4 ms·

The idea that competitive pressure improves school performance is one of those simple, obvious, and wrong Econ 101 ideas.

cgmg 9y ago
Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it is "wrong"?
repsilat 9y ago
Even if the bad schools can't respond to incentives to improve, allowing students to choose good schools over bad ones naturally increases utility.
- wahern 9y ago
  No it doesn't. It could easily result in less social utility by promoting self-segregation and the concentration of funding into high achievement schools where the marginal utility of each additional dollar is substantially diminished at the outset. The reason why kids from poor families do poorly in school is also the reason why those families are _least_ likely to be selective in their choice of schools. These are not independent phenomena. So unless the only utility function that matters is freedom to choose your school, approaches like vouchers are unlikely to improve things and could easily not only perpetuate but exacerbate achievement gaps and derivative social issues, like crime.
  - cgmg 9y ago
    The evidence indicates that voucher systems improve test scores, graduation rates, and other aspects of both public and private schools, not just the latter: http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/ http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/
    - wahern 9y ago
      15 years later, http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-student-achievement-stanford-researcher-finds/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-stu... I wouldn't expect charter schools to actually change much because the evidence is very clear that the most important factor in achievement, overwhelmingly, is the child's home environment.
    - wahern 9y ago
      Scaled-up voucher programs like those previously advocated by Secretary DeVos show the worst effects. There have recently been four statewide voucher programs: Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. The Florida study is inconclusive, and the others show large negative effects. In some respects, the Louisiana results are more convincing because the results have been corroborated by two different sets of researchers and students were assigned to vouchers by lottery—the most rigorous way to evaluate vouchers. In terms of providing convincing results, the Indiana and Ohio programs, are somewhere in between, but these show negative results as well. Voucher supporters argue that the results have been worse in the recent statewide programs because they have been “heavily regulated,” by which they mean the requirements that students be tested, that these results be made publicly available, and that schools must let in any student who is eligible for the voucher. The fact that this fairly minimal oversight is considered controversial or heavy-handed, however, only reinforces that private schools are designed to be exclusive and have little interest in external accountability. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-is-better-than-a-free-market-for-schooling/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-i...

cgmg 9y ago

Do you have evidence to back up your claim that it is "wrong"?

repsilat 9y ago

Even if the bad schools can't respond to incentives to improve, allowing students to choose good schools over bad ones naturally increases utility.

wahern 9y ago
No it doesn't. It could easily result in less social utility by promoting self-segregation and the concentration of funding into high achievement schools where the marginal utility of each additional dollar is substantially diminished at the outset. The reason why kids from poor families do poorly in school is also the reason why those families are _least_ likely to be selective in their choice of schools. These are not independent phenomena. So unless the only utility function that matters is freedom to choose your school, approaches like vouchers are unlikely to improve things and could easily not only perpetuate but exacerbate achievement gaps and derivative social issues, like crime.
- cgmg 9y ago
  The evidence indicates that voucher systems improve test scores, graduation rates, and other aspects of both public and private schools, not just the latter: http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/ http://educationnext.org/rising-tide/
  - wahern 9y ago
    15 years later, http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-student-achievement-stanford-researcher-finds/ http://news.stanford.edu/2017/02/28/vouchers-not-improve-stu... I wouldn't expect charter schools to actually change much because the evidence is very clear that the most important factor in achievement, overwhelmingly, is the child's home environment.
  - wahern 9y ago
    Scaled-up voucher programs like those previously advocated by Secretary DeVos show the worst effects. There have recently been four statewide voucher programs: Florida, Indiana, Louisiana, and Ohio. The Florida study is inconclusive, and the others show large negative effects. In some respects, the Louisiana results are more convincing because the results have been corroborated by two different sets of researchers and students were assigned to vouchers by lottery—the most rigorous way to evaluate vouchers. In terms of providing convincing results, the Indiana and Ohio programs, are somewhere in between, but these show negative results as well. Voucher supporters argue that the results have been worse in the recent statewide programs because they have been “heavily regulated,” by which they mean the requirements that students be tested, that these results be made publicly available, and that schools must let in any student who is eligible for the voucher. The fact that this fairly minimal oversight is considered controversial or heavy-handed, however, only reinforces that private schools are designed to be exclusive and have little interest in external accountability. https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-is-better-than-a-free-market-for-schooling/ https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/why-managed-competition-i...