DOCSLIB.ORG

Front Matter, the Economics of School Choice

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Front Matter, the Economics of School Choice This PDF is a selection from a published volume from the National Bureau of Economic Research Volume Title: The Economics of School Choice Volume Author/Editor: Caroline M. Hoxby, editor Volume Publisher: University of Chicago Press Volume ISBN: 0-226-35533-0 Volume URL: http://www.nber.org/books/hox03-1 Conference Date: February 22-24, 2001 Publication Date: January 2003 Title: Front matter, The Economics of School Choice Author: Caroline Minter Hoxby URL: http://www.nber.org/chapters/c10082 The Economics of School Choice A National Bureau of Economic Research Conference Report The Economics of School Choice Edited by Caroline M. Hoxby The University of Chicago Press Chicago and London C M. H is professor of economics at Harvard University and a research associate of the National Bureau of Economic Research. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637 The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London © 2003 by the National Bureau of Economic Research All rights reserved. Published 2003 Printed in the United States of America 12 11 10 09 08 07 06 05 04 03 12345 ISBN: 0-226-35533-0 (cloth) Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data The economics of school choice / edited by Caroline M. Hoxby. p. cm. — (A National Bureau of Economic Research conference report) Includes bibliographical references and index. ISBN 0-226-35533-0 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. School choice—Economic aspects—United States. 2. Educational vouchers—United States. I. Hoxby, Caroline Minter. II. National Bureau of Economic Research. III. Series. LB1027.9 .E27 2003 379.1′11—dc21 2002032045 o The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48-1992. National Bureau of Economic Research Officers Carl F. Christ, chairman Robert Mednick, treasurer Michael H. Moskow, vice-chairman Kelly Horak, controller and assistant Martin Feldstein, president and chief corporate secretary executive officer Gerardine Johnson, assistant corporate Susan Colligan, vice president for secretary administration and budget and corporate secretary Directors at Large Peter C. Aldrich Martin Feldstein Michael H. Moskow Elizabeth E. Bailey Stephen Friedman Alicia H. Munnell John H. Biggs Judith M. Gueron Rudolph A. Oswald Andrew Brimmer Robert S. Hamada Robert T. Parry Carl F. Christ George Hatsopoulos Richard N. Rosett John S. Clarkeson Karen N. Horn Kathleen P. Utgoff Don R. Conlan Judy C. Lewent Marina v. N. Whitman George C. Eads John Lipsky Martin B. Zimmerman Directors by University Appointment George Akerlof, California, Berkeley Marjorie B. McElroy, Duke Jagdish Bhagwati, Columbia Joel Mokyr, Northwestern William C. Brainard, Yale Andrew Postlewaite, Pennsylvania Michael J. Brennan, California, Los Angeles Nathan Rosenberg, Stanford Glen G. Cain, Wisconsin Uwe E. Reinhardt, Princeton Franklin Fisher, Massachusetts Institute Craig Swan, Minnesota of Technology David B. Yoffie, Harvard Saul H. Hymans, Michigan Arnold Zellner, Chicago Directors by Appointment of Other Organizations Mark Drabenstott, American Agricultural Richard D. Rippe, National Association for Economics Association Business Economics Gail D. Fosler, The Conference Board John J. Siegfried, American Economic A. Ronald Gallant, American Statistical Association Association David A. Smith, American Federation of Richard C. Green, American Finance Labor and Congress of Industrial Association Organizations Robert Mednick, American Institute of Josh S. Weston, Committee for Economic Certified Public Accountants Development Angelo Melino, Canadian Economics Gavin Wright, Economic History Association Association Directors Emeriti Thomas D. Flynn Paul W. McCracken Eli Shapiro Lawrence R. Klein Peter G. Peterson Franklin A. Lindsay Bert Seidman Since this volume is a record of conference proceedings, it has been exempted from the rules governing critical review of manuscripts by the Board of Directors of the National Bureau (resolution adopted 8 June 1948, as revised 21 November 1949 and 20 April 1968). elation of the Directors to the Work and Publications of the National Bureau of Economic Research 1. The object of the National Bureau of Economic Research is to ascertain and to present to the public important economic facts and their interpretation in a scientific and impartial man- ner. The Board of Directors is charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the work of the National Bureau is carried on in strict conformity with this object. 2. The President of the National Bureau shall submit to the Board of Directors, or to its Ex- ecutive Committee, for their formal adoption all specific proposals for research to be insti- tuted. 3. No research report shall be published by the National Bureau until the President has sent each member of the Board a notice that a manuscript is recommended for publication and that in the President’s opinion it is suitable for publication in accordance with the principles of the National Bureau. Such notification will include an abstract or summary of the manuscript’s content and a response form for use by those Directors who desire a copy of the manuscript for review. Each manuscript shall contain a summary drawing attention to the nature and treatment of the problem studied, the character of the data and their utilization in the report, and the main conclusions reached. 