What are the benefits of school choice?

Aug 28, 2023

6 min

John Singleton



One of the biggest decisions that parents in the United States make is about where to send their children for school from kindergarten through grade 12.


John Singleton, an associate professor of economics at the University of Rochester, studies the intersection of public economics and the economics of education—specifically, the topic of school choice. With a new school year already underway or on the horizon for many, he shares insights everyone should know about school choice, whether or not you’re currently the parent or guardian of school-age children.


“Taxpayers are now financing education at charter schools and, to some extent, private schools,” Singleton says. “So, there are very real concerns about the impact on resources at traditional public schools, and what that means for public education and society more broadly.”


Q: What is school choice?

School choice refers to a set of policies that create options for families and students that are not directly linked to their neighborhood of residence.


The concept of school choice has changed drastically in the last three decades. Until the mid-1990s, it typically involved moving to a different neighborhood or sending a child to a private school at the parent’s expense. Then, in 1991, Minnesota passed the country’s first charter school law. In the three-plus decades since then, charter schools and other school choice options have proliferated.


Today, school choice means that parents can opt to send their K–12 children to:


• Public schools, where children are often assigned based on area school boundary maps and zoning.

• Magnet schools, which are a category of public schools that often focus on specific areas of study, such as STEM, and may have selective admissions.

• Charter schools, which receive government funding yet operate independently of state school systems and local districts. Charter schools are tuition-free and must accept all students who apply, as long as there is room for the students.

• Private schools, which are run by private, sometimes religious, organizations, charge tuition, and may be selective. In a growing number of states, voucher or scholarship programs exist that provide government funding to defray the cost of tuition for eligible students.


(Parents can also opt to homeschool their children, but Singleton limits his work to school choice policies adopted by school boards and governments.)


Q: Is safety a major factor for parents when choosing schools?

In exercising school choice, parents consider a variety of factors when evaluating school alternatives. Says Singleton, “Parents wonder, is this going to be a stable school environment? A safe school environment? Do the teachers care? Are they putting in a lot of effort? Are the school’s values aligned with my own?”


Although it can be challenging to discern exactly what parents are thinking when choosing schools, “there’s very clear literature that one of the things they’re concerned about is school safety,” he says.


Q: Does school choice benefit both individuals and the public education system as a whole?

On an individual or family level, a student may be assigned to a local public school that’s not the best fit for them or that may not be a good school overall. “School choice creates options for those students to find a better or safer school, or one that better matches specific values, such as respect, service, or compassion,” says Singleton.


On a broader level, school choice has what’s called spillover effects. Exercising school choice potentially benefits not only the individual student, but also the students who stay in their assigned public schools. Why? Because school choice creates competition in the education sector.


“If money is following students from public schools into private schools and charter schools, that creates incentives for public schools to retain students, so they’ll have to raise their productivity,” he says.


Of course, how exactly those positive spillovers manifest remains a major question in the empirical literature.


Q: Do private school vouchers benefit the students they were originally designed to help?

While private schools have long been a schooling option for families, explains Singleton, there are often barriers to entry, including admission standards or tuition fees.


Private school voucher programs use public funding to give students scholarship or other financial support to attend private schools. These voucher programs have historically targeted economically disadvantaged students attending low-performing public schools, explains Singleton. Yet the students who actually use such vouchers tend to be more advantaged, higher-performing students.


Why aren’t more economically disadvantaged students using vouchers? The reasons are twofold, according to Singleton. The first is information: “Parents and students may not know that they are eligible for vouchers or know how to navigate the process of redeeming it to attend a private school,” he says.


The second reason is access. “Just because a student is eligible for a voucher does not mean there’s a high-quality private school that agrees that the school fits the student’s needs. Also, transportation to private schools is typically not available to economically disadvantaged students,” he says.


Q: Why are fewer high-performing students from disadvantaged backgrounds applying to selective schools, such as magnet schools and private schools?

There’s been a lot of discussion about how to make the student body in selective schools more diverse. What policies can be enacted to make such schools more reflective of a school district’s student body?


Part of the issue, according to Singleton, has to do with students who are not applying.


“If you look at students from disadvantaged backgrounds—who are often from underrepresented minorities—those students are much less likely to be applying to selective schools in the first place. These are students who we would reasonably believe would be very successful at these schools, but they’re much less likely to be applying to those schools than students from other backgrounds. Why that’s happening is an open question right now,” he says


Q: Some of the best evidence about charter schools’ effectiveness comes from lottery situations.

