Professor Henry M. Levin is a distinguished economist and director of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education at Teachers College, Columbia University.
He recently participated in a conference in Sweden convened by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences to review the evidence about the effects of vouchers, which were initiated in 1992. He learned that Swedish performance on international tests has declined since 1995, private school enrollments have grown, social stratification has increased, and the for-profit sector is thriving.
He wrote this post specifically for the blog. It provides important information about the effects of vouchers. We can learn from the Swedish experience, if we are willing to learn.
Professor Levin writes:
In 1992 Sweden adopted a voucher-type plan in which municipalities would provide the same funding per pupil to either public schools or independent (private) schools. There were few restrictions for independent schools, and religious or for-profit schools were eligible to participate. In 1994, choice was also extended to that of public schools where parents could choose either a public or private school. In the early years, only about 2 percent of students chose independent schools. However, since the opening of this century, independent school enrollments have expanded considerably. By 2011-12 almost a quarter of elementary and secondary students were in independent schools. Half of all students in the upper secondary schools in Stockholm were attending private schools at public expense.
On December 3, 2012, Forbes Magazine recommended for the U.S. that: “…we can learn something about when choice works by looking at Sweden’s move to vouchers.” On March 11 and 12, 2013, the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences did just that by convening a two day conference to learn what vouchers had accomplished in the last two decades. Interest in the subject had been piqued by several developments including the dramatic growth in private school enrollments and a fairly precipitous decline in Swedish performance on international tests. Results in reading, science, and mathematics had fallen at all grade levels from 1995 to the present in the international studies.
In addition there was evidence of increased stratification and segregation of students by socio-economic status and ethnicity over the same period. Finally, there were concerns about the reportedly substantial profits being amassed by the independent schools from public funds.
The conference comprised a Swedish audience with both Swedish presenters supplemented by a few international experts (Austria, Finland, UK, and U.S.). I was assigned to provide an overview on “Evaluating Consequences of Educational Evaluation. In the remainder of this note I describe the overall framework that I used and my conclusions.
As in all of the analyses on school choice and vouchers of our National Center for the Study of Privatization, I presented the four criteria that we use for evaluation of particular schemes: freedom of choice, productive efficiency, equity, and social cohesion. I also discussed how design of the plans draws upon three policy instruments: finance, regulation, and support services. The details of design are crucial for shaping the outcomes of choice and voucher plans.
In using these criteria for evaluation, I employed the research evidence that had emerged on the Swedish voucher system. This compendium of research comprised a number of highly sophisticated studies on the impact of the system on student achievement and student stratification. The following was my verdict:
- On the criterion of Freedom of Choice, the approach has been highly successful. Parents and students have many more choices among both public schools and independent schools than they had prior to the voucher system.
- On the criterion of productive efficiency, the research studies show virtually no difference in achievement between public and independent schools for comparable students. Measures of the extent of competition in local areas also show a trivial relation to achievement. The best study measures the potential choices, public and private, within a particular geographical area. For a 10 percent increase in choices, the achievement difference is about one-half of a percentile. Even this result must be understood within the constraint that the achievement measure is not based upon standardized tests, but upon teacher grades. The so-called national examination result that is also used in some studies is actually administered and graded by the teacher with examination copies available to the school principal and teachers well in advance of the “testing”. Another study found no difference in these achievement measures between public and private schools, but an overall achievement effect for the system of a few percentiles. Even this author agreed that the result was trivial.
In evaluating these results, we must also keep in mind that the overall performance of the system on externally administered and evaluated tests used for international comparisons showed substantial declines over the last fifteen years for Sweden. For those who are interested in the patterns of achievement decline across subjects and grades, I have provided the enclosed powerpoint presentation.
We also heard from Swedish researchers that the independent schools were putting considerable resources into marketing, including using teachers to serve the marketing function. My conclusion was that there is little evidence of improved productive efficiency from the initiation of the Swedish voucher system.
- With respect to equity, a comprehensive, national study sponsored by the government found that socio-economic stratification had increased as well as ethnic and immigrant segregation. This also affected the distribution of personnel where the better qualified educators were drawn to schools with students of higher socio-economic status and native students. The international testing also showed rising variance or inequality in test scores among schools. No evidence existed to challenge the rising inequality. Accordingly, I rated the Swedish voucher system as negative on equity.
