Teachers College, Columbia University

Spring 2009

Evaluating Educational Privatization and School Choice

ITSF 4155/ORLA 4155
Tuesdays 5:10pm - 6:50pm

PROFESSOR:

Henry Levin, William Heard Kilpatrick Professor in the Economics of Education

Director, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education
hl361@columbia.edu

Office: 230 Thompson Hall, tel. 212 678 3857

Office hours: 2-5 Tuesdays, and by appointment

INTRODUCTION

Educational vouchers, tuition tax credits, educational contracting and other forms
of privatization have risen to be highly controversial issues. Cleveland, Milwaukee, and
Washington, DC have adopted education voucher plans in which public school students
can obtain a voucher to attend private schools, including religious ones. Florida passed
legislation that provides a voucher for any child in a failing public school, an act which
was eventually rejected by its courts. Utah passed statewide vouchers which were
rejected in a statewide referendum in 2007. In June 2002, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled
that vouchers do not violate the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Private
voucher plans are found in many cities with funds being provided by private entities: The
Children's Scholarship Fund in New York City is providing millions of dollars in private
scholarships to mainly Catholic schools. In addition, for-profit educational management
organizations are contracting with school districts to operate schools - often as charter
schools.
The purpose of this course is to provide a systematic exposure to the ideas,
experiences, and evidence surrounding privatization and school choice, with special
attention to educational vouchers. Charter schools, school contracting, and tuition tax
credits will also be addressed. This course and course materials will provide a
comprehensive guide for understanding vouchers and other forms of privatization by
covering their history, the provisions of different plans, research findings, and an overall
set of criteria by which to judge the implications of vouchers for student achievement,
educational equity, and democratic education. Each week we will cover a different topic.
Students will be expected to read the assigned material thoroughly before class. Some of
the classes will rely heavily on group discussions and problem-solving. Others will be
based on more traditional presentations or on guest lectures. There will be a range of

1
assignments, some rather brief and others more substantial. Students should have a basic
familiarity with economic and statistical concepts. Those with more advanced training in
these subjects can be given additional opportunities and more sophisticated readings, as
well as specialized assignments that build on their strengths.
The readings for the course are only a sample of the literature and information
available on the topics that we will cover. Additional sources can be found on the
extensive links available on the website of the National Center for the Study of
Privatization in Education, www.ncspe.org. In addition, that site has about 150 research
studies and methodological papers which cover some 20 different countries.
For those interested in the international discussions, look at the World Bank
website at (www1.worldbank.org/education/globaleducationreform/). The World Bank
has a pro-privatization stance; its website is for encouraging investment in private
education with information on privatization in different parts of the world
(http://www.ifc.org/edinvest).

Services for Students with Disabilities. The College will make reasonable
accommodations for persons with documented disabilities. Students are
encouraged to contact the Office of Access and Services for Individuals with
Disabilities for information about registration (166 Thorndike Hall). Services are
available only to students who are registered and submit appropriate
documentation. As your instructor, I am happy to discuss specific needs with you
as well.

IN Incomplete. The grade of Incomplete is to be assigned only when the course

attendance requirement has been met but, for reasons satisfactory to the instructor,
the granting of a final grade has been postponed because certain course
assignments are outstanding. If the outstanding assignments are completed within
one calendar year from the date of the close of term in which the grade of
Incomplete was received and a final grade submitted, the final grade will be
recorded on the permanent transcript, replacing the grade of Incomplete, with a
transcript notation indicating the date that the grade of Incomplete was replaced
by a final grade.

If the outstanding work is not completed within one calendar year from the date of
the close of term in which the grade of Incomplete was received, the grade will
remain as a permanent Incomplete on the transcript. In such instances, if the
course is a required course or part of an approved program of study, students will
be required to re-enroll in the course including repayment of all tuition and fee
charges for the new registration and satisfactorily complete all course
requirements. If the required course is not offered in subsequent terms, the
student should speak with the faculty advisor or Program Coordinator about their
options for fulfilling the degree requirement. Doctoral students with six or more
credits with grades of Incomplete included on their program of study will not be
allowed to sit for the certification exam.

2
READINGS

Required books (available at TC Bookstore):

1- Bulkley, Katrina E. and Priscilla Wohlstetter, eds. Taking Account of Charter Schools
(New York: Teachers College Press, 2004).
2- Belfield, Clive R. & Levin, Henry M. 2005. Privatizing Educational Choice:
Consequences for Parents, Schools and Public Policy (Paradigm Publishers.

