowen, Michigan State University
A set of reports on Louisiana’s statewide school voucher program recently revealed a number of important features of that program’s operation and overall performance.
The most startling of these reports indicated that students who used school vouchers performed much worse on standardized tests than those who remained in traditional public schools.
This result echoes evidence presented last month from a separate team of scholars, who found negative impacts after one year of voucher use in Louisiana. The latest study not only confirmed that finding, but showed the pattern persisting – albeit less severely – after two years of voucher use as well.
School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools. And these reports provide the first evidence that participating in such a system may harm kids’ academic achievement, at least in math.
As a researcher who studies both vouchers and other forms of school choice such as charter schools (independently operated public schools) I believe the new Louisiana studies are important to longstanding debates over the extent to which such choice enhances academic outcomes.
It may be tempting to use this news as an argument against vouchers, especially because the evidence is drawn from the most sophisticated research tools available to scholars who study these programs. However, it should be stressed that test scores provide only one indicator of program success or failure.
Impact of vouchers
The motivation for school voucher programs dates back to the 1950s, when the economist Milton Friedman began to argue that parents should have opportunities to choose between different providers of education for their children.

School vouchers provide publicly funded tuition – typically for low-income families – to attend private schools.
401(K) 2012, CC BY-SA
The first school voucher program began in 1990 in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Over the years since, especially in the last decade, voucher or voucher-like systems have spread to 24 states, all of which differ individually on some key details such as the number of children who will be eligible for participation and the maximum amount of tuition available to these students.
In Louisiana, policymakers introduced vouchers in 2008 in New Orleans as part of a series of reforms following Hurricane Katrina’s devastation of the city and the city’s school system. In 2012, vouchers became available statewide.
As with many public programs, policymakers turn to researchers to help determine how well school vouchers work. This is true not only in Louisiana, but elsewhere as well.
And part of what makes the Louisiana results so newsworthy – but also why voucher critics should pause before leaning too heavily on the latest reports – is that many of these studies conducted in other locations, such as Charlotte, Milwaukee, Washington, D.C. and New York City, for example, found the opposite pattern. In these studies, students who used vouchers to attend private school tended to have higher test scores as a result.
The answers are not that simple
The question is whether test scores are the only way to judge schools and school performance.
It is true that public schools have to test their students, so using a similar metric is a reasonable, relative comparison between public and private schools. But test scores, while important, do not necessarily provide an absolute appraisal of the strengths and weaknesses of voucher programs in a large education system.

What is the best way to judge schools’ performance?
woodleywonderworks, CC BY
First, we know from earlier studies that student attainment levels – high school graduation or enrollment in post-secondary education – may be higher among voucher users even when test score differences between them and their public school counterparts are nonexistent.
Whether this means that private schools are especially good at preparing kids to graduate and attend college or that they simply prioritize such success more than other outcomes is still unclear. But we see similar patterns in charter schools too: a number of studies have shown that charter school students have a higher chance of high school graduation or college enrollment even when their test scores do not differ on average from their traditional public school counterparts.
In the Louisiana context, the researchers also found more nuanced results when they posed a number of other questions.
When researchers examined, for example, whether competition from private schools pressed nearby public schools to improve performance, they found that the test scores of students in these competing schools did indeed increase, albeit modestly.
When they asked whether the declines in voucher users’ tests scores were present in noncognitive student outcomes (such as grit, self-esteem, and political tolerance), they found both public and private school students had similar levels on those indicators.
Each of these questions provides a different way of assessing the overall impact of the voucher program both on students who use them and on students in the surrounding communities as well.
Weighing other factors
More generally, it’s important to remember that voucher programs operate differently in different places.
In Louisiana, for example, one prominent explanation for the negative test scores is that heavy regulation of private providers keeps the best schools in that sector away from offering seats to voucher users. But in Wisconsin, we know that some regulations, such as requiring private schools to publicly report the academic performance of their voucher users, actually increased test scores.
Other state laws determine who’s eligible to use a voucher in the first place. In some states, vouchers exist expressly for kids with special academic needs; in others, low-income families are eligible as well.
Again, this implies that we have to be very careful. It is not as simple as taking evidence from one state and expecting the same results, good or bad, in another.