- Finally, there was no direct assessment of the effect of the system on social cohesion. This criterion refers to the quest of schools to prepare students for successful participation in social, economic, and political institutions requiring a common set of skills and capabilities for mutual interaction, communication, and democratic behavior. No evidence was available. Although I did not provide a conclusive judgment for this criterion, one might surmise that the increasing stratification represents an obstacle to social cohesion.
This evaluation was well-received, in part, because it was presented matter-of-factly and with clear reference to the evidence. There was no disagreement over the existing evidence by the assemblage. Among the industrialized countries, only three have a universal voucher or choice system Chile, Holland, and Sweden. Some would also argue that Belgium qualifies in this category. The former three countries have very different designs with the Dutch system being the most highly regulated and devoting the most attention to equity. Even so, the tracking that takes place at age 12 in the Netherlands between vocational and academic secondary schools has important equity consequences in terms of socio-economic stratification. Although based upon choice, the available choices available to a student are heavily dependent on her achievement test results. The Chilean system has witnessed an increasingly notable stratification of the population, both within and between public and private sectors. Students from more educated and wealthier families are found in the private schools which receive public funding, but can choose which students to accept from among applicants. The Chilean system allows schools to charge additional fees beyond the voucher, also favoring more advantage families.
I have enclosed the powerpoint slides from my presentation. These provide further details on the overall evaluation framework and the basis for my conclusions for Sweden. Those who wish to peruse our collection of more than 200 papers on choice and privatization should check the website of the National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education (www.ncspe.org) or contact me at HL361@columbia.edu.
Click below to download the powerpoint
This is exactly what the neo cons want- money in their pockets and a compliant, cheap labor force.
I thought the Europeans would have been smarter than to follow the lead of the idiots here who are ruining our education system.
– ask questions, start trouble-
Can someone tell me what the difference is between vouchers and charters? I am asking because it struck me that there is very little difference between the two in the U.S., and the differences are getting smaller and smaller. Charter schools are acting more and more like private voucher schools in that they can easily control enrollment, create their own rules and create a curriculum that will attract children from a particular race or religion. Maybe, if we did a better job making this comparison, we could wake up some of the public who still have a negative opinion of vouchers.
Charter schools were intended to provide choice with various emphasis like liberal arts, mechanics, ag. As public school budgets continue to be squeezed many art, music, ag and mechanics classes have disapeared. The intention of the public school system to develop life long, well rounded, live long learners is undermined as budget cuts increase. Charter schools are funded by the public school system and therefore, takes money out of the system. Charter schools also don’t have the same funding schemes. For example, they must raise money for their own property or rented space. Parent councils are necessary to raise money, apply for grants, etc. Voucher schemes allow public money be given to for profit, private education institutions and religious institutions. This scheme forces the tax payer to fund profits and religious dogma. Hardly good use of tax payer money while putting more and more funding and spending pressures on priorities. Hope this explination helps.
In related news…Indiana Supreme Court upholds our state’s voucher plan.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/indiana-supreme-court-upholds-broadest-us-school-voucher-18814031#.UVGyjr_w8W8
Many thanks to Henry Levin for a concise, readable, and very useful report on Sweden’s long-experience with vouchers/privatization. This data confirms fears many of us have of the anti-democratic, anti-egalitarian outcomes of privatization. If folks are curious about Henry’s earlier work on school transformation–pls look at the “Accelerated Schools Project” which Henry launched from Stanford in 1980s, aimed at improving k-8 in high-risk areas, comprehensive strategy to re-invent schools any good parent would want for her/his kids, built on teacher collaboration with parents and admin vis a vis policy/practice. ASP was one of several promising whole-school reform plans proposed in 80s, along with James Comer’s Community Schools, Goodlad’s School Renewal, Sizer’s Essential Schools, and Jeannie Oakes’s research on ending tracking.
The same thing happened in Milwaukee after 23 years of vouchers but when they just started testing those students they didn’t get the results they thought they would. Go figure.
Reblogged this on Cloaking Inequity and commented:
Voucher proponents, cross Sweden off your list of purported success stories.
How does Professor Levin (or anyone else) know that scores wouldn’t have fallen farther, or that socio-economic stratification wouldn’t have increased more significantly had vouchers never existed? Are we to simply assume that such metrics would have been more favorable absent vouchers?
Ron, should we assume that test scores in Milwaukee would be even lower than in Detroit without vouchers?
With all due respect, I don’t believe I suggested what you appear to have imputed to me.