Optional books of interest:

Levin, HM (Ed.). 2001. Privatizing Education. Westview Publishers.
Cookson, PW. 1995. School Choice: The Struggle for the Soul of American Education.
New Haven: Yale University Press.
Peterson, PE and DE Campbell (Eds.). 2001. Charters, Vouchers & Public Education.
Brookings Institution: Washington.
Sugarman, S and F Kemerer (Eds.). 2000. School Choice and Social Controversy.
Brookings Institution: Washington.
Howell, WG and PE Peterson. 2002. The Education Gap. Vouchers and Urban Public
Schools. Brookings Institution: Washington.

Required readings:
The other required readings will be available in a packet that can be purchased from the
reproduction service in the basement of Main Hall. These items that can be found in the
reader are noted on the syllabus with the superscript R. Please note that there are several
articles which are required readings but are not included in your readers. In an effort to
reduce the costs for students, we have indicated the URLs where you may read and/or
download these articles. These items are noted with the superscript WEB. Alternatively,
some articles will be available on Classweb, in which they will be noted with the
superscript CLASSWEB. These articles can be found in the section entitled “Files”, under the
folders “Collaborative Files” --> “Readings”

COURSE SCHEDULE

January 27: Introduction

Course overview: School choice in America’s education system.
Assignment descriptions; student expectations.

February 3: Rationale for Choice and Vouchers

Friedman, M. 1962. The role of government in education. In Capitalism and
Freedom. (pp.85-107). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. R
Levin, HM. 1991. The economics of educational choice. Economics of Education
Review, 10, 137–158. CLASSWEB

3
 Chubb, J and TM Moe. 1990. The root of the problem. An institutional perspective
on schools. In Politics, Markets and America’s Schools. (pp.1-69). R
Levin, H. & Belfield, C. (2005) Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology
Trumps Evidence, American Journal of Education, 111 (August). CLASSWEB
http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/AJE/journal/issues/v111n4/111406/111406.
web.pdf
Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2005) Privatizing Educational Choice, Chap. 1.

February 10: Four Dimensions for Doing a Comparative Evaluation

Levin, HM. 2002. A comprehensive framework for evaluating educational
vouchers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, NCSPE Occasional
Paper #5 WEB, www.ncspe.org
Belfield, C. & Levin, H. (2005) Privatizing Educational Choice, Chap. 2.

February 17: The First Dimension: Freedom of Choice – #1 Family Preferences

Peshkin, A. 1986. Blessed assurance. The dictates of doctrine. In God’s Choice:
The Total World of a Fundamentalist Christian School. (pp.32-61). Chicago:
University of Chicago Press. R
James, E. 1987. The public/private division of responsibility for education: An
international comparison. In James, T and HM Levin (Eds.). Comparing
Public and Private Schools Volume I. (pp.95-127). New York: Falmer Press. R
Tice, P., Chapman, C., Princiotta, D., & Bielick, S. 2006. Trends in the Use of
School Choice: 1993 to 2003 (Washington, D.C.: National Center for
Educational Statistics). WEB
http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2007045.
Bifulco, R., Ladd, HF., and S. Ross 2008. Public School Choice and Integration:
Evidence from Durham, North Carolina. Center for Policy Research,
Working Paper no. 109. CLASSWEB

February 24: The First Dimension: Freedom of Choice – #2 Outcomes of Choice

Teske, P and M Schneider. 2000. What research can tell policymakers about school
choice. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 609-631. WEB
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi-bin/fulltext/85513798/PDFSTART
Weiher, G and K Tedin. 2002. Does choice lead to racially distinctive schools?
Charter schools and household preferences. Journal of Policy Analysis and
Management, 21, 79-92. WEB http://csab.wustl.edu/workingpapers/Weiher.PDF
Howell, W. (2006) Switching Schools? A Closer Look at Parents’Initial Interest in
and Knowledge About the Choice Provisions of No Child Left Behind,
Peabody Journal of Education 81(1), pp. 140-179. CLASSWEB

March 3: The First Dimension: Freedom of Choice – #3 Schooling Supply

Belfield, CR, Levin, HM (2005) Privatizing Educational Choice, Chaps. 5 & 7.
Henig, JR, Holyoke, TT, Brown, H and N Lacireno-Paquet. 2003. The influence of
founder type on charter school structures and operations. NCSPE Occasional
Paper #77 WEB, www.ncspe.org