Charter schools are not allowed to turn away students unless there are capacity constraints. If schools are oversubscribed, a lottery is held to determine who gets admitted.


These lottery situations produce random assignment, explains Singleton: “The students who get into the charter schools through a lottery serve as a treatment group, while those who don’t get in serve as a control group.” Studies have shown that students who received lottery offers to charter schools ended up with better test scores and college outcomes compared to those who didn’t receive lottery offers to those charter schools.


“This conclusion, however, only applies to the specific lottery situations studied,” he cautions.


Q: Charter schools don’t necessarily outperform traditional public schools.

“The average charter school is often not better than the average public school. In some cases, they’re actually worse,” says Singleton, who bases this assessment on data estimates he’s generated from Florida and North Carolina, two states with large numbers of charter schools.


He adds, “If we expand school choice, we have to take into account that not everyone is going to attend a high-quality charter school. Market factors may force some schools to go out of business, and there’s some evidence suggesting those forces may be at work. Parents, however, may still prefer those schools for other reasons, such as values or safety.”


Q: But charter schools do tend to improve student performance at nearby public schools.

This is likely for the same reason that school choice in general benefits public education: spillovers and market competition.


According to Singleton, the research indicates that when a charter school—particularly one that emphasizes math and reading—moves close to a local public school, the test scores of the students in the public school go up relative to the scores of public school students who do not live near that charter school.


“If a charter school moves next door, the nearby public school risks losing students. As a result, the public school is going to increase its productivity, increase its effort, and hire better teachers,” he says.


So, while people are right to worry about the fiscal impacts of charter schools on traditional public schools, it seems the overall educational impact on public schools is positive.


Q: Should we expect a very different school choice landscape post-COVID?

“There was a lot of momentum for charter schools under the Obama administration, and there was a lot of stated momentum under the Trump administration that never really materialized,” he says. “Now, though, charter schools have fallen by the wayside as a priority in federal-level education reform circles.”


Some of that can be attributed to the legacy of the COVID-19 pandemic, which presented an expected shock to the school choice system as a whole.


“COVID forced many families to evaluate if they were satisfied with their children’s schooling,” he says. “Were they pleased with what was available, or were they going to seek alternatives? I think we’re still seeing that quandary play out—and it’s going to have longer-lasting effects than the pandemic itself.”


Connect with:
John Singleton

John Singleton

James P. Wilmot Assistant Professor of Economics

Singleton is an expert in public economics and the economics of education, particularly as it relates to school choice.

School BoardsSchool FinanceHistory of Applied EconomicsEconomics of EducationPublic Economics
Powered by

You might also like...

Check out some other posts from University of Rochester

2 min

How Higher Ed Should Tackle AI

Higher learning in the age of artificial intelligence isn’t about policing AI, but rather reinventing education around the new technology, says Chris Kanan, an associate professor of computer science at the University of Rochester and an expert in artificial intelligence and deep learning. “The cost of misusing AI is not students cheating, it’s knowledge loss,” says Kanan. “My core worry is that students can deprive themselves of knowledge while still producing ‘acceptable work.’” Kanan, who writes about and studies artificial intelligence, is helping to shape one of the most urgent debates in academia today: how universities should respond to the disruptive force of AI. In his latest essay on the topic, Kanan laments that many universities consider AI “a writing problem,” noting that student writing is where faculty first felt the force of artificial intelligence. But, he argues, treating student use of AI as something to be detected or banned misunderstands the technological shift at hand. “Treating AI as ‘writing-tech’ is like treating electricity as ‘better candles,’” he writes. “The deeper issue is not prose quality or plagiarism detection,” he continues. “The deeper issue is that AI has become a general-purpose interface to knowledge work: coding, data analysis, tutoring, research synthesis, design, simulation, persuasion, workflow automation, and (increasingly) agent-like delegation.” That, he says, forces a change in pedagogy. What Higher Ed Needs to Do His essay points to universities that are “doing AI right,” including hiring distinguished artificial intelligence experts in key administrative leadership roles and making AI competency a graduation requirement. Kanan outlines structural changes he believes need to take place in institutions of higher learning. • Rework assessment so it measures understanding in an AI-rich environment. • Teach verification habits. • Build explicit norms for attribution, privacy, and appropriate use. • Create top-down leadership so AI strategy is coherent and not fractured among departments. • Deliver AI literacy across the entire curriculum. • Offer deep AI degrees for students who will build the systems everyone else will use. For journalists covering AI’s impact on education, technology, workforce development, or institutional change, Kanan offers a research-based, forward-looking perspective grounded in both technical expertise and a deep commitment to the mission of learning. Connect with him by clicking on his profile.

