Who Benefits Most From School Choice?

Who benefits from school choice? Conventional wisdom claims it’s the sharp-elbowed, well-heeled middle-classes that do the best. That’s the same CW that thinks the Big Society is all very well and good for Hampstead but it can never work in Hackney. This has never seemed especially persuasive to me, not least because these ideas are really designed to release untapped social capital and, almost by definition, there may be more of that untapped potential in less-affluent areas. Rapid growth and improvement should not be thought impossible.

I’m glad to see, then, that there’s at least some academic support for this thesis. Overall or on average charter schools in the United States have not always or do not produce the magical gains that some choice enthusiasts claim. But, crucially, studies do show considerable improvements in the poorest urban areas – the very places where they are most needed. Over to Stuart Buck:

Consider as well this very recent study of charter schools in Milwaukee. The author (Hiren Nisar) says that “charter schools on average have no significant effect on student achievement.” An opponent of charter schools (say, a Diane Ravitch) would cite that finding as if it represented the entirety of the study.

But Nisar goes on to find that the overall average is hiding a critically important distinction:

“Charter schools with higher level of autonomy from the district in terms of financial budget, academic program, and hiring decisions, are effective. I show that students in these charter schools would read at a grade level higher than similar students who attend a traditional public school in three years. Irrespective of the type and the age of the charter school, race of the student, or grade level, attending a charter school has a positive effect on low achieving students. I show that these effects on low achieving students are substantial and are more than enough to eliminate the achievement gap in two years.”

Once again, the overall average is completely meaningless if you are interested in expanding the very charter schools that are most likely to work, i.e., the ones that serve low-achieving students and that have more autonomy from their competition (the school district).

Autonomy – or independence – is vital everywhere. Meanwhile, as Reihan Salam points out, for middle-class kids it may well be the case that choice is a benefit in and of itself, regardless of any impact it might have on educational outcomes:

One could argue that charter school performance with more affluent, higher-achieving students masks other aspects of what we might call “customer satisfaction,” i.e., the students may not test as well, but we’re seeing revealed preference at work. (Imagine middle-class parents choosing to send a child to a progressive arts-focused charter, where reading and math scores are lackluster relative to a conventional school but results in other domains, like the life satisfaction of idiosyncratic students, are impressive.)

I agree. Variety is the key. Not every Free School will succeed but if there are enough of them and they are free enough then there’s plenty of evidence to support them and suggest that, in the cities at least, they can help improve opportunities for those whose opportunities most need improving.