Evaluating Consequences of Educational Privatization Ideas and consequences of market principles in education: The Swedish case in an international perspective The Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences Stockholm, Sweden, March 11-12, 2013 Henry M. Levin Teachers College, Columbia University

Educational Privatization  Rising as focus of educational policy.  Promoted by World Bank.  Assertions of Advocates. Greater Effectiveness-competition for students Greater Equity-family choice

Tension of Public and Private Goals of Education  Public- promotes civic participation, a historical and cultural heritage, a common set of economic and political values, and a common language.  Private-promotes individual development, understanding, and productivity that contribute to adult well being.  Not completely compatible.

EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS Proposed by Milton Friedman in 1955 and expanded in his book, Capitalism and Freedom. His arguments:  Because of social benefits of schooling in creating common values necessary for democracy, government should fund basic levels of education.  Because of superior efficiency of market in producing goods and services, operation of schools should be done through market competition rather than government.

VOUCHER MECHANISM  Government funds are used to provide a certificate to parents that can be used for tuition at approved schools.  Schools can meet requirements for approval and obtain vouchers by attracting students.  Vouchers are redeemed by schools with State to obtain funds.  Voucher is usually symbolic with funding going directly to schools on basis of voucher amount and enrollments.

VOUCHER MECHANISM (CONTINUED)  Schools compete for students and their vouchers by trying to provide most attractive programs.  Market competition is used to create and ensure good schools. Schools that cannot attract sufficient numbers of students do not survive competition.

WHERE HAVE EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS BEEN USED?  Chile, since 1980, has a national system of vouchers.  Sweden has had voucher alternative since  Netherlands has had school choice with voucher-type funding since  Low income families only:  Milwaukee since 1990 with more than 20,000 students participating. (low  Cleveland since 1995 with about 5,000 students participating.  Experiments in New York, Washington, and Dayton for three years.

PROBLEMS IN EVALUATING  Highly ideological and emotional issue.  Public opinion is uninformed. Little understanding or useful information.   No single voucher plan, but many.  Multiple goals of education that must be considered. Not just test scores.

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS  Privatization and vouchers can differ profoundly in design and consequences by:  A. Finance  B. Regulations  C. Support Services

Finance 1- Size of Voucher 2- Additional Parental Fees Allowed 3- Compensatory Vouchers for Educationally At-risk Students (Chile-50 percent more, recent addition).

Regulations  Admissions—Lotteries vs. school selection.  Curriculum—Common requirements.  Testing--  Personnel Credentials  School Sponsorship (e.g. religious)

Support Services  Transportation—access to options  Information—informed decisions  Adjudication—settle disputes when parents are dissatisfied with choice

FOUR MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS  FREEDOM TO CHOOSE  PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY  EQUITY  SOCIAL COHESION

FREEDOM OF CHOICE Providing parents with the time honored right to impart to their children their values, religious beliefs, and political perspectives by enabling them to choose the kind of school that mirrors and reinforces child- rearing practices.

PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY Maximizing school results for a given level of resources. Not just test scores. Student engagement and interpersonal and intrapersonal skills, values, and attitudes. Full range of human development.

EQUITY Providing fairness in access to educational opportunities, resources, and outcomes by gender, social class, race, language origins, and geographical location of students.

SOCIAL COHESION Preparing the young for democratic and civic participation by providing a common educational experience with respect to curriculum, values, language, and institutional orientations so that students from many different backgrounds will accept and support a common set of social, political, and economic arrangements that are foundational to a stable and democratic society.

VOUCHER PLANS Friedman Plan – 1. Flat voucher from government (modest). 2.Parents could add on to voucher. 3.Minimal curriculum, no other regulations. No testing requirements. 4.Admissions determined by school. 5.No government information or transportation.

Chile  Private schools choose students; public schools must accept.  Flat voucher—some adjustment for at-risk students.  National curriculum and testing.  Private schools can add fees (limited).

Netherlands  Flat subvention per student, no fees.  Private schools can choose students.  Public schools accept all applicants.  Extra funding immigrants.  Only non-profit schools.

Sweden  Choice among public schools of independent schools.  Schools must accept students if space is available.  Flat voucher for each school level with extra funds for disabilities.  No parental fees.

Trade-offs and Conflicts  Support Services such as Transportation have high costs reducing funds for instruction.  Common curriculum and testing improve social cohesion, but reduce choice.  Philanthropy, parent fees increase funding, reduce equity.

Achieving Balance  Setting priorities among criteria. (e.g. which are most important?)  Using policy design tools that achieve balance.

Research in Last Decade  1- Increases Freedom of Choice.  2- Mixed Results on Student Achievement, but parent satisfaction is higher.  3- Evidence of increased stratification and inequities (e.g. Chile, Netherlands, New Zealand,).  4- Little Evidence on Social Cohesion.

Freedom of Choice  Always increases range of choices for parents and students.  Number of choices depends upon level of subsidy and access to parent fees.  Extent of choices depends on regulations (e.g. for-profit, religious, political, and extra fees from families).

Productive Efficiency  Limited to test scores.  No evidence on non-cognitive outcomes.  Weak studies for adjusting for student selection (non-observables).  Mixed results and small differences.  Infrastructural Costs--

Equity  Increased stratification by income and ethnicity. (Chile, Netherlands, Sweden)  Greater resources (school fees and contributions) for students in schools with students from higher income families.  Higher socioeconomic schools attract teachers and principals with greater qualifications

Social Cohesion  Little direct evidence.  Stratification leads to different educational experiences.  Students have limited or no contact with students from other income or ethnic backgrounds. Evidence of family and school choice decisions.

Rise in Independent Schools and Students since 2000

Achievement  Bohlmark and Lindahl (2012) and Niepel, Edmark, & Frolich (2012).  Excellent studies using two different methods to capture effects.  Possible gains from competition of about 1-2 percentiles or about 1 point on international tests (PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS).

Large Decline in Achievement of 15 year olds, Sweden

Sweden 4 th and 8 th grade

4 th Grade Reading, Sweden

Little Evidence of Impact on Improving Achievement  Decline 4 th grade reading, 19 pt.  Decline 8 th grade math, 68 pt. and 15 pt. loss since  Decline 8 th grade sciences, 50 pt. and 15 pt. loss since  PISA. Decline 19 pt. reading, 16 pt. math, 17 pt. science.

Equity  Skoverket, Educational Equity in the Swedish School System? A Quantative Analysis Over Time (September 6, 2012).  Lisbeth Lundahl (2002, 2005)  Bohlmark & Lindahl (2012)  Niepel, Edmark, Frolich (2012)

Equity  Rising inequity.  Increased variance among schools in achievement.  Increased stratification by income and foreign origins, but not post-secondary education of parents.  Greater peer effects on outcomes

Sweden Vouchers—Four Criteria  Freedom of Choice +  Productive Efficiency Achievement 0  Equity -  Social Cohesion ?

Where Should Emphasis Be Placed?  Choice Equity  Productive Efficiency Social Cohesion

Policy Choices  Balancing competing goals.  Balancing public vs. private goals. Family preferences. Social purposes of education.  Need better evaluations.

THANK YOU Jag tackar er