How do we know that the influx of immigrants (in the case of Sweden) doesn’t explain the lion’s share of the observed diminution in test scores, and/or the observed increase in social stratification? (Isn’t that the sort of question a dispassionate researcher ought to be asking…and the sort of critical thinking we ought to be teaching our students?)
Ron, I am inclined to believe that the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences is well aware of demographic issues.
As do I, Professor Ravitch. But given Sweden’s accelerating rate of immigration, it should be of interest to know how the studies conducted or commissioned by the Academy controlled for any effects attributable to this potentially significant intervening/explanatory variable. Perhaps I am simply unaware of the presence of such information. That is most certainly possible. But unless and until I know more, I’m disinclined to believe that correlation implies causation.
Ron, you probably don’t agree with the conclusion that vouchers in Sweden have exacerbated social stratification. That would seem to be an important finding for us, since vouchers are now being promoted as a “civil rights issue.”
I haven’t ruled out the possibility. I’m simply siding with the null hypothesis, as it were, in the absence of compelling evidence to the contrary. Again, I grant that I may simply be unaware of the presence of such evidence. Perhaps you, or someone else, can point me in its direction.
Of the four criteria developed by Professor Levin – for whom I have a great deal of respect, both as an academic, and as a person (…he performed a personal kindness on my behalf nearly 30 years ago, of which I’m certain he has no memory) – an outright negative rating was assigned to but one: equity. I found it of interest to note (in the accompanying PowerPoint slides) that while Sweden’s voucher-receiving schools “must accept students if space is available,” research, as reported by Dr. Levin, demonstrates the presence of “increased variance among schools in achievement.” To this reader, such a combination is evocative of our own public education system. (Mike Petrilli’s “America’s Private Public Schools” article comes to mind.)
http://tinyurl.com/d8gjw8n
The bottom line for me is that the jury’s still out. I lack sufficient evidence (whether by dint of simple ignorance, or otherwise) to draw other than coincidental conclusions about the relationship of the Swedish voucher system to variability in test scores (which, as presented in Dr. Levin’s PowerPoint, derive from international rather than local assessments, giving rise to the standard bundle of caveats relative to such instrumentation), and social stratification.
Apparently, you see it otherwise. Perhaps you can enlighten me by explaining *how* vouchers have “exacerbated social stratification” in Sweden. I’m perfectly open to such a possibility, but would, respectfully, appreciate the benefit of some actual evidence in support of a causal claim.
Vouchers have “exacerbated social stratification” in Chile. Schools can charge monthly fees which eliminates many of the students. Research also shows schools can pick from an applicant pool. The best teachers go to the best schools. The public taxes paying for the elite to send their kids to the best schools and exclude other kids because of fees or creaming is nothing but a perk for being wealthy. That’s why the Nashville local school board shot down Great Hearts of Arizona. The corruption will stop at nothing to get their hands on public tax dollars for profit. The legislature is even trying to erode federalism by replacing the local school boards power.
The Friedmanites need to get over the myth of pure capitalism. It leaves out of the equation four important things: Sociopaths, psychopaths, injustices, and the most important GREED! Just look at Mayor Rahm Emanuel. These people are making the life of a teacher miserable. Stripping the empathy and creativity from our kids. Lying to and deceiving the public. It is a disgusting anti-American attack that will go down as a corrupt time in American history.
“The Friedmanites need to get over the myth of pure capitalism. It leaves out of the equation four important things: Sociopaths, psychopaths, injustices, and the most important GREED”
Because we NEVER see anyone in political office or public employment exhibit any of these characteristics. But wait, you jump right from this claim to uber-politician Rahm Emanuel. So you implicitly understand that politics actually empowers sociopaths and yet blame “pure capitalism”. How, exactly, do you square this paragraph with itself?
The focus of Ms Ravitch on measure test schools as if it is the only or even the most important measure of “achievement” is unfortunate and, I believe, too narrow. Worse, though, is the assertion that third parties and self-styled experts have a right to determine what is and is not acceptable for everyone’s children. Our current one-size-fits-none system is a failure. It’s a prussian-inspired system designed from the get-go to induce conformity and compliance. Standardized testing seems to be a natural extension of this top-down conformist approach.
The early advocates were explicit about the goal of reducing individuality in kids and bolstering nationalism. Meanwhile, in reality, its district-based approach actually magnifies inequality, distorts the composition of housing and induced defacto segregation.
If any system deserves to be attacked for increasing social stratification, it’s the current public school system.
From what I understand, the Sweden voucher system was resisted but is now so popular that it is politically untouchable. Why, exactly, should technocrats get to overrule parents and students? I see no justification for that.