4. For each manuscript so submitted, a special committee of the Directors (including Direc- tors Emeriti) shall be appointed by majority agreement of the President and Vice Presidents (or by the Executive Committee in case of inability to decide on the part of the President and Vice Presidents), consisting of three Directors selected as nearly as may be one from each gen- eral division of the Board. The names of the special manuscript committee shall be stated to each Director when notice of the proposed publication is submitted to him. It shall be the duty of each member of the special manuscript committee to read the manuscript. If each member of the manuscript committee signifies his approval within thirty days of the transmittal of the manuscript, the report may be published. If at the end of that period any member of the man- uscript committee withholds his approval, the President shall then notify each member of the Board, requesting approval or disapproval of publication, and thirty days additional shall be granted for this purpose. The manuscript shall then not be published unless at least a majority of the entire Board who shall have voted on the proposal within the time fixed for the receipt of votes shall have approved. 5. No manuscript may be published, though approved by each member of the special manu- script committee, until forty-five days have elapsed from the transmittal of the report in man- uscript form. The interval is allowed for the receipt of any memorandum of dissent or reser- vation, together with a brief statement of his reasons, that any member may wish to express; and such memorandum of dissent or reservation shall be published with the manuscript if he so desires. Publication does not, however, imply that each member of the Board has read the manuscript, or that either members of the Board in general or the special committee have passed on its validity in every detail. 6. Publications of the National Bureau issued for informational purposes concerning the work of the Bureau and its staff, or issued to inform the public of activities of Bureau staff, and volumes issued as a result of various conferences involving the National Bureau shall contain a specific disclaimer noting that such publication has not passed through the normal review procedures required in this resolution. The Executive Committee of the Board is charged with review of all such publications from time to time to ensure that they do not take on the char- acter of formal research reports of the National Bureau, requiring formal Board approval. 7. Unless otherwise determined by the Board or exempted by the terms of paragraph 6, a copy of this resolution shall be printed in each National Bureau publication. (Resolution adopted October 25, 1926, as revised through September 30, 1974) Contents Acknowledgments ix Preface xi Introduction 1 Caroline M. Hoxby 1. Does Public School Competition Affect Teacher Quality? 23 Eric A. Hanushek and Steven G. Rivkin 2. Can School Choice and School Accountability Successfully Coexist? 49 David N. Figlio and Marianne E. Page 3. The Role of Special Education in School Choice 67 Julie Berry Cullen and Steven G. Rivkin 4. School Vouchers: Results from Randomized Experiments 107 Paul E. Peterson, William G. Howell, Patrick J. Wolf, and David E. Campbell 5. Introducing School Choice into Multidistrict Public School Systems 145 Thomas J. Nechyba 6. School Vouchers as a Redistributive Device: An Analysis of Three Alternative Systems 195 Raquel Fernández and Richard Rogerson vii viii Contents 7. Neighborhood Schools, Choice, and the Distribution of Educational Benefits 227 Dennis Epple and Richard Romano 8. School Choice and School Productivity: Could School Choice Be a Tide that Lifts All Boats? 287 Caroline M. Hoxby Contributors 343 Author Index 345 Subject Index 349 Acknowledgments The idea for this book grew out of a series of conferences held by the Na- tional Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) that were related to the top- ics of school finance and public economics. A great debt is owed to Martin Feldstein and James Poterba for suggesting and supporting these confer- ences, which Caroline Hoxby organized. At these conferences, it became clear that the topic drawing the most interest was school choice. A critical mass of NBER researchers were working on school choice, although they came from a variety of fields (public economics, labor economics, macro- economics, and industrial organization). Researchers’ approaches initially differed a good deal with their backgrounds, but by 2001, it was clear that the group as a whole had developed joint approaches and joint insights. It was at this point that we were able to envision this book and the conference in Islamorada, Florida, where it was presented.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Research Report: Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? a Review of the Research
    Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research Tara Kini and Anne Podolsky JUNE 2016 Does Teaching Experience Increase Teacher Effectiveness? A Review of the Research Tara Kini and Anne Podolsky External Reviewers This report benefited from the insights and expertise of two external reviewers: Gene Glass, Regents’ Professor Emeritus from Arizona State University and Senior Researcher at the National Education Policy Center at the University of Colorado Boulder; and Helen Ladd, Susan B. King Professor of Public Policy Studies and Professor of Economics at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy. We thank them for the care and attention they gave the report. Any remaining shortcomings are our own. Acknowledgments The authors would like to thank Linda Darling-Hammond, President and CEO of the Learning Policy Institute, for her invaluable assistance providing feedback on early drafts of this paper, and Erin Fahle, doctoral candidate in the Education Policy program at the Stanford Graduate School of Education, for her valuable assistance in reviewing the research and analysis in the appendix. We also thank the following LPI colleagues for their contributions to the research process: Dion Burns, Desiree Carver-Thomas, Patrick M. Shields, and Leib Sutcher. In addition, we appreciate the insights and feedback offered by our colleagues Joseph Bishop, Roberta Furger, and Maria Hyler. We would like to thank Naomi Spinrad and Penelope Malish for their editing and design contributions to this project, and Lisa Gonzales for overseeing the editorial process. Without the generosity of time and spirit of all of the aforementioned, this work would not have been possible.
    [Show full text]
  • U.S. School Segregation in the 21St Century Causes, Consequences, and Solutions
    equitablegrowth.org REPORT: INEQUALITY & MOBILITY U.S. school segregation in the 21st century Causes, consequences, and solutions October 2019 Will McGrew The Washington Center for Equitable Growth is a non-profit research and grantmaking organization dedicated to advancing evidence-backed ideas and policies that promote strong, stable, and broad-based economic growth. Our fundamental questions have been whether and how economic inequality—in all its forms—affects economic growth and stability, and what policymakers can do about it. We work to build a strong bridge between academics and policymakers to ensure that research on equitable growth and inequality is relevant, accessible, and informative to the policymaking process. And we have the support and counsel of a steering committee that comprises lead- ing scholars and former government officials. Members have included Melody Barnes, Alan Blinder, Raj Chetty, Janet Currie, Jason Furman, John Podesta, Emmanuel Saez, and Robert Solow. Since our founding in 2013, we have funded the work of more than 150 schol- ars and built a broader network through our working papers series, events, and convenings. By supporting research and bringing these scholars together to exchange ideas, we have learned a great deal and advanced a broad range of evidence-based policy approaches to addressing economic inequality and delivering broad-based economic growth to communities and families. Cover photo: Shutterstock U.S. school segregation in the 21st century: Causes, consequences, and solutions 1 Contents
    [Show full text]
  • Scaling up Boston's Charter School Sector
    EdWorkingPaper No. 19-61 Can Successful Schools Replicate? Scaling Up Boston’s Charter School Sector Sarah Cohodes Elizabeth Setren Christopher R. Walters Columbia University Tufts University UC Berkeley Can schools that boost student outcomes reproduce their success at new campuses? We study a policy reform that allowed effective charter schools in Boston, Massachusetts to replicate their school models at new locations. Estimates based on randomized admission lotteries show that replication charter schools generate large achievement gains on par with those produced by their parent campuses. The average effectiveness of Boston’s charter middle school sector increased after the reform despite a doubling of charter market share. An exploration of mechanisms shows that Boston charter schools reduce the returns to teacher experience and compress the distribution of teacher effectiveness, suggesting the highly standardized practices in place at charter schools may facilitate replicability. VERSION: April 2019 Suggested citation: Cohodes, S.R., Setren, E., & Walters, C.R. (2019). Can Successful Schools Replicate? Scaling Up Boston’s Charter School Sector (EdWorkingPaper No.19-61). Retrieved from Annenberg Institute at Brown University: http://edworkingpapers.com/ai19-61 Can Successful Schools Replicate? Scaling Up Boston’s Charter School Sector Sarah Cohodes Elizabeth Setren Christopher R. Walters∗ Columbia University and NBER Tufts University UC Berkeley and NBER April 23, 2019 Abstract Can schools that boost student outcomes reproduce their success at new campuses? We study a policy reform that allowed effective charter schools in Boston, Massachusetts to replicate their school models at new locations. Estimates based on randomized admission lotteries show that replication charter schools generate large achievement gains on par with those produced by their parent campuses.
