NEPC Review: 'Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape' (FutureEd, July 2025)
Saved in:
| Title: | NEPC Review: 'Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape' (FutureEd, July 2025) |
|---|---|
| Language: | English |
| Authors: | Christopher Lubienski, University of Colorado at Boulder, National Education Policy Center (NEPC) |
| Source: | National Education Policy Center. 2025. |
| Availability: | National Education Policy Center. School of Education 249 UCB University of Colorado, Boulder, CO 80309. Tel: 303-735-5290; e-mail: nepc@colorado.edu; Web site: http://nepc.colorado.edu |
| Peer Reviewed: | Y |
| Page Count: | 11 |
| Publication Date: | 2025 |
| Sponsoring Agency: | Great Lakes Center for Education Research and Practice |
| Document Type: | Reports - Evaluative Opinion Papers |
| Descriptors: | Private Education, Private Schools, School Choice, Educational Vouchers, Private School Aid, Educational Finance, School Funds, School Taxes, Economic Impact, Program Evaluation, Program Effectiveness, Public Policy, Research Reports, Review (Reexamination) |
| Abstract: | A recent FutureEd report, "Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape," offers a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal school choice programs in 10 states. These universal programs, including vouchers and education savings accounts, subsidize private school choice for virtually all students in a state. Popular with conservative state legislatures, universal choice programs have expanded quickly since 2022. The report forgoes important questions such as the value of choice in democratic systems, the impact on equity and segregation, or the necessity of requiring taxpayers to fund the religious choices of some families. Instead, it poses questions on several immediate, empirical issues: which students and schools participate, students' prior enrollment, retention/satisfaction, student performance, finance, and the fiscal impact on public schools. It concludes with the question of how universal programs can navigate academic issues, social goals and taxpayer concerns. At times the report veers into the realm of implicit policy recommendations, and on rarer occasions it makes recommendations not tied to the evidence. Nevertheless, it generally offers a useful compendium of recent data on the new universal choice programs in these states, and it sometimes poses provocative questions for policymakers to consider. |
| Abstractor: | As Provided |
| Entry Date: | 2025 |
| Accession Number: | ED677367 |
| Database: | ERIC |
| Abstract: | A recent FutureEd report, "Directional Signals: A New Analysis of the Evolving Private School Choice Landscape," offers a generally useful, up-to-date compilation of basic facts and trends around universal school choice programs in 10 states. These universal programs, including vouchers and education savings accounts, subsidize private school choice for virtually all students in a state. Popular with conservative state legislatures, universal choice programs have expanded quickly since 2022. The report forgoes important questions such as the value of choice in democratic systems, the impact on equity and segregation, or the necessity of requiring taxpayers to fund the religious choices of some families. Instead, it poses questions on several immediate, empirical issues: which students and schools participate, students' prior enrollment, retention/satisfaction, student performance, finance, and the fiscal impact on public schools. It concludes with the question of how universal programs can navigate academic issues, social goals and taxpayer concerns. At times the report veers into the realm of implicit policy recommendations, and on rarer occasions it makes recommendations not tied to the evidence. Nevertheless, it generally offers a useful compendium of recent data on the new universal choice programs in these states, and it sometimes poses provocative questions for policymakers to consider. |
|---|
