Sign Up For Our Newsletter

American K-12 education has been in an almost constant state of “reform” since the Soviet Union launched Sputnik in the late 1950s.  From frivolous fads to harmful trends, educators have seen it all.  All along, spending has increased, almost quadrupling on a per-pupil inflation adjusted basis between 1959 and 2002, while test scores have either dropped or stagnated.  Nationally, we spend almost $10,000 per pupil in public school but 38 percent of our 4^th graders can’t read at a basic level according to national tests.  We have a dire need to figure out how to get education reform right, and actually see results.

Today, early childhood education expansion and expansion of parental choice represent two of the most prominent education reform strategies.  Mobilized interests have been busy pushing both of these reforms across the country.  Early childhood education reformers have been pushing legislation and ballot initiatives to expand publicly funded pre-school programs, while charter school and voucher advocates have been seeking expanded parental choice.  These two reforms are not mutually exclusive, as most notably displayed by the creation of pre-school voucher programs in Florida and New Mexico in recent years.  The question remains: will either of these reforms produce results, or will they both eventually join the ash-heap of failed education reforms?

School choice supporters believe that when schools have to compete for students, student achievement will improve as schools focus effort and resources on satisfying parents.  Early childhood education advocates believe that publicly funded pre-school programs can improve student test scores by giving students a head start on school. 

Recently, the Goldwater Institute released a study on the relative effectiveness of these two reforms in Arizona.  Arizona policymakers have tried both strategies (expanding early childhood education and parental choice) in recent years, making it possible to empirically measure the success of each strategy.

The investigators surveyed Arizona public schools regarding the types of early childhood education programs available (pre-school, half-day/full day kindergarten) and the years those programs were made available.  The data show that students in schools with all-day kindergarten programs have statistically significant higher 3rd-grade test scores in subsequent years, even after statistically controlling for a number of other school factors.  There is no impact, however, on 5th-grade scores.  This finding is consistent with previous national research, which finds that the effects of early childhood programs “fade out” quickly in the elementary grades.

Arizona, a relatively enthusiastic adopter of choice programs such as open-enrollment, magnet schools, charters schools, private school tuition tax credits and vouchers, represents an ideal state in which to study the impact of competition on public schools.  In measuring the effectiveness of school choice in improving public school performance, the Goldwater report followed the lead of Harvard economist Caroline Hoxby. 

In 2002, Hoxby found larger gains in public schools facing substantial competition for students than in other public schools.  Hoxby found that Phoenix area schools facing high levels of competition from charter schools made significantly higher learning gains than schools not facing competition.

The new Goldwater study, using a different sample of schools (from the Tucson area) and more recent test score data, found very similar results.  During the 2001-2004 period, using Stanford 9 Reading scores, Tucson area public schools facing competition (defined as having lost six percent or more of their enrollment during the period) made reading gains four times larger than those not facing competition.  Tucson area public schools facing competition made statistically significant gains on the Stanford 9 reading, mathematics and language arts areas, respectively.

The findings of this empirical analysis demonstrate that early childhood education expansion is an expensive reform that delivers only transitory benefits.  With a K-12 education system that sees 30 percent of students drop out, and many more graduating without solid literacy and numeracy skills.  It turns out to be far too much to hope that adding an extra year would meaningfully address this crisis.

School choice, however, represents a more hopeful reform.  Choice programs drive significant improvements while making use of existing resources, and should be more widely embraced.

Dr. Matthew Ladner, a former director of state projects for the Alliance for School Choice, is vice president of research for the Goldwater Institute.