2 min

Venezuela: Why Regime Change Is Harder Than Removing A Leader

With global attention on Venezuela following the U.S. removal of Nicolás Maduro, one of the central questions is whether taking out a leader actually changes the political system that put him in power. Two University of Rochester political scientists — Hein Goemans and Gretchen Helmke — study different sides of this issue, and can shed light on why authoritarian regimes often survive even when leaders fall and what the U.S. intervention means for Venezuela and the world order. Goemans specializes in how wars begin and end, regime survival, and why so-called “decapitation strategies” — removing a leader without dismantling the broader power structure — so often fail to produce stable outcomes. His research draws on cases ranging from Iraq and Afghanistan to authoritarian regimes in Latin America. In a recent interview with WXXI Public Media, Goemans warned that removing Maduro does not resolve the underlying system of military and economic control that sustained his rule. Without changes to those institutions, he said, power is likely to remain concentrated among the same elite networks. “The problem isn’t just the leader,” Goemans explained. “It’s the structure that rewards loyalty and punishes defection. If that remains intact, the politics don’t fundamentally change.” Helmke, a leading scholar of democracy and authoritarianism in Latin America, emphasizes that legitimacy, not just force, determines whether democratic transitions take hold. Her research helps explain why democratic breakthroughs so often stall after moments of dramatic change, and why outside interventions can unintentionally weaken domestic opposition movements by shifting power toward regime insiders. “When the institutions and elites remain in place, uncertainty — not democratic transition — often becomes the dominant political reality,” she said. For journalists covering the fast-moving situation, Goemans and Helmke are available to discuss why removing leaders rarely brings the political transformation policymakers expect and what history suggests comes next. They can address: • Why regime-change operations so often backfire, even when dictators are deeply unpopular • What sidelining democratic opposition means for legitimacy • Whether U.S. claims that Maduro is illegitimate hold up under international and U.S. law • How prosecuting a foreign leader in U.S. courts could reshape norms of sovereignty • The risks the U.S. intervention poses to the rules-based international order and NATO • How interventions affect international norms, including sovereignty and the rule of law, and why short-term tactical successes can create long-term strategic risks. • Why treating global politics as a series of “one-off” power plays misunderstands how states actually enforce norms over time • How competing factions inside the U.S. administration may be driving incoherent foreign policy Geomans also brings rare insight into the internal dynamics of U.S. policymaking, having taught and observed Stephen Miller, one of President Donald Trump’s closest aides who is helping shape the administration’s worldview. (Goemans taught Miller at Duke University in 2003.) Click on the profiles for Goemans and Helmke to connect with them.

2 min

Decoding Crypto

As interest in cryptocurrencies move from the fringes to mainstream conversation and public policy debate, Derek Mohr, clinical associate professor of finance at the Simon Business School at the University of Rochester, offers a clear-eyed voice on the subject. Mohr specializes in financial innovation and digital assets, and he’s been in demand with reporters looking to understand the economics behind everything from “Bitcoin-powered” home heaters to gas stations offering discounts for crypto purchases. His message? Not everything that markets itself as a breakthrough actually adds up. For instance, some companies have pitched devices that promise to heat a home using excess energy generated from bitcoin mining. Mohr recently told CNBC the idea might sound clever, but that its practicality collapses under basic financial and engineering realities. “The bitcoin heat devices I have seen appear to be simple space heaters that use your own electricity to heat the room . . . which is not an efficient way to heat a house,” Mohr said. “Yes, bitcoin mining generates a lot of heat, but the only way to get that to your house is to use your own electricity.” Bitcoin mining, he explained, has become so specialized that home computers have virtually zero chance of earning a mining reward. Industrial mining farms operate on custom-built chips far more powerful than any consumer device. In other words, consumers who think they’re heating their homes and earning crypto are, in reality, just paying for electricity and getting no real mining benefit. A pragmatic voice in a volatile space Mohr’s research and commentary help explain not just what is happening in the crypto world, but why it matters for consumers, businesses, and regulators. Whether evaluating the economics of mining or the viability of crypto payments, he brings a steady, analytical perspective to a domain dominated by hype and fast-moving news cycles. For journalists covering cryptocurrency, fintech, and the future of financial transactions, Mohr is available for interviews on digital payments, bitcoin mining economics, crypto regulation, and emerging trends in financial technologies. Top contact him, reach out to University of Rochester media relations liaison David Andreatta at david.andreatta@rochester.edu.

View all posts