Research
"Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program Evaluation: 1998-2002," by Kimberly Metcalf, The Indiana Center for Evaluation, March 2003. "In the autumn of 2002, the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program (CSTP)1 begins its first year free of the legal uncertainty that has surrounded the program since its inception. In the weeks following the Supreme Court's ruling that the program is constitutional, attention has been refocused on the ongoing evaluation of the program. As the longest running evaluation of any publicly-funded voucher program to date, and as the only fully longitudinal study of the impacts of vouchers on students over time, the state-contracted evaluation provides a unique opportunity to enhance understanding of voucher and other choice programs."
"Milwaukee Parental Choice Program Information Paper 29," prepared by Russ Kava, Wisconsin Legislative Fiscal Bureau, January 2003.
School Vouchers - Publicly Funded Programs in Cleveland and Milwaukee, United States General Accounting Office, August 2001. - This General Accounting Office (GAO) report pulls together research that has been done on the publicly funded voucher programs operating in Cleveland and Milwaukee. The data does not provide a clear answer as to whether the racial and ethnic composition of schools in Cleveland and Milwaukee has changed as a result of the voucher programs. However, in both cities less money is spent on voucher students than on other public school students. Based on the information that GAO examined there was little or no difference in voucher and public school students'
Vouchers for Special Education Students: An Evaluation of Florida's McKay Scholarship Program, Jay P. Greene, Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, June 2003,. "This study is the first empirical evaluation of the McKay program's performance. Based on two telephone surveys-one of parents currently using a McKay voucher and the other of parents who previously used a voucher but no longer do-this study shows that parents are much more satisfied with their experiences in private McKay schools than they were with their experiences in the public schools. This is true both for currently participating parents and for parents who have left the program."
View a press-release summary of the "D.C. Parental Choice Incentive Act" of 2003, from the House Committee on Government Reform.
In "School Choice: A Civil Rights Issue," June 24, 2002, from the Hoover Institution, researchers Paul E. Peterson and William G. Howell discuss President Bush's $50 million budget proposal for trial school choice programs. "Bush refers to 'expanding' school choice with good reason," they state. "Since blacks have the least amount of choice among public schools, they benefit the most when choice is expanded."
"School Choice: Doing it the right way makes a difference," The National Working Commission on Choice in K-12 Education-The Brookings Institution, November 2003. "This report details the good that can be done if school choice is well implemented and the harm that can result if it is done too quickly, carelessly and cheap. It also recommends ample funding-making the case that this will prevent segregation-more autonomy for all schools to hire teachers on the basis of 'fit' and raises the questions about the capacity of existing school districts to properly oversee choice."
Administrative Costs of Education Voucher Programs, Paul T. Hill, Center on Reinventing Public Education, September 2003. "This paper focuses on the administrative costs of voucher programs. It considers the tasks that public and private agencies must undertake, and estimates the administrative burdens and cash flows that local voucher programs create. It assumes that all voucher programs, including those meant in part to reduce overcrowding, will be voluntary, i.e. that no child can be assigned to attend a private school against its parents' will. It also assumes that public agencies will continue to care about the educational experiences and growth of voucher students, and will therefore want both to administer voucher programs in ways that let private schools do their best for students and to ensure that student outcomes are evaluated."
"School Choice 2003: How States Are Providing Greater Opportunity in Education," is an annual report from the Heritage Foundation examining state-by-state trends in school choice.
Cohen L. & Gray B.C., "School Vouchers After Zelman," Paper presented at the conference, What's Next for School Vouchers? 2002.
The U.S. Supreme Court's Decision in the Cleveland Voucher Case: Where To From Here?, Frank R. Kemerer, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, July 2002. "This paper discusses the legal implications of Zelman v. Simmons-Harris, the Supreme Court ruling on education vouchers. With a ruling in favor, the green light is now on for the development of voucher programs elsewhere. But, the green light shines only from the perspective of the federal constitution. The Supreme Court's decision does not abrogate the application of restrictive provisions in state constitutions to publicly funded voucher and tax benefit programs, nor does it restrict a state from imposing reasonable regulations on participating private schools. As argued here, these state constitutions need to be carefully understood before anticipating more education voucher programs. As a comparison, the legal status of tuition tax credits is also considered. These credits appear to have the edge over vouchers in several key respects."
School Vouchers: What We Know and Don't Know . . . And How We Could Learn More, Center on Education Policy, June 2000. This report addresses four basic questions: (1) What do we know from current studies of publicly funded voucher programs? (2) What more could we learn from additional research on these programs? (3) What key questions cannot be answered because of how existing programs are structured? and (4) What can policymakers, researchers and funders do to expand the knowledge base on vouchers?
Visitor counts for this page.
 Education Program
|