    [Show full text]
  • Papers and Presentations Employing Data from the North Carolina Education Research Data Center
    The North Carolina Education Research Data Center Papers and Presentations Employing Data from the North Carolina Education Research Data Center Presentations and publications since 2009 are in bold text. Presentations and publications since 2010 are in bold text and marked with an *. Presentations and Publications since 2011 are in bold text and marked with **. Minority Achievement Gap Armor, David and Stephanie Duck. 2006. “Unravelling Black Peer Effects on Black Test Scores” Paper presented at APPAM meetings, Madison, WI. Castellino, Domini R., Karolyn D. Tyson, and William Darity. 2004. “High achieving African American students: Individual, family, and school correlates to the success.” Poster presented at the biennial meetings of the Society for Research on Adolescence, Baltimore, MD. Castellino, Domini R., Julie A. Moore, Karolyn D Tyson, and William Darity. 2003. “Minority presence in advanced curricula: A statewide investigation of school context effects.” Poster presented at the Biennial Meetings of the Society for Research in Child Development, Tampa, FL. * Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd and Jacob L. Vigdor. Forthcoming. “New Destinations, New Trajectories? The Educational Progress of Hispanic Youth in North Carolina,” Child Development Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L.Vigdor. 2008. “School Segregation under Color-Blind Jurisprudence: The Case of North Carolina.” Working Paper Series. SAN08-02. Clotfelter, Charles, Helen Ladd, and Jacob Vigdor. 2008. “The Academic Achievement Gap in Grades 3 to 8.” Review of Economics and Statistics 91(2): 398-419. Clotfelter, Charles T., Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. Vigdor. 2005. “Classroom-level Segregation and Resegregation in North Carolina.” In J.C. Boger and G.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Last Updated, March, 2015 . HELEN F. LADD
    Helen F. Ladd Last updated, March, 2015 . HELEN F. LADD Personal Office Address: Home Address: Terry Sanford School of Public Policy 1723 Tisdale St. Box 90245 Durham, NC 27705 Durham, NC 27708-0243 (919) 493-9476 (919) 613-7353 hladd@ duke.edu Current Position Susan B. King Professor of Public Policy Studies and Professor of Economics, Duke University Education Harvard University Ph.D. in Economics, June 1974 Special Fields: Public Finance, Monetary Theory Ph.D. Thesis Topic: Local Public Expenditures and the Composition of the Property Tax Base Thesis Directors: R. A. Musgrave, Martin Feldstein London School of Economics, M.Sc. with distinction, 1968 Wellesley College, B.A., 1967 Academic positions September 1986-present: Professor of Public Policy Studies and (since 1991) Professor of Economics, Duke University July 1981-September 1986: Associate Professor of City and Regional Planning, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University February 1978-July 1981: Assistant Professor of City and Regional Planning, Design School (1978-1980), and Kennedy School of Government (1980-1981), Harvard University Spring 1977: Visiting Assistant Professor, Department of City and Regional Planning, Harvard University Fall 1974-1977: Assistant Professor of Economics, Wellesley College Academic year 1973-1974: Teaching Fellow, Harvard University Spring term 1973: Instructor in Economics, Wellesley College Fall term 1971: Instructor in Economics, Dartmouth College Academic year 1968-1969: Visiting Lecturer in Economics, Dartmouth College Other Positions
    [Show full text]
  • What Can We Learn About Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?1
    What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?1 Jens Ludwig Jeffrey B. Liebman University of Chicago Harvard University Jeffrey R. Kling Greg J. Duncan Brookings Institution University of California, Irvine Lawrence F. Katz Ronald C. Kessler Harvard University Harvard Medical School Lisa Sanbonmatsu National Bureau of Economic Research Experimental estimates from Moving to Opportunity (MTO) show no significant impacts of moves to lower-poverty neighborhoods on adult economic self-sufficiency four to seven years after random assignment. The authors disagree with Clampet-Lundquist and Massey’s claim that MTO was a weak intervention and therefore uninformative about neighborhood effects. MTO produced large changes in neighborhood environments that improved adult mental health and many outcomes for young females. Clampet-Lundquist and Massey’s claim that MTO experimental estimates are plagued by selection bias is erroneous. Their new nonexperimental estimates are uninformative because they add back the selection problems that MTO’s experimental design was intended to overcome. INTRODUCTION Experimental analyses of the data from the “interim evaluation” of the Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Moving to Oppor- 1 Support for this research was provided by grants from the National Science Foun- dation to the National Bureau of Economic Research (9876337 and 0091854) and the National Consortium on Violence Research (9513040), as well as by the U.S. Depart- ment of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the National Institute of Child ᭧ 2008 by The University of Chicago. All rights reserved. 0002-9602/2008/11401-0005$10.00 144 AJS Volume 114 Number 1 (July 2008): 144–88 MTO Symposium: What Can We Learn from MTO? tunity (MTO) housing mobility experiment, which measured outcomes for participating adults and children four to seven years after random assignment, find no significant impacts on adult economic outcomes from the opportunity to move to lower-poverty neighborhoods (Orr et al.
