40
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

Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

Page 1: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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 SciencesStockholm, Sweden, March 11-12, 2013

Henry M. LevinTeachers College, Columbia University

Page 2: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Educational Privatization

Rising as focus of educational policy. Promoted by World Bank. Assertions of Advocates.

Greater Effectiveness-competition for students Greater Equity-family choice

Page 3: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 4: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 5: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 6: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 7: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

WHERE HAVE EDUCATIONAL VOUCHERS BEEN USED?

Chile, since 1980, has a national system of vouchers. Sweden has had voucher alternative since 1992. Netherlands has had school choice with voucher-type funding

since 1917. 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.

Page 8: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 9: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

DESIGN CONSIDERATIONS

Privatization and vouchers can differ profoundly in design and consequences by:

A. Finance B. Regulations C. Support Services

Page 10: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Finance

1- Size of Voucher

2- Additional Parental Fees Allowed

3- Compensatory Vouchers for Educationally At-risk Students (Chile-50 percent more, recent addition).

Page 11: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Regulations

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

Page 12: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Support Services

Transportation—access to options

Information—informed decisions

Adjudication—settle disputes when parents are dissatisfied with choice

Page 13: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

FOUR MAJOR CRITERIA FOR EVALUATING EDUCATIONAL SYSTEMS

FREEDOM TO CHOOSE

PRODUCTIVE EFFICIENCY

EQUITY

SOCIAL COHESION

Page 14: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 15: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 16: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

EQUITY

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

Page 17: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 18: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 19: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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).

Page 20: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Netherlands

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

Page 21: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 22: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 23: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Achieving Balance

Setting priorities among criteria. (e.g. which are most important?)

Using policy design tools that achieve balance.

Page 24: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 25: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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).

Page 26: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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--

Page 27: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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

Page 28: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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.

Page 29: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Rise in Independent Schools and Students since 2000

Page 30: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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).

Page 31: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Large Decline in Achievement of 15 year olds, Sweden

Page 32: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Sweden 4th and 8th grade

Page 33: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

4th Grade Reading, Sweden

Page 34: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Little Evidence of Impact on Improving Achievement

2001-11 Decline 4th grade reading, 19 pt. 1995-2011 Decline 8th grade math, 68 pt. and

15 pt. loss since 2003. 1995-2011 Decline 8th grade sciences, 50 pt.

and 15 pt. loss since 2003. 2000-09 PISA. Decline 19 pt. reading, 16 pt.

math, 17 pt. science.

Page 35: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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)

Page 36: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

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

Page 37: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Sweden Vouchers—Four Criteria

Freedom of Choice + Productive Efficiency

Achievement 0 Equity - Social Cohesion ?

Page 38: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Where Should Emphasis Be Placed?

Choice Equity Productive Efficiency Social

Cohesion

Page 39: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

Policy Choices

Balancing competing goals. Balancing public vs. private goals.

Family preferences. Social purposes of education.

Need better evaluations.

Page 40: Swedish Educational Privatization-1

THANK YOU

Jag tackar er