Vouchers and Public Policy: When Ideology Trumps Evidence

The economic model of education policy assumes that there is a substantial consensus on educational goals among constituencies and that the major challenge is to determine the most effective strategies for reaching those goals. Unfortunately, the debate over educational vouchers is complicated by the presence of multiple and competing goals, and mixed and ambiguous evidence. The result is that differences in conclusions on the effectiveness of vouchers largely mirror interpretations that are conditioned heavily by competing ideologies rather than straightforward facts. The primary conflict is between what we term “libertarian” and “social contract” positions. Libertarians believe that freedom of choice should be the highest priority of voucher reforms and assume that a private marketplace with increased options will promote greater efficiency and (possibly) equity. Advocates for a social contract maintain that education generates important positive externalities that are best promoted through a free, publicly funded and operated and democratically determined educational system. This work contends that evaluations must openly acknowledge such competing beliefs and preferences for particular goals rather than simply attributing their views to the “facts.” Our framework allows policy makers to predict outcomes and understand the trade‐offs among goals that choice reforms entail, even in the presence of limited or ambiguous evidence.