Search

Pressing questions about the merits of market accountability in K-12 education have spawned a large scholarly literature. Unfortunately, much of that literature is of limited relevance, and much of it is misleading. The studies most widely cited in the United States used intense scrutiny of a few small-scale, restriction-laden U.S. school choice programs, and a handful of larger, but still restriction-laden foreign school choice expansions, to assert general conclusions about the effects of "choice," "competition," and "markets." The most intensely studied programs lack most or all of the key elements of market systems, including profit, price change, market entry, and product differentiation--factors that are normally central to any discussion of market effects. The school choice literature is partly driven by a self-fulfilling prophesy. Large steps toward full-blown market accountability are widely seen as too radical to be worthy of study, especially in the absence of directly relevant data. The studies of small-scale school choice programs soft-pedal the large differences between the choices available now and those that could be available under conditions that are the norm in most of the economy and then compound the political feasibility problem by connecting market terminology to the modest effects of the small-scale programs. To address the need for credible evidence of effects of genuine education markets, scholars should look to simulation models, indirect evidence such as outcomes in similar industries, and school systems abroad that enjoy varying degrees of market accountability. (Contains 10 notes.)

Merrifield (2009) provides a useful polemic about the sad state of data analysis too frequently encountered in the school choice literature. Available data come from limited policy experiments with only modest amounts of choice and competition. The effects of very modest changes in school choice on school performance are, as one might expect, small and often not statistically different from zero. Those who study school reform initiatives mistakenly extrapolate from these null effects of small policy shifts to make sweeping predictions about the ineffectiveness of broader policy shifts aimed at expanding choice and competition through creation of new institutions governing the supply of educational services. In debates about how to interpret the existing evidential record and what our priorities for collecting more empirical information about the performance of different educational institutions should be, it is difficult to cleanly separate theoretical priors from empirical evidence. Virtually all empirical investigations rely on theoretical priors to motivate the design and measurement of particular effects. However, Merrifield's call for improved empiricism is worthwhile because it can accelerate the coevolution of researchers' theoretical priors and the accumulated evidential record. I suggest that the empirics of school choice would benefit greatly from separating the issues of state subsidization of education, regulatory mandates for achieving performance goals, and the institutions--private or public--that actually deliver educational services. Furthermore, a more rigorously empirical research agenda can advance school choice debates by squarely addressing six potential pitfalls based on economic theory that arise when attempting to move toward decentralized private provision of educational services. More detailed definitions of competition together with bold, new empirical evidence are clear priorities for school choice research.

Pressing questions about the merits of full-fledged market accountability in K-12 education, and more limited choice programs, have spawned a large scholarly literature. This article assesses what we know from the most prominent studies and the importance of those findings to school system reform discussions. The studies most widely cited in the United States based their findings on small-scale, restriction-laden U.S. programs, and a handful of larger, but still restriction-laden, foreign school choice programs. The extensive restrictions and small size of those programs make them virtually irrelevant to the widely acknowledged transformational change imperative. Because the most intensely studied programs lack most, and sometimes all, of the key elements of market systems, such as profit, price change, market entry, and product differentiation, they don't help us determine whether unleashing market forces will produce more desired than undesired effects. However, absence of the key elements of market systems did not stop numerous analysts from stating conclusions about "markets," and "competition." So we know a lot about some of the policy approaches to increased school choice, but little about many policy approaches, and less than many people think we know. We know the most about programs and policies too limited in scope to yield much insight into reform policies capable of addressing the transformation imperative implied by the repeatedly alleged "nation at risk" problem. (Contains 203 notes.)

There is much interest in the effects of a larger parental role in schooling issues. That role can exist through voice--direct parental involvement in schools and participation in the political process that dictates schooling policies--or through choice from a menu of schooling options. This article addresses the limited understanding and confusion about the latter. The availability of genuine choice varies greatly with the policies (or lack thereof) aimed at expanding it. This article identifies the twelve ways to increase the availability and the affordability of schooling options and discusses the significant attributes of each. (Contains 56 notes.)

Charter laws have been the reform debate's path of least resistance. But the combination of regulatory barriers, open admissions, lack of consumer sovereignty, preferential funding of traditional public schools, and political control of prices means that charter laws may be irrelevant as reform catalysts, or worse. Even the strongest charter laws may offer a tempting, but ultimately unproductive, avenue of system change. Some critics argue that a charter option will expand the public sector, but not improve it much, and decimate the tiny, frail private sector. This article examines what charter laws have in common-concerns about "strong" charter laws. (Contains 1 figure.)

