There is no policy economists love more than school choice. Milton Friedman was an early proponent. The idea certainly makes sense: if parents have the ability to choose the best schools for their children, outcomes should improve through both the better matching of kids to specific schools and the resulting competition that would force schools to develop their programs.
The theory sounds great, but evidence confirming it has been hard to find. Julie Cullen and Brian Jacob, my good friends and co-authors, haven’t done school choice proponents any favors with their latest paper (the full version of which can be found here). Using kindergarten lottery outcomes that determine which kids get into the most sought-after schools, they are able to compare the outcomes of those who win the lottery versus those who lose. The students who win the lotteries go to “better” schools and have “better” peers, but they don’t have better outcomes. These results confirm the earlier findings that Julie, Brian, and I obtained when we examined the impact of lotteries on high school outcomes in Chicago.
Why don’t the kids who get access to “better” schools do better? That is a difficult question. Part of the answer is likely that the definition of “better” is based on outputs, like how high the test scores are at the school or what fraction of its students attend good colleges. That sort of metric ignores the fact that “better” schools tend to attract “better” kids. These are kids with strong families and good academic backgrounds. So even if the school is not at all good at adding value, it will still have the best outputs, because it had the best inputs. If the school does not have high value added, there is no reason to expect that a child who transfers there will do better than she did at her previous school. Parents don’t have good information on the inputs to a school, only the outputs, so it is difficult for them to accurately assess value added.
Also, I believe that people tend to systematically overstate the importance of peer effects, plus many parents are not choosing schools based on academics, but based on other criteria like convenience.
In thinking about the broader implications of this research, it is important to bear in mind that the school choice program that Julie and Brian analyze is just one kind of school choice (albeit the most common one), operating within a single public school system. It differs from voucher programs or school choice across school districts, and increased competition may be more effective in those settings.
and 
. You can also watch it on 
David, Johnny’s parents have absolute freedom of choice to not live in the district that their child will have to attend. Who is forcing them to live there? Move. You’re creating a restriction that doesn’t exist.
David, Johnny’s parents have absolute freedom of choice to not live in the district that their child will have to attend. Who is forcing them to live there? Move. You’re creating a restriction that doesn’t exist.
I’ve never like lotto type selection systems, because it can negatively effect the selected school…e.g. someone wants their kid to go to “The Good Silver Bullet Solution High School”. Now Good High happens to have parents who know that staying in school, preparing for college, personal discipline etc. are all important to having good jobs and being successful, and have been training their kids in such manner since they could walk and talk. Enter into that mix a group of kids who don’t have the discipline, but have the luck of the lotto – then what happens. Either a) the new kids can’t keep up and still continue to do poor, b) the new kids “slow down” all of the other kids, or c) both.
I agree that the parents/guardians influence on the kids to get them to do well has more effect than the school as a whole – and without that influence, the kids won’t do well regardless of what school they go to.
So has any studies been done to show what happens to overall “achievement” when unprepared students are added to the population?
I’ve never like lotto type selection systems, because it can negatively effect the selected school…e.g. someone wants their kid to go to “The Good Silver Bullet Solution High School”. Now Good High happens to have parents who know that staying in school, preparing for college, personal discipline etc. are all important to having good jobs and being successful, and have been training their kids in such manner since they could walk and talk. Enter into that mix a group of kids who don’t have the discipline, but have the luck of the lotto – then what happens. Either a) the new kids can’t keep up and still continue to do poor, b) the new kids “slow down” all of the other kids, or c) both.
I agree that the parents/guardians influence on the kids to get them to do well has more effect than the school as a whole – and without that influence, the kids won’t do well regardless of what school they go to.
So has any studies been done to show what happens to overall “achievement” when unprepared students are added to the population?
Just a quick thought on this: what if “better” was measured differently? What if “better” was measure by the type of wages earned in job or likelihood of attending college?
The reason I say this is that, while the better school may not directly affect the short term metrics like test score, it may have effect on longer term metrics. I can envision someone who, through attending a better school, gets a better job or goes on to higher education, because of the experience in a better school, regardless of whether their test scores increase.
Just a quick thought on this: what if “better” was measured differently? What if “better” was measure by the type of wages earned in job or likelihood of attending college?
The reason I say this is that, while the better school may not directly affect the short term metrics like test score, it may have effect on longer term metrics. I can envision someone who, through attending a better school, gets a better job or goes on to higher education, because of the experience in a better school, regardless of whether their test scores increase.
Choice is made– by choosing the community a parent lives in. Communities are a reflection of common values and expectations and schools reflect the community. Usually, one chooses to remain in a community of shared values or move to a new one– and his or her children will be indoctrinated in the same values. Believe it or not, not all parents care to give their children the best opportunities for a stellar education. It’s the elephant in the room when discussing school choice.
Choice is made– by choosing the community a parent lives in. Communities are a reflection of common values and expectations and schools reflect the community. Usually, one chooses to remain in a community of shared values or move to a new one– and his or her children will be indoctrinated in the same values. Believe it or not, not all parents care to give their children the best opportunities for a stellar education. It’s the elephant in the room when discussing school choice.