Evaluating Consequences of Educational Privatization

Ideas and consequences of market principles in education:The Swedish case in an international perspective

The Royal Swedish Academy of SciencesStockholm, Sweden, March 11-12, 2013

Henry M. LevinTeachers College, Columbia University

Educational Privatization

Rising as focus of educational policy. Promoted by World Bank. Assertions of Advocates.

Greater Effectiveness-competition for students Greater Equity-family choice

Tension of Public and Private Goals of Education

Public- promotes civic participation, a historical and cultural heritage, a common set of economic and political values, and a common language.

Private-promotes individual development, understanding, and productivity that contribute to adult well being.

Not completely compatible.

EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS

Proposed by Milton Friedman in 1955 and expanded in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. His arguments:

Because of social benefits of schooling in creating common values necessary for democracy, government should fund basic levels of education.

Because of superior efficiency of market in producing goods and services, operation of schools should be done through market competition rather than government.

VOUCHER MECHANISM

Government funds are used to provide a certificate to parents that can be used for tuition at approved schools.

Schools can meet requirements for approval and obtain vouchers by attracting students.

Vouchers are redeemed by schools with State to obtain funds.

Voucher is usually symbolic with funding going directly to schools on basis of voucher amount and enrollments.

VOUCHER MECHANISM(CONTINUED)

Schools compete for students and their vouchers by trying to provide most attractive programs.

Market competition is used to create and ensure good schools.  Schools that cannot attract sufficient numbers of students do not survive competition.

WHERE HAVE EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS BEEN USED?

Chile, since 1980, has a national system of vouchers. Sweden has had voucher alternative since 1992. Netherlands has had school choice with voucher-type funding

since 1917. Low income families only: Milwaukee since 1990 with more than 20,000 students

participating. (low Cleveland since 1995 with about 5,000 students participating. Experiments in New York, Washington, and Dayton for three

years.

PROBLEMS IN EVALUATING

Highly ideological and emotional issue.

Public opinion is uninformed. Little understanding or useful information.

No single voucher plan, but many.

Multiple goals of education that must be considered. Not just test scores.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Privatization and vouchers can differ profoundly in design and consequences by:

A. Finance B. Regulations C. Support Services

Finance

1- Size of Voucher

2- Additional Parental Fees Allowed

3- Compensatory Vouchers for Educationally At-risk Students (Chile-50 percent more, recent addition).

Regulations

Admissions—Lotteries vs. school selection. Curriculum—Common requirements. Testing-- Personnel Credentials School Sponsorship (e.g. religious)

Support Services

Transportation—access to options

Information—informed decisions

Adjudication—settle disputes when parents are dissatisfied with choice

FOUR MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS

FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY

EQUITY

SOCIAL COHESION

FREEDOM OF CHOICE

Providing parents with the time honored right to impart to their children their values, religious beliefs, and political perspectives by enabling them to choose the kind of school that mirrors and reinforces child-rearing practices.

PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY

Maximizing school results for a given level of resources. Not just test scores. Student engagement and interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, values, and attitudes. Full range of human development.

EQUITY

Providing fairness in access to educational opportunities, resources, and outcomes by gender, social class, race, language origins, and geographical location of students.

SOCIAL COHESION

Preparing the young for democratic and civic participation by providing a common educational experience with respect to curriculum, values, language, and institutional orientations so that students from many different backgrounds will accept and support a common set of social, political, and economic arrangements that are foundational to a stable and democratic society.

VOUCHER PLANS

Friedman Plan –1. Flat voucher from government (modest).2. Parents could add on to voucher.3. Minimal curriculum, no other regulations. No

testing requirements.4. Admissions determined by school.5. No government information or transportation.

Chile

Private schools choose students; public schools must accept.

Flat voucher—some adjustment for at-risk students.

National curriculum and testing. Private schools can add fees (limited).

Netherlands

Flat subvention per student, no fees. Private schools can choose students. Public schools accept all applicants. Extra funding immigrants. Only non-profit schools.

Sweden

Choice among public schools of independent schools.

Schools must accept students if space is available.

Flat voucher for each school level with extra funds for disabilities.

No parental fees.

Trade-offs and Conflicts

Support Services such as Transportation have high costs reducing funds for instruction.

Common curriculum and testing improve social cohesion, but reduce choice.

Philanthropy, parent fees increase funding, reduce equity.

Achieving Balance

Setting priorities among criteria. (e.g. which are most important?)

Using policy design tools that achieve balance.

Research in Last Decade

1- Increases Freedom of Choice. 2- Mixed Results on Student Achievement,

but parent satisfaction is higher. 3- Evidence of increased stratification and

inequities (e.g. Chile, Netherlands, New Zealand,).

4- Little Evidence on Social Cohesion.

Freedom of Choice

Always increases range of choices for parents and students.

Number of choices depends upon level of subsidy and access to parent fees.

Extent of choices depends on regulations (e.g. for-profit, religious, political, and extra fees from families).

Productive Efficiency

Limited to test scores. No evidence on non-cognitive outcomes. Weak studies for adjusting for student

selection (non-observables). Mixed results and small differences. Infrastructural Costs--

Equity

Increased stratification by income and ethnicity. (Chile, Netherlands, Sweden)

Greater resources (school fees and contributions) for students in schools with students from higher income families.

Higher socioeconomic schools attract teachers and principals with greater qualifications

Social Cohesion

Little direct evidence. Stratification leads to different educational

experiences. Students have limited or no contact with

students from other income or ethnic backgrounds. Evidence of family and school choice decisions.

Rise in Independent Schools and Students since 2000

Achievement

Bohlmark and Lindahl (2012) and Niepel, Edmark, & Frolich (2012).

Excellent studies using two different methods to capture effects.

Possible gains from competition of about 1-2 percentiles or about 1 point on international tests (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS).

Large Decline in Achievement of 15 year olds, Sweden

Sweden 4th and 8th grade

4th Grade Reading, Sweden

Little Evidence of Impact on Improving Achievement

2001-11 Decline 4th grade reading, 19 pt. 1995-2011 Decline 8th grade math, 68 pt. and

15 pt. loss since 2003. 1995-2011 Decline 8th grade sciences, 50 pt.

and 15 pt. loss since 2003. 2000-09 PISA. Decline 19 pt. reading, 16 pt.

math, 17 pt. science.

Equity

Skoverket, Educational Equity in the Swedish School System? A Quantative Analysis Over Time (September 6, 2012).

Lisbeth Lundahl (2002, 2005) Bohlmark & Lindahl (2012) Niepel, Edmark, Frolich (2012)

Equity

Rising inequity. Increased variance among schools in

achievement. Increased stratification by income and

foreign origins, but not post-secondary education of parents.

Greater peer effects on outcomes

Sweden Vouchers—Four Criteria

Freedom of Choice + Productive Efficiency

Achievement 0 Equity - Social Cohesion ?

Where Should Emphasis Be Placed?

Choice Equity Productive Efficiency Social

Cohesion

Policy Choices

Balancing competing goals. Balancing public vs. private goals.

Family preferences. Social purposes of education.

Need better evaluations.

THANK YOU

Jag tackar er