Impact on Access and Segregation: Are Vouchers a Panacea or Problematic? Pt. II

Written in collaboration with Dr. Jaime Portales

Guiding questions for today’s post on the universal implementation of vouchers:

  • Do they intensify segregation?
  • Do they create more access to high-quality education? If so, for whom?

According to various researchers, the introduction of universal vouchers in Chile has exacerbated segregation between schools and between types of schools (Carnoy, 1998; McEwan & Carnoy, 2000; Parry, 1996). At the family/household level, this increased segregation is often explained as a consequence of the nature of parental choice. Parents have responded to choice very differently depending on their social class and background, often magnifying and perpetuating the existing inequities (Parry, 1996). Chilean parents often state in surveys that school academic profiles serve as the basis for their choice of school; however, examination of the decision process reveals that most parents consider this criterion only after they have chosen a set of schools with similar student demographics (Elacqua, Schneider, & Buckley, 2006).

Parental choice is not the only factor responsible for school stratification. The features of the voucher policy itself also determine such stratification. Two policy measures in particular have contributed to an increase in between-school segregation: student selection procedures and the charging of additional fees to parents (Bellei, 2009; Gauri, 1998; Parry, 1996; Valenzuela, Bellei & De los Rios, 2006). These policy measures allow all private-voucher schools and secondary public schools to not only select the students that get enrolled in the school when the number of applicants is greater than the number of spaces available, but also to charge fees on a monthly basis.

Previous research (Carnoy, 1998; Parry, 1996) has found that the problem with the current selection procedures is that schools are being allowed to choose their students from a pool of applicants, trying to achieve higher outputs with the same level of inputs by selecting its best co-producers: middle-class or higher-ability students. In other words, when given the option, schools are less likely to enroll undernourished children, pupils with learning disabilities or students from poor or working class families (Bellei, 2009; Parry, 1996). As a result, student selection policies have added to the stratification of the educational system under vouchers (Does this critique of vouchers sound strangely similar to charter schools?).

In sum, these policy arrangements have resulted in a “creaming” effect wherein the skimming procedures (without the pumpkin pie) have enabled students who demonstrate greater abilities, or families that are able to pay, to be either accepted or eligible to enroll in private-voucher schools or popular public-municipal campuses located in wealthier, mixed income, or more centric areas (Portales, 2012). Meanwhile, students of low-ability or low socioeconomic status (SES) have remained in their public neighborhood schools located in low-income districts. The overall outcome has been an increased inequality of educational opportunities and an enlarged social stratification of students between schools, between types of schools, and between municipalities in a universal voucher system (Portales, 2012).

In conclusion, on the vouchers and segregation issue, I thought we as a society decided that issue at Brown v. Board. The research on the universal implementation of vouchers in Chile shows that while voucher proponents claim that they will increase access to high-quality education, instead, in practice on a large-scale they have magnified the inequalities (i.e. segregation and sorting mechanisms) that already exist in schools. Only certain students get access,thus,  as a universal panacea (solution) it fails on the equity concern. In a repeat of an issue eerily similar to my critique of charters, vouchers as a form of school choice has meant exactly that— schools choose.

For references, go here.

About these ads

Tags: , , , , , , ,

Categories: African Americans, Latina/os, School Finance, Vouchers

Author:Julian Vasquez Heilig

Julian Vasquez Heilig is currently an Associate Professor of Educational Policy and Planning and African and African Diaspora Studies (by courtesy) at the University of Texas at Austin.

Social Media

Subscribe to my RSS feed and social profiles to receive updates.

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Student Achievement: Are Vouchers a Panacea or Problematic? Pt. III | Cloaking Inequity - November 7, 2012

    [...] impacts in Chile have faced the critique that peer effects and educational stratification (see Pt II, yesterday’s post) played the most influential role in student achievement in Chile (Auguste & Valenzuela, 2004; [...]

