Public school students would receive
a higher quality education if they all had the option of taking the government
money (local, state, federal) currently being spent on their own
education and turning that money into vouchers that they
could use towards covering the costs of any private school or public school of
their choice (e.g. charter schools).
Responses
Responses weighted by each expert's confidence
| Participant | University | Vote | Confidence | Bio/Vote History |
|---|---|---|---|---|
 Daron Acemoglu |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Vouchers likely to improve things in short run given the awful state of US public schools. But we know little about their long run effects.
|
||||
 Alberto Alesina |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Joseph Altonji |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The evidence is mixed on the benefits of school choice.
|
||||
 Alan Auerbach |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 David Autor |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Maddeningly sweeping! Some students would benefit and the average effect might indeed be positive. But some students would surely be harmed.
|
||||
 Katherine Baicker |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Those using vouchers would likely be better off, but others might be worse - need to consider system-level and distributional effects.
|
||||
 Marianne Bertrand |
Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Raj Chetty |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Judith Chevalier |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The kids whose parents don't pay attention or are poorly informed can be worse off. Otherwise agree.
|
||||
 Janet Currie |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
More motivated and able students would take advantage of the vouchers, but the students left behind would likely be worse off.
|
||||
 David Cutler |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The existing alternatives to public schools are not all of uniformly higher quality; adverse selection is a big deal too.
|
||||
 Angus Deaton |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
And what about the kids that don't take up the vouchers?
|
||||
 Darrell Duffie |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Maybe yes. And maybe those left behind would do worse. The equilibrium could be tough.
|
||||
 Aaron Edlin |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
On the plus side, incentives are better under vouchers. On the negative side, decision making might be in the hands of those with less info
|
||||
 Barry Eichengreen |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Ray Fair |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I think the majority of public school students would be better off, but certainly not all. The question is ambiguous about the percent.
|
||||
 Pinelopi Goldberg |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Treating students as clients does not improve education. Evidence on voucher programs very mixed - no robust evidence of positive effects.
|
||||
 Claudia Goldin |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Many public school students would benefit but some with little choice might not. On net it would be beneficial and increase competition.
|
||||
 Austan Goolsbee |
Chicago | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Michael Greenstone |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Competition is likely beneficial on average. Less clear that all students would benefit leading to tough ?s about social welfare functions
|
||||
 Robert Hall |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The problem with cashing out public support of education is that parents are the agents of children and some parents are poor agents.
|
||||
 Bengt Holmström |
MIT | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Caroline Hoxby |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
There is enough in avg student's per-pupil budget for a solid supply-side response-i.e. what's needed for widespread benefits of competition
|
||||
 Kenneth Judd |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
I do not believe that all students would be better off.
|
||||
 Anil Kashyap |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Hard to know what the equilibrium will be, but so many kids are trapped now eventually most of them would have better choices.
|
||||
 Pete Klenow |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
If peer effects are important, could have most gain but some lose.
-see background information here |
||||
 Edward Lazear |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The main disadvantage to vouchers is potential weakening of public schools. But those that would lose students are terrible already.
|
||||
 Jonathan Levin |
Stanford | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Hard to give a blanket answer to this question
|
||||
 William Nordhaus |
Yale | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Hard to predict what a privatized school system would look like.
|
||||
 Maurice Obstfeld |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
The issues and caveats strike me as far too complex for 140 characters.
|
||||
 Cecilia Rouse |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Emmanuel Saez |
Berkeley | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 José Scheinkman |
Columbia University | Did Not Answer | Bio/Vote History | |
|
|
||||
 Richard Schmalensee |
MIT | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Many would of course benefit, but those in rural areas or with irresponsible parents wouldn't. Charters aren't magic.
|
||||
 Hyun Song Shin |
Princeton | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 James Stock |
Harvard | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
School choice has merits but the system is complex and long-term effects on both private and public education is unclear.
|
||||
 Nancy Stokey |
University of Chicago | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
It's the only way to break the unions. Why do that? Fran Tarkenton said it all in his recent WSJ op ed piece.
-see background information here |
||||
 Richard Thaler |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
Hurray for charter schools but to go to full vouchers it is necessary to deal with possible unraveling if no schools want the bottom kids.
|
||||
 Christopher Udry |
Northwestern | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
 Luigi Zingales |
Chicago Booth | Bio/Vote History | ||
|
|
||||