Little is known about teachers in schools that accept vouchers.
EarthFix, CC BY-NC
Apart from differences between states, there are other things to consider about the way voucher programs operate.
We know surprisingly little about teachers in schools that accept vouchers. State oversight of private school teachers is far less – in some places practically nonexistent – than for public school teachers.
Researchers are beginning, for example, to devote considerable effort to understanding who teaches in public charter schools. Answering that question in different voucher programs will help explain differences in students’ outcomes between private and public schools, both within and between different states.
Finally, we need to consider not only which students accept and benefit from a voucher, but also the extent to those who do attend private school – or any nontraditional alternative – are actually able to do so over the long term.
The evidence we have from places like Milwaukee and Washington, D.C. suggests substantial turnover in voucher programs, with minority students and students with the lowest test scores leaving private schools.
All of this is to say that when it comes to educating kids, what we know about school vouchers depends on what we ask. And what we ask should be informed not only by traditional academic outcomes, such as test scores, but also by a new understanding of the many different ways that schools can contribute to student success.
![]()
Joshua Cowen, Associate Professor of Educational Policy, Michigan State University
This article was originally published on The Conversation. Read the original article.
Is “School Choice” an Anti-Public School Sentiment?
There are a lot more options for receiving K-12 education today than when I was growing up. Long gone are the days when parents had to pick between the public school in their district or paying pricey private school tuition out of pocket. The rise of public charter and magnet schools, state-led voucher programs, online learning, and homeschooling options has meant that parents now have no reason to settle on the closest school or pay a premium to avoid it.
Do so many options undermine the purpose of public schools though? Should all of the energy that is going into building, naming and analyzing these other schools really be channeled into strengthening the basic schools that the government gave us?
In theory, I suppose there is an argument for refocus of educational pursuits where schools already exist, instead of creating new versions. But that theory hinges on the false assumption that given the chance, public schools would find the motivation, both within and outside school walls, to improve. Since the 1918 decree that all American children must attend at least elementary school, public schools have been considered a basic right. That widespread access certainly led to a better educated public but in the process the privilege of learning has been lost.
Despite spending more on public education than France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil AND the U.K. combined, the U.S. lags behind these nations in math and science. Only 25 percent of high school graduates have the literacy skills they need to get a job. What’s more, every 26 seconds a U.S. student drops out of high school. In the democratization of education process, indifference to learning has risen and the standards at public schools have dropped.
Enter school choice – a movement that strives to improve education at ALL schools through the old-fashioned business concept of competition. Public charter and magnet schools are tuition free, just like public schools, but must make some promises in their contracts in order to stay open. If these schools of choice habitually do not reach their goals, they close. Can the same be said of public schools? The accountability level that these young additions to the public school arena bring ensures that students achieve more – and if they don’t, those schools do not stick around long.
School choice is not simply about non-traditional public schools though. The movement goes much deeper than that and empowers parents to take the reins of their children’s learning paths. Since 2007, the number of K-12 students enrolled in online public schools has risen an astonishing 450 percent. Home schooling is also on the rise as 1.77 million K-12 students are homeschooled – a number that has more than doubled since 1999. Parents are pushing back against simple acceptance of educational opportunities based on geography; they are still choosing traditional public and private schools but only after educating themselves.
At the end of January, National School Choice Week will take place. Last year, there were over 3,600 independently-held School Choice events across the country meant to celebrate choice in education. Parents, administrators, politicians, students and other community leaders are encouraged to hold rallies, open houses or other events to shine the spotlight on choice in K-12 education.
Traditional public schools are not excluded from the events and are an important part of the discussion. It is meant to be a time of K-12 enlightenment, when misconceptions about choice in education are resolved.
So can public schools thrive in a school choice environment? I think so, yes. Options like charter, magnet, private, online and homeschool curricula are not meant to undermine the nation’s public schools but to build them up through shared quality standards. There is room for all choices in K-12 schools and students benefit from the options.
What is your stance on school choice?
Can Public Schools Survive School Choice Initiatives?
By Matthew Lynch
The U.S. lags behind France, Germany, Canada, Australia, Japan, Brazil AND the U.K. combined in math and science, despite spending more on public education than these nations. In addition, only 25 percent of high school graduates have the literacy skills they need to get a job. What’s more, every 26 seconds a U.S. student drops out of high school. In the democratization of education process, indifference to learning has risen and the standards at public schools have dropped.
Based on these stats alone, change is inevitable and greatly needed. One way that Americans are trying to improve the overall educational experiences for K-12 students is through making available more choices beyond districted public schools. Long gone are the days when parents had to pick between the public school in their district or paying pricey private school tuition out of pocket. The rise of public charter and magnet schools, state-led voucher programs, online learning, and homeschooling options has meant that parents now have no reason to settle on the closest school or pay a premium to avoid it.
But, can public schools thrive in a school choice environment? I think so, yes. Options like charter, magnet, private, online and homeschool curricula are not meant to undermine the nation’s public schools but to build them up through shared quality standards. There is room for all choices in K-12 schools and students benefit from the options.
School choice is not simply about non-traditional public schools though. The movement goes much deeper than that and empowers parents to take the reins of their children’s learning paths. Since 2007, the number of K-12 students enrolled in online public schools has risen an astonishing 450 percent. Home schooling is also on the rise as 1.77 million K-12 students are homeschooled – a number that has more than doubled since 1999. Parents are pushing back against simple acceptance of educational opportunities based on geography; they are still choosing traditional public and private schools but only after educating themselves.
Giving parents the freedom to choose their child’s school is a movement that strives to improve education at ALL schools through the old-fashioned business concept of competition. Public charter and magnet schools are tuition free, just like public schools, but must make some promises in their contracts in order to stay open. If these schools of choice habitually do not reach their goals, they close. Can the same be said of public schools? The accountability level that these young additions to the public school arena bring ensures that students achieve more – and if they don’t, those schools do not stick around long.
However, the logistics of allowing parents full power to choose schools outside of their districts for their kids can be a headache. There is also a fear that low-performing schools would see abandonment by students if another public school option with a higher ranking were available. While a hit against herd mentality, shouldn’t individual students have the option of a better school if it exists and is close enough for them to attend? Therein lies one of the major debates in school choice – who knows what is best? Trained educators/administrators – or individual parents?
The point can be argued either way, but parents are demanding the right for choices within the public school system. The benefits and/or consequences (if any) remain to be fully realized.
Do you feel that school choice helps or hurts public options?

