The Effects of Public School Choice on Those Left Behind: Evidence from Durham, North Carolina

Abstract

Using student-level data from Durham, North Carolina, we examine the potential impact of school choice programs on the peer environments of students who remain in their geographically assigned schools. We examine whether the likelihood of opting out of one's geographically assigned school differs across groups and compare the actual peer composition in neighborhood schools to what the peer composition in those schools would be under a counterfactual scenario in which all students attend their geographically assigned schools. We find that many advantaged students have used school choice programs in Durham to opt out of assigned schools with concentrations of disadvantaged students and to attend schools with higher achieving students. Comparisons of actual peer compositions with the counterfactual scenario indicate only small differences in peer composition for nonchoosers on average. More substantial differences in peer environment emerge, however, for students in schools with concentrations of disadvantaged students and schools located near choice schools attractive to high achievers. The results suggest that expansions of parental choice may have significant adverse effects on the peer environments of a particularly vulnerable group of students.

School choice & social stratification: How intra-district transfers shift the racial/ethnic and economic composition of schools

“…Some studies find that schools and districts become more stratified and more racially/ethnically and economically segregated as a result of choice policies and practices (Bifulco et al, 2009b;Sohoni, 2006, 2007). Others find that school choice diminishes segregation in choice schools (Forster, 2006a;Greene and Winters, 2006;Betts et al, 2006).…”

Winners and losers of school choice: Evidence from Rio de Janeiro, Brazil and Santiago, Chile

“…Bifulco and Ladd, 2007), while others estimate the probability of choosing a different school other than the assigned school (e.g. Bifulco et al, 2009;Cullen et al, 2005). Overall, these studies find that higher-SES families are more likely to be active choosers (e.g.…”

“…Hsieh and Urquiola (2003), in one of the first attempts to evaluate the effects of Chile's universal voucher program, conclude that advantaged families are much more likely to send their children to private voucher schools than disadvantaged ones. Bifulco et al (2009) analyze Durham, North Carolina's school choice program and find that, among students that live in low-achievement attendance zones, children of collegeeducated parents are significantly more likely to exit their assigned school than children of high school graduates, who are more likely to opt out of their neighborhood school than children of high school dropouts.…”

“…However, if highquality schools establish barriers to entry -which limit the access of low-income families -the effect of this variable can be positive for low-SES students, because these schools are not real alternatives for them. 9 Following Bifulco et al (2009) we hypothesize that the effect of the number of low-SES schools in the neighborhood varies according to student SES. Specifically, because preferences for school quality are likely to match preferences for attending schools with similar social compositions for high-SES families, such students are unambiguously predicted to opt out of neighborhoods with high numbers of low-SES schools.…”

When Public Acts like Private: The Failure of Estonia's School Choice Mechanism

“…It is shown in many cases, such as Germany (Riedel et al, 2009), various cities in the USA (Burgess & Briggs, 2006;Bifulco et al, 2009), England (Burgess et al, 2011;West, 2006), and even increasingly in Finland (Seppänen, 2003;Poikolainen, 2012) that choice tends to gather students from better socioeconomic backgrounds into certain schools, creating not only positive peer effects, but also a negative externality for the rest of students. Uncontrolled choice has increased ethnic and social segregation, which can result in even more social costs than residential segregation (Bifulco et al, 2009). Furthermore, due to limited economic, cultural and social resources, school choice tends to constrain disadvantaged families from practising their choice.…”