"Measuring Competitive Effects from School Voucher Programs: A Systematic Review" by Ann G. Egalite (p443-464, this issue) concludes that, "overwhelming [U.S.] evidence supports the development of market-based schooling policies as a means to increase student achievement in traditional public schools." Here, John Merrifield writes that, while he would agree there is strong evidence that market-based schooling policies could yield significant school system improvements, the evidence he is referring to is not the studies of U.S. school choice programs assessed by Anna Egalite's article. Merrifield states that this is because U.S. school choice programs did not generate any evidence of full-fledged markets in action (Merrifield, 2008). He says that something as common as genuine market forces needs to be more thoroughly assessed. He warns against making the assumption that there exists a solid body of evidence on the productivity of market-based educational reforms, where none exists, and fears that assumption could lead to numerous, and difficult-to-reverse policy errors. Merrifield posits that school choice program effects examined by Anna Egalite qualify as "quasi-market" (Barber, 2012, p. 215) outcomes; government-controlled entry, government-set prices, often a ban on profit, and programs that do not create a level playing field (or close) between public and private schooling options. With entrepreneurs entering or exiting regions on the basis of tuition-price signals indicating profit-loss potential, Merrifield comments that since we can only measure quasi-market effects from contemporary U.S. evidence, we need to turn to historic and foreign (Coulson, 2009) evidence to gain some insight on the differences between market and quasi-market outcomes. The article then asks the question: "Are quasi-market settings good market experiments, or are they dangerously misleading?"

The article presents an analysis of various public school reform options, focusing on student performance in the U.S. for kindergarten through 12th grade. An overview of related previous research is provided, and several existing models which allow for estimates of the impact of independent variables on student performance are cited. The results derived from the input of best-case scenarios into these models are quantified in terms of National Assessment of Education Progress scores. None of the models indicated that significant educational improvements could be achieved within the existing parameters of the educational system, even under optimal conditions. This is said to indicate that more systemic reform is necessary if significant performance increases are to be achieved.

Charter laws have been the reform debate's path of least resistance. But the combination of regulatory barriers, open admissions, lack of consumer sovereignty, preferential funding of traditional public schools, and political control of prices means that charter laws may be irrelevant as reform catalysts, or worse. Even the strongest charter laws may offer a tempting, but ultimately unproductive, avenue of system change. Some critics argue that a charter option will expand the public sector, but not improve it much, and decimate the tiny, frail private sector. This article examines what charter laws have in common-concerns about strong charter laws. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Focuses on the school-choice controversy in the United States. Attributes of poor educational outcomes; Arguments concerning parental choice; Consideration of school-choice options; Child-centered public funding; Government's operation of schools; Factors that dominate the parental-choice debate; Competition as the key to improvement in the school system; Evaluations of the choice options.

In this article, the author reflects on an article by Anna J. Egaliteon, a research associate at the University of Arkansas, on the impact of school voucher programs and assessment of productivity of market-based educational reforms in the U.S. It highlights the development of market-based schooling policies to increase student achievement in public schools. He concerns about the effect of school choice program in creating a level playing field between public and private schooling options.

In this article the author discusses the changes made to the format of the journal. He announces the change in the third word of the subtitle of the journal's title from 'practices' to 'reform' that signifies the school reform strategies. He requests for the feedback on previous articles from the readers and informs about the new topics including the one on random assignment and gold standard. The author presents the details of issues requiring attention like School choice and size.

The article offers information on conferences of the "Journal of School Choice," which include First Annual International School Choice and Reform International Academic Conference in Florida in 2012 and the Second Annual International School Choice and Reform Academic Conference in Utah in 2013.

The author reflects on the "Journal of School Choice." He reports that the word "reform" has been added to the subtitle of the journal. He presents a list of list of choice-based approaches to bring a reform to the perspective of the journal. He also provides a web site location where the readers can find the previous issue alerts in "Editor's Tab" section. He reports that in "Editor's tab," on could find detailed description about topics of educational reforms.

The article presents a tribute to Mark Holmes, a Canada-based senior education scholar. Holmes is known for his book "The Reformation of Canada's Schools," which is highly informative on education policy reform. The editor of the journal states that the appointment of Holmes into the Editorial Board turned out to be a great move. Holmes along with parents and teachers formed in June 1991 the Organization for Quality Education (OQE), which then turned into the Society for Quality Education (SQE) ten years later.