4
 Bauman, KJ. 2002. Home-schooling in the United States: Trends and
characteristics. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (26) WEB
http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n26.html

March 10: The Second Dimension: Productive Efficiency – #1 Overview

McEwan, PJ. 2000. Comparing the Effectiveness of Public and Private Schools: A
Review of Evidence and Interpretations. NCSPE Occasional Paper #3 WEB,
www.ncspe.org
Belfield, CR and HM Levin. (2005) Privatizing Educational Choice, Chap. 6.
Card, D., Dooley, M. and a. Payne 2008. School Competition and Efficiency with
Publicly Funded Catholic Schools. Working Paper 14176, WEB
http://www.nber.org/papers/w14176

March 17: SPRING BREAK

March 24: The Second Dimension: Productive Efficiency – #2 Experimental

Evidence
Witte, J. 1998. The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 20, 229-251. CLASSWEB
Rouse, CE. And L. Barrow 2008. School Vouchers and Student Achievement:
Recent Evidence, Remaining Questions. WEB
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1267346 CLASSWEB
Gamoran, A. 1996. Student achievement in public magnet, public comprehensive,
and private city high schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis,
18, 1-18. CLASSWEB
Howell, WG and PE Peterson. 2002. The Urban Test Score Gap. Chapter 6. The
Education Gap. Vouchers and Urban Public Schools. Brookings Institution:
Washington. R
Zimmer, R. & E. P. Bettinger, “Beyond the Rhetoric: Surveying the Evidence on
Vouchers and Tax Credits,” In Ladd and Fiske, Handbook of Research in
Education Finance and Policy, pp. 447-466.
Wolf, P. et al. 2008. Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Programs:
Summary of Experimental Impacts After Two Years. (Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Education). WEB
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pdf/20084024.pdf
For further readings on this topic, see the suggested books and see articles in
American Behavioral Scientist, 2004, vol. 47, pp.634-728.

March 31: The Second Dimension: Productive Efficiency – #3 Other Perspectives,

McEwan, PJ and M Carnoy. 2000. The Effectiveness and Efficiency of Private
Schools in Chile’s Voucher System, Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 22(3), pp. 213-39. CLASSWEB
Uribe, C., Murnane, R., Willett, J., & Somers, M.A. (2006) Expanding School
Enrollment by Subsidizing Private Schools: Lessons from Bogota,
Comparative Education Review, 50(2) (May), pp. 241-77. WEB

5
 http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/CER/journal/issues/v50n2/500203/500203.
web.pdf
Somers, MA, McEwan, PJ and JD Willms. 2004. How effective are private schools
in Latin America? Comparative Education Review, 48, pp. 48-69. WEB
http://www.wellesley.edu/Economics/mcewan/PDF/howeffective.pdf
Boehlmark, A. and M. Lindahl 2008. Does School Privitization Improve
Educational Achievement? Evidence from Sweden’s Voucher Reform.
CLASSWEB

April 7: The Second Dimension: Productive Efficiency – #4 Costs & Incentives

Levin, HM and C Driver. 1997. Costs of an educational voucher system. Education
Economics, 5, 303-311. WEB (Note: if off campus, the link below will not work;
instead, you will have to log into the Columbia University libraries, select the
‘ejournals’ tab and search for Education Economics, and then download the
article from Business Source Premier)
http://search.epnet.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&an=206065&site=eh
ost
Chambers, J. 1987. Patterns of compensation of public and private school teachers.
In T James and HM Levin (Eds.). Comparing Public and Private Schools.
Volume 1. New York: Falmer Press. R
Figlio, D. & Rouse, C. (2006) Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-
performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90, pp. 239-55. WEB
http://papers.nber.org/papers/w11597.pdf
Miron, Gary, “Educational Management Organizations,” Ladd and Fiske,
Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, pp. 475-496.
Levin, HM. 2005. The potential of for-profit schools for educational reform. In
Belfield, C. & Levin, H., Privatizing Educational Choice, Chap. 8.

