How will universal school vouchers and Education Savings Accounts (ESAs) change American schooling?
中文摘要
编者导言:K–12 教育公共经费格局的变迁数十年来一直是重要的政策议题,也是大量研究与评估工作的焦点。在本期"观点交锋"(Point-Counterpoint)栏目中,Douglas Harris 与 Patrick Wolf 两位教授均采用 Henry M. Levin 的学券评估框架(2002)来组织各自的评估。他们考察了普遍学券与教育储蓄账户计划对效率、公平、选择自由与社会凝聚力的影响,二者引用了大量相同的证据,却得出了截然不同的结论。两位作者心目中的反事实情形不同:Harris 强调近年来通过公立特许学校获得的选择大幅增长,并相对于这一替代方案评估私立教育经费增加的可能性。例如,他们对现有定向计划证据的解读也存在分歧:Wolf 强调,普遍性计划在分阶段推行过程中往往以弱势学生为对象。本期"观点交锋"栏目梳理了其中利害攸关的关键议题,并就相关证据展开辩论。鉴于近年来私立 K–12 教育的公共经费加速增长,以及各州将须就 2025–26 年 HR1 法案即《"大而美"法案》(One Big Beautiful Bill Act) 的相关条款作出抉择,这场辩论显得尤为重要。
Abstract
Editor's Introduction The changing landscape of public funding for K–12 education has been an important policy issue, and a focus of significant research and evaluation efforts for decades. In this issue of Point-Counterpoint, Professors Douglas Harris and Patrick Wolf both employ Henry M. Levin's voucher evaluation framework (2002) to organize their assessment. They consider the implications of universal voucher and Education Savings Account programs for efficiency, equity, freedom of choice, and social cohesion, citing much of the same evidence, but coming to very different conclusions. The authors have in mind different counterfactuals, with Harris emphasizing the substantial recent growth in choice available through public charter schools, and assessing the possibility of increased private education funding relative to that alternative. They also disagree, for example, on the interpretation of evidence from existing targeted programs, with Wolf emphasizing that universal efforts often target disadvantaged students in their phase-in. This Point-Counterpoint lays out the key issues at stake, and debates the evidence. The debate is all the more important given recent accelerated growth in public funding of private K–12 education, and the choices states will be called to make in response to related provisions of 2025–26 HR1, the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act.”