John Papola,
Choice exacerbates inequality. Vouchers and charters exclude kids with special needs and ELLs. People self-segregate.
Read more.
So the same approach which makes American higher education the best in the world is somehow a horror when implemented in K-12 in the place of Socialist brainwashing centers with no alternatives. I had at least hoped for some sort of viable arguments from the Socialist-Communist drones who publish these tissue-Papers.
Mark, vouchers don’t work. Louisiana just reported that most of its voucher students attend schools rated D or F.
Where is the evidence to support all of your wild socialist assertions, Diane ??
Private schools in most US states are far superior to government-run schools. Both testing and performance in higher-ed settings has proved that for decades.
You are going to have to manufacture better rhetoric to convince the world that your failed paradigm is the answer.
Mark Buse,
Private schools pick their students and kick out those they don’t want.
Public schools are not socialist. They have been part of America since the 1820s. That is, unless you think cops and firefighters are socialists too.
Diane,
So we should force every kid to be stuck with no choices in a broken and essentially corrupted system which is inherently unequal and unjust because the relatively small set of experiments have, in your estimation, have increased inequality and aren’t yet perfect? I am fortunate to have the means to send my kid to a private school that doesn’t model itself after a Prussian soldier/worker conformity factory. All I want is for more kids to have those options.
No arrangement will ever be perfect. But to dismiss great choice with so few examples is frankly shocking to me for someone devoted to reform. You seem to have more faith in top-down solutions and a lower threshold to dismiss bottom-up ones than I was expecting. There are so few cases of real markets in K-12 education in the US, dismissing greater freedom to choose on the basis of today’s “data” doesn’t seem reasonable. Even Sweden as an example is challenging given the relative size and cultural differences compared with the US. The whole country is the size of New York City and Long Island, with a tiny fraction of the diversity.
I have philosophical problems with public schooling. But those aren’t necessary to see the current system as inherently broken and underperforming.
I read more about this subject than probably 95% of the population whose votes play a role in electing the people who control our schools. So if I need to “read more” before voicing concerns about your analysis, the expectation that we can solve these problems through politics is wishful thinking to but it nicely.
Choice exacerbates inequality. Vouchers and charters exclude kids with special needs and ELLs. People self-segregate.
Besides the fact that some charters don’t exclude kids with special needs and some public schools do, if “choice exacerbates inequality” because “people self-segregate,” isn’t that an argument to eliminate choice in housing, as well?
Education is a personal choice, as personal as religion and sexual behavior. I’m pro-choice. And I think poor people deserve the same levels of choices in education as non-poor people.
Education is a public good and the responsibility of the entire community. Your adolescent libertarian views are a sad commentary on American society today.
“And I think poor people deserve the same levels of choices in education as non-poor people.” ….
What a pile of manure you are spreading. I am pretty sure, from what you have written here, that you do not really believe that the children of poor people deserve the same educational opportunities as the children of wealthy people. If you did you would be arguing that the taxes raised by our government should be used to provide equal access to good schools for all of our children. You would admit that the private sector is mostly about, competition, profit and greed.
John, good to see other voices of sanity ready to rebuke this socialist drivel.
LOL Mark…. voices of sanity verses socialist drivel. You are a funny guy….
“I have philosophical problems with public schooling. But those aren’t necessary to see the current system as inherently broken and underperforming.”
Evidence please. If you don’t have any, evidence that is, might I direct you to a great book…
http://www.amazon.com/Reign-Error-Privatization-Movement-Americas/dp/0385350880
The voucher system in Sweden will not go away. 80% of the swedes are happy with the freedom to choose school for their children, according to the latest surveys. This is despite the fact that only 13% of swedish kids attend schools that are owned by private corporations (22% at the gymnasium level).
The increasing segregation and inequality is probably due to the latest years’ massive immigration from Somalia, Afghanistan and similar places.
It would be interesting to see the connection between the people who decided to stop by this blog today in order to spread their corporatist propaganda. I think perhaps the monied interests are getting nervous. There is nothing of any import that any of the school choice advocates here have added to the conversation. They throw out the word socialism when they do not have a valid argument.
“It would be interesting to see the connection between the people who decided to stop by this blog today in order to spread their corporatist propaganda.”
As of the time you wrote this, you were the only one to have commented on this article that day. Or in 2014, for that matter. The other commenter from that day wrote, in toto, “Good article.”
Time to connect the dots perhaps?
Good article