    [Show full text]
  • The Final Evaluation Will Include the Full Program Population (4,604 Families)
    Part B: Collection of Information Employing Statistical Methods B.1 Respondent Universe and Sampling Methods Universe of Core Households and Final Evaluation Sample The purpose of the MTO final impact evaluation is to assess the effect of the experimental treatment on the lives of participants on average between 10 and 12 years after the time of random assignment. The final evaluation will include the full program population (4,604 families). Universe of Core Household Members Within the 4,604 core households that are the sample for the final evaluation, there are 17,000 members ranging in age (measured at the end of calendar year 2007) from 10 to over 100. The core household membership is fixed by definition, since core household members are those who lived with the MTO applicant during the process of Section 8 eligibility determination prior to MTO random assignment. Core members are those members of the family who were identified as planning to move together if awarded a voucher or certificate through the MTO program. Thus, core household membership is exogenous to the experiment (that is, not affected by which of the three MTO mobility groups to which an applicant was randomly assigned), while current household composition is not (since MTO assignments could for example affect the propensity of MTO applicants to be married or live with other relatives). Through passive tracking, the 1997 and 2000 MTO canvasses, and the 2002 Interim survey, data are available on the whereabouts of nearly all core household members. Sampling of youth for the final evaluation will be carried out regardless of where they are located (including those who are no longer living with the original MTO adult applicant), and arrangements will be made to test and interview youth wherever they are currently living.
    [Show full text]
  • Clotfelter CV
    Charles T. Clotfelter March 2013 Office: Residence: Box 90245 Duke University 17 Clearwater Drive Durham, NC 27708 Durham, NC 27707 E-Mail: [email protected] URL: http://fds.duke.edu/db/Sanford/charles.clotfelter EDUCATION: Harvard University, Ph.D., Economics, 1974 Harvard University, M.A., Economics, 1972 Duke University, B.A., History, summa cum laude, 1969 AREAS OF SPECIAL INTEREST: Economics of Education, Public Economics POSITION: Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy; Professor of Economics and Law, Duke University POSITIONS AND APPOINTMENTS HELD: Fellow, Straus Institute for the Advanced Study of Law and Justice Law School, New York University, 2013-2014. Social Science Research Institute Faculty Fellow, Duke University, 2006-2007. Visiting Scholar, Russell Sage Foundation, 2005-2006. Professor of Law, 1996-present. Z. Smith Reynolds Professor of Public Policy Studies, 1995-present. Vice Provost for Academic Programs, Duke University, 1993-1994. Vice Chancellor, Duke University, 1985-1988. Professor of Public Policy Studies and Economics, Duke University, 1984-present. Vice Provost for Academic Policy & Planning, Duke University, 1983-1985. Research Associate, National Bureau of Economic Research, 1982-present. Visiting Scholar, Institute for Research in Social Science, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1982. Associate Professor of Public Policy Studies and Economics, Duke University, 1979- 1984. Financial Economist, Office of Tax Analysis, U.S. Treasury and Brookings Economic Policy Fellow, 1978-79. Assistant Professor, Bureau of Business and Economic Research and Department of Economics, University of Maryland, 1974-1979. Tutor in Economics, Lowell House, Harvard College, 1972-74. 1 Teaching Fellow, Harvard University, 1972-74. PROFESSIONAL AFFILIATIONS, OFFICES AND AWARDS: Spencer Foundation Award, Lecture given at Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, November 2011, Washington DC: “Sports and Populism at State U.” Co-winner, Gladys M.
    [Show full text]