The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes in the United States
Summary of the Randomized Evaluation
Country
United States (Chicago)Researchers
Julie Berry Cullen, Brian Jacob, Steven LevittMethods
Researchers conducted a randomized controlled trial (RCT) in partnership with Chicago Public Schools (CPS) to evaluate the impact of school choice on student outcomes. The study involved 14,434 eighth-grade students who participated in randomized lotteries for admission to 19 different high schools. By comparing students who won the lottery (and thus attended their chosen schools) with those who did not, researchers aimed to identify any systematic benefits provided by attending these schools.Context:
Chicago Public Schools operates one of the most extensive school choice programs in the United States. In this system, students can apply to attend schools outside their assigned neighbourhood schools. When the number of applications exceeds available spots, lotteries are used to allocate admissions, ensuring a randomized and fair selection process.
Intervention
- School Choice Program: Students applied to multiple lotteries for admission to various high schools. The lotteries were randomized, creating a natural experiment to assess the impact of attending preferred schools.
- Data Collection: CPS provided detailed administrative data on lottery applications and student outcomes, including standardized test scores, graduation rates, attendance rates, course-taking patterns, credit accumulation, and self-reported disciplinary incidents and arrests.
Results
- Academic Achievement: Winning a lottery did not lead to significant improvements in traditional academic outcomes. There were no measurable differences in standardized test scores, graduation rates, attendance rates, or course-taking patterns between lottery winners and non-winners.
- Graduation Rates: Four-year graduation rates were slightly lower for lottery winners by 4.4 percentage points. However, the effect varied by the type of school attended, with no significant differences in better-ranked schools.
- Test Scores: Lottery winners showed no improvement in five of six measured test outcomes and performed slightly worse in reading scores by 1.3 percentile points.
- Class Rank: Lottery winners had worse class ranks by 2 percentile points, likely due to attending schools with a more competitive peer group.
- Nonacademic Outcomes: Despite the lack of academic improvement, lottery winners reported fewer incidents of disciplinary action, fewer arrests, and lower incarceration rates. Specifically, disciplinary actions dropped by 8.7 percentage points, and self-reported arrest rates decreased by 5.1 percentage points (a 60% reduction from a base of 9%).
Policy Lessons
The findings indicate that while school choice programs did not significantly improve traditional academic outcomes, they positively impacted certain nonacademic outcomes, such as reducing disciplinary actions and arrests. This suggests that the benefits of attending higher-achieving schools may extend beyond academics to influence students' behaviour and interactions with the criminal justice system. These results contribute to the broader understanding of school choice policies and their varied impacts on student outcomes, emphasizing the importance of considering both academic and nonacademic factors in educational interventions.
Conclusion
The study reinforces the notion that simply providing access to higher-achieving schools may not be sufficient to improve academic outcomes. However, the positive effects on nonacademic outcomes suggest that school choice can play a role in shaping students' broader life experiences. Further research is needed to explore how different aspects of school environments contribute to these varied outcomes and how school choice programs can be optimized to benefit all students.
Disclaimer: This article is from a series of randomized evaluations worldwide database that we are gathering for educational purposes. If you need any additional information about a particular study, please contact the authors. All studies are credited to the original authors.