  2. Church and State: Are Vouchers a Panacea or Problematic? Pt. V | Cloaking Inequity - November 9, 2012

    [...] conclusion, as noted in earlier posts in this series (1,2,3,4), vouchers weaken public education overall by tapping limited financial resources and syphon [...]

  3. Conclusion: Are Vouchers a Panacea or Problematic? Pt. VI | Cloaking Inequity - November 11, 2012

    [...] are not well supported by the research evidence in the previous posts here on Cloaking Inequity (1,2,3,4). The Chilean voucher policy example demonstrates vouchers generating creaming effects, [...]

  4. Smart ALEC: Education, Privatization, and the Pursuit of Profit | Cloaking Inequity - December 1, 2012

    [...] their public system is shrinking rapidly and low-SES students are now more likely to be denied access to a high-quality education. If you are looking for model voucher legislation for privatization and [...]

  5. Vouchers and School Finance: Saving the Statehouse $? | Cloaking Inequity - January 1, 2013

    [...] Universal Implementation in Chile based on excerpts that I have already published here on CI (1,2,3,4,5). I will start a new voucher series this week based on a new policy brief entitled Are [...]

  6. Update on Smart ALEC: Education, Privatization, and the Pursuit of Profit | Cloaking Inequity - March 24, 2013

    [...] their public system is shrinking rapidly and low-SES students are now more likely to be denied access to a high-quality education. If you are looking for model voucher legislation for privatization [...]

  7. What We Know Now (and How It Doesn’t Matter) | the becoming radical - August 19, 2013

    […] however, has been associated, like charter schools, with shuffling populations of students and increasing segregation. More broadly, the research on competition shows that it causes harm, and not the positive outcomes […]

  8. A experiência chilena com os vouchers | AVALIAÇÃO EDUCACIONAL – Blog do Freitas - August 19, 2013

    […] http://cloakinginequity.com/2012/11/06/impact-on-access-and-segregation-are-vouchers-a-panacea-or-pr… […]

  9. “Honesty is such a lonely word…”: Jeb Bush Lacks Credibility (Again) – SCHOOLS MATTER @ THE CHALK FACE - August 20, 2013

    […] in the many forms of schools choice has not improved academic outcomes, but has created many negative consequences such as re-segregating schools. The union bashing is just ridiculous and can be discounted with basic logic: If unions are a key […]

  10. empathyeducates – What We Know Now (and How It Doesn’t Matter) - September 28, 2013

    […] however, has been associated, like charter schools, with shuffling populations of students and increasing segregation. More broadly, the research on competition shows that it causes harm, and not the positive outcomes […]

  11. O fracasso das políticas dos reformadores | AVALIAÇÃO EDUCACIONAL – Blog do Freitas - October 4, 2013

    […] tem sido associada, como as escolas charter, ao embaralhamento de populações de estudantes aumentando a segregação. De forma mais ampla, a pesquisa de programas que promovem a concorrência entre escolas causam […]

  12. I’m Pro-Choice: Families Should Choose (not Schools, Districts, or the State) | Cloaking Inequity - February 10, 2014

    […] Choice is a popular buzz word these days in educational policy. It seems more and more that the word is used when choices in education are actually being reduced— when in fact someone else is actually doing the choosing besides families. In the case of school choice, it is exactly that, schools choose. How so you ask? Well, in the case of charters check out Breaking News: Kevin Welner’s Charter School Dirty Dozen. For the case of vouchers check out Impact on Access and Segregation: Are Vouchers a Panacea or Problematic? Pt. II […]

  13. Sponsor a Student!: Inform Your Policymaker Why Vouchers Have Failed | Cloaking Inequity - May 23, 2014

    […] empirical evidence on how universal voucher markets actually function from Chile.  School vouchers “cream” and “crop” students, do not lead to increased achievement but instead  exacerbate societal inequalities, and also […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,045 other followers

%d bloggers like this: