In our new report, The Private School Landscape, we wanted to find out whether school choice programs have created increased competition and private school capacity in the states where they are in effect. We also wanted to know whether more access to educational choice programs has increased private school enrollment over time and, as critics often allege, whether school choice has caused increased racial segregation among private school populations. Flip through this quick rundown of the key findings you need to know. For the full Private School Landscape report, visit http://www.edchoice.org/PrivateSchoolLandscape.

1. THE PRIVATE
SCHOOL
LANDSCAPE
edchoice.org/PrivateSchoolLandscape
BREAKING DOWN

2. Advocates say school choice will
change the landscape of education
through competition.

3. Properly implemented, school
choice programs should
diversify private school student
populations and the education
marketplace as a whole.

4. Have they?

5. After more than 20 years, what
can researchers determine about
the relationship between choice
program adoption and private
school student populations?

6. What might it tell us about choice
policies and competition?

7. In 2012, researchers Greg Forster
and Lynn Woodworth studied seven
states and the District of Columbia
and found school choice had little to
no effect on the private school sector.

8. After four more years of school
choice program growth, our new
report The Private School Landscape
provides a different and deeper
analysis of new and updated data
on the change in private school
capacity and composition.

9. Question 1: Is there a significant change in private school
enrollment trends after the introduction of private school
choice programs?
Biannual Enrollment in Choice and Non-Choice States—State Sums
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
3,500,000
3,000,000
2,500,000
2,000,000
1,500,000
1,000,000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Non-Choice Choice
1,852,726
1,768,552
2,624,190
3,290,652
2,669,708
1,695,892
2,091,012
2,711,001

10. Biannual Percentage Change in Enrollment Over Year 1 in
Choice and Non-Choice States—State Sums
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
25%
20%
15%
10%
5%
0%
-5%
-10%
Non-Choice Choice
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
4.9%
-4.5%
-3.2%
21.4%
-1.5%
-8.5%
12.9%
7.9%

11. Private school enrollment trends in
states with school choice programs
either did not differ significantly or
differed only trivially from trends in
states without choice programs.

12. Question 2: Is there a significant difference in the percentage
of racial/ethnic minority students in private schools after the
introduction of private school choice programs?
Biannual Percentage Racial/Ethnic Minority Students in Schools
in Choice and Non-Choice States
1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
35%
30%
25%
20%
15%
10%
Non-Choice Choice
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12.8%
22.6%
29.5%
21.4%

13. Biannual Percentage Change in Racial/Ethnic Minority Students Over
Year 1 in Choice and Non-Choice States
1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
Non-Choice Choice
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
75.8%
38.0%
6.2%
1.9%

14. Private schools in school choice states
did not grow “whiter” and remained
consistent with the populations
surrounding their schools.

15. Question 3: Is there a significant difference in the number
of grades private schools offer (i.e. capacity) after the
introduction of private school choice programs?
Biannual Average Number of Grades Private Schools Offer in
Choice and Non-Choice States
19921990 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
8.7
8.6
8.5
8.4
8.3
8.2
8.1
8.0
Non-Choice Choice
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2010 2012
8.43
8.33
8.30
8.26
8.51
8.12
8.39
8.21
8.64
8.67

16. Biannual Percentage Change in Number of Grades Private Schools
Offer Over Year 1 in Choice and Non-Choice States
1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
2%
1%
0%
-1%
-2%
-3%
-4%
-5%
Non-Choice Choice
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2010 2012
0.3%
-3.7%
-3.4%
-3.5%
-3.9%
-2.9%
-2.6%
-2.0%
0.9%

17. Private school capacity under
conditions of school choice look
substantively the same as conditions
without choice across all analyses.

18. Simply put, we haven’t seen the
growth we were hoping for. Why?

19. The vision of universal school choice
that Milton Friedman first wrote about
in 1955 hasn’t become a reality.

20. Instead, the majority of America’s
school choice programs are
restrictive in many ways.

21. Therefore, these findings seem
to support a shift toward policy
features that:

22. Make as many students eligible
as possible to drive demand
and induce competition.
1

23. Find a balance between light
regulatory restrictions/burdens
and accountability to avoid
disincentivizing high-quality
providers who value autonomy.
2

24. Establish reliable program
funding streams to assure
private school leaders that
choice programs are more
than a flash in the pan.
3

25. Secure strong per-pupil
funding­—whether in the form of
vouchers, tax-credit scholarships
or education savings accounts­—
to incentivize greater private
school involvement and put a
greater number of schools within
reach of more children.
4

26. For more detailed analysis, methods
and more, see the full report at
EDCHOICE.ORG/PrivateSchoolLandscape
Have questions? Contact
Dr. Dick Carpenter at dcarpent@uccs.edu
and/or Drew Catt at dcatt@edchoice.org.