School Choice Evidence and its Significance.
Saved in:
| Title: | School Choice Evidence and its Significance. |
|---|---|
| Authors: | Merrifield, John1 (AUTHOR) john.merrifield@utsa.edu |
| Source: | Journal of School Choice. 2008, Vol. 2 Issue 3, p223-259. 37p. |
| Subject Terms: | *School choice, *Educational accountability, *Education policy, *Public schools, *Government aid to education, *Education & society, *School administration, *Educational programs, *Educational innovations |
| Geographic Terms: | United States |
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
| Copyright of Journal of School Choice is the property of Taylor & Francis Ltd and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.) | |
| Database: | Education Research Complete |
|
Full text is not displayed to guests.
Login for full access.
|
|
| Abstract: | 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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
|---|---|
| ISSN: | 15582159 |
| DOI: | 10.1080/15582150802371408 |