Optional for those interested in developing countries:

Tooley, James & Pauline Dixon (2005) Private Education is Good for the Poor
(Washington, DC: Cato Institute). WEB
http://www.cato.org/pubs/wtpapers/tooley.pdf

April 14: The Third Dimension: Equity #1

Martinez, V, Godwin, K and F Kemerer. 1996. Public school choice in San Antonio:
Who chooses and with what effects? In B Fuller and R Elmore (Eds.). Who
Chooses? Who Loses? Culture, Institutions, and the Unequal Effects of
School Choice. New York: Teachers College Press. R
Willms, JD. 1996. School choice and community segregation: Findings from
Scotland. In A Kerckhoff (Ed.) Generating Social Stratification: Toward a
New Research Agenda. Boulder: Westview Press. R
Fuller, B. and Others, “Localized Ideas of Fairness: Inequality Aiming Charter
Schools,” In Taking Account of Charter Schools, Chap. 5.
Zimmer, R and E Toma 2000. Peer effects in private and public schools across
countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19, 75-92. CLASSWEB

6
April 21: The Third Dimension: Equity #2
Ladd, HF and EB Fiske. 2001. The uneven playing field of school choice: Evidence
from New Zealand. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 20, 43-63.
CLASSWEB

Fairlie RW and AM Resch. 2002. Is there “white flight” into private schools?
Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Survey. Review of
Economics and Statistics, 84, 21-33 WEB. (Note: if off campus, the link below
will not work; instead, you will have to log into the Columbia University
libraries, select the ‘ejournals’ tab and search for Review of Economics and
Statistics, and then download the article from Wilson OmniFile) URL:
http://vnweb.hwwilsonweb.com/hww/jumpstart.jhtml?recid=0bc05f7a67b179
0e57e7a743e52570cf27496f7fb632c9619074434a4d4863ccdd84663e15a9b28
9&fmt=H
Levin, H. M. 1998 Educational vouchers: effectiveness, choice, and costs. Journal
of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 373-92. CLASSWEB

April 28: The Fourth Dimension: Social Cohesion

Gill et al. 2001. Rhetoric versus Reality. Chapter 7.
Sander, W. 2001. The Effects of Catholic Schools on Religiosity, Education, and
Competition. NCSPE Occasional Paper #32 WEB, www.ncspe.org
Parker, W. 1995. Curriculum for democracy. (pp.182-211). In R Soder (Ed.).
Democracy, Education and the Schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass
Publishers. R
Greene, J. 1998. Civic values in public and private schools. (pp. 83-106). In P
Peterson and B Hassel (Eds). Learning from School Choice. Brookings:
Washington. R
Campbell, DE. 2001. Civic education: Readying Massachusetts’ next generation of
citizens. Pioneer Institute, WP#17. WEB
http://www.pioneerinstitute.org/pdf/wp17.pdf
Coleman, JS. 1988. Social capital, human capital, and schools. Independent School,
pp.9-16. R

May 5: Charter Schools #1

Data on Charter Schools. www.USCharterschools.org
Bulkley, K. 2004 Balancing Act: Educational Management Organization and
Charter School Autonomy. In Bulkley & Wohlstetter, Taking Account of
Charter Schools, Chap. 6.
Huerta, L and M-F Gonzalez. 2003. Cyber and home school charter schools: How
states are defining new forms of public schooling. NCSPE Occasional Paper
#85 WEB, www.ncspe.org
Lubienski, C. (2004) Charter School Innovation in Theory and Practice: Autonomy,
R&D, and Curricular Conformity, In Bulkley & Wohlstetter, Taking Account
of Charter Schools, Chap. 4.
Bifulco, Robert & K. Bulkley, “Charter Schools,” In Ladd and Fiske, Handbook of
Research in Education Finance and Policy, pp. 425-47.

7
May 12: Charter Schools #2
Chubb, JE. 2002. A supply-side view of student selectivity. In PT Hill (Ed.) Choice
with Equity. Hoover Institution; Stanford. WEB
http://media.hoover.org/documents/0817938923_85.pdf
Miron, G and C Nelson. 2002. Student academic achievement in charter schools: In
Bulkley & Wohlstetter, Taking Account of Charter Schools, Chap. 8.
U. S. Department of Education, America's Charter Schools: Results from
the NAEP Pilot Study, National Center for Education Statistics (2005),
20 pages. WEB http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/studies/2005456.pdf
Rhim, L. R. (2004) Balancing disparate visions: Analysis of special education in
charter schools. In Bulkley & Wohlstetter, Taking Account of Charter Schools,
Chap. 7.
Betts, JR. and YE. Tang 2008. Charter Schools and Student Achievement: A Review
of the Evidence. In RJ. Lake (Ed.) Hopes, Fears, and Reality: A Balanced
Look at American Charter Schools in 2008.
http://www.crpe.org/cs/crpe/view/csr_pubs/255 CLASSWEB

COLLECTION OF FINAL PAPER

COURSE EVALUATION