With vouchers and other school choice policies, read the fine print

Private school choice policies are sweeping the country, quietly unwinding two centuries of American education tradition .

私立学校择校政策正在席卷全国，悄然瓦解了美国两个世纪的教育传统。

Seventeen states and counting have adopted universal vouchers in the form of “education savings accounts” (ESAs) and “scholarships.” The federal Education Freedom Tax Credit also takes effect Jan.

已有 17 个州采用了“教育储蓄账户”（ESA）和“奖学金”形式的通用代金券。联邦教育自由税收抵免也于一月生效。

1, and at least 30 states have signaled interest in participating.

1，至少有 30 个州表示有兴趣参与。

This comes on top of 35 years of expanded choice mostly within the public realm— charter schools, virtual schools, and open-enrollment public schools.

35 年来，选择范围不断扩大，主要是在公共领域——特许学校、虚拟学校和开放招生的公立学校。

Combined with homeschooling, microschooling, and the new voucher/ESA programs, we calculate that at least a third of American students no longer attend their neighborhood public school.

结合家庭教育、微型学校和新的学券/ESA 计划，我们计算出至少三分之一的美国学生不再就读附近的公立学校。

The debate over whether to have some form of school choice has, for practical purposes, been settled.

出于实际目的，关于是否进行某种形式的择校的争论已经得到解决。

But “school choice” is more a concept than a policy.

但“择校”更多的是一个概念，而不是一项政策。

The policy question requires us to first ask, what do we want these policies to accomplish?

政策问题要求我们首先问，我们希望这些政策实现什么目标？

The answer to that is much less settled.

这个问题的答案还远未确定。

Is the aim to serve marginalized students who may be “stuck in low-performing schools” because they cannot afford private ones—a focus on equity?

为那些可能因无力负担私立学校而“被困在表现不佳的学校”的边缘化学生提供服务的目标是注重公平吗？

Or is the aim to increase efficiency?

还是为了提高效率？

Finally, once we clarify those aims, how can we design policies to best achieve them?

最后，一旦我们明确了这些目标，我们如何设计政策才能最好地实现这些目标？

We and our colleagues at the National Center for Research on Education Access and Choice ( REACH ) have been grappling with these questions for a decade or more.

我们和国家教育机会与选择研究中心 (REACH) 的同事十多年来一直在努力解决这些问题。

In a new report, “ The Details Matter ,” we synthesize REACH’s own studies and provide a technical report with more than 90 additional high-quality studies, organized around nine policy elements that shape the number, type, and quality of options families actually have.

在一份新报告《细节很重要》中，我们综合了 REACH 自己的研究，并提供了一份技术报告，其中包含 90 多项额外的高质量研究，这些研究围绕九个政策要素进行组织，这些政策要素决定了家庭实际拥有的选择的数量、类型和质量。

It turns out that the labels dominating public debate—charters, vouchers, ESAs—tell us remarkably little about who or how the programs will serve, or to what end.

事实证明，主导公共辩论的标签——章程、代金券、ESA——几乎没有告诉我们这些计划将服务于谁、如何服务、或达到什么目的。

Two policies with the same name can produce opposite results because they have such different fine print.

两项同名的政策可能会产生相反的结果，因为它们的细则截然不同。

Louisiana enacted a voucher pilot in New Orleans in 2008 and expanded it statewide in 2012 as the Louisiana Scholarship Program.

路易斯安那州于 2008 年在新奥尔良实施了代金券试点，并于 2012 年将其扩大到全州范围，称为路易斯安那州奖学金计划。

Eligibility was narrow: Family income had to be below 250% of the federal poverty line, and the child had to be entering kindergarten or leaving a public school the state had graded a C, D, or F.

资格范围很窄：家庭收入必须低于联邦贫困线的 250%，并且孩子必须进入幼儿园或离开州评级为 C、D 或 F 的公立学校。

Because applicants far outnumbered seats, students were placed through a single statewide lottery, and participating private schools could not pick among the applicants sent to them.

由于申请者数量远远超过席位，学生是通过全州范围内的一次抽签来安排的，参与的私立学校无法在发送给他们的申请者中进行挑选。

At the end of the school year, those schools had to give their voucher students the same LEAP exams that public school students took.

在学年结束时，这些学校必须为学券学生提供与公立学校学生参加的相同的 LEAP 考试。

And the state kept score: A school that had been in the program at least two years and whose voucher students posted a Scholarship Index below 50—an F on the public school scale—could not enroll any new voucher students the following year, though the students already there could stay.

州政府会进行评分：一所已经参加该计划至少两年的学校，其学券学生的奖学金指数低于 50（公立学校的 F 级），第二年就不能招收任何新的学券学生，尽管已经在那里的学生可以留下来。

The combination of three features—lottery admission, a common assessment, and a state agency with the power to cut off a low performer’s supply of new students—sounds like a charter school policy.

抽签录取、共同评估以及有权切断表现不佳者新生供应的国家机构这三个特征的结合，听起来像是一项特许学校政策。

But it was a voucher program, and every school in it was private.

但这是一个代金券计划，其中的每所学校都是私立的。

Now consider what replaced it.

现在考虑一下是什么取代了它。

In June 2024, the state created the LA GATOR Scholarship Program.

2024 年 6 月，该州创建了 LA GATOR 奖学金计划。

Eligibility is phasing up toward every student in the state regardless of income.

无论收入如何，该州的每个学生都将获得资格。

There is no lottery: A student participates if a participating school agrees to enroll them, and schools set their own admissions criteria.

没有抽签：如果参与学校同意招收学生，学生就可以参加，并且学校制定自己的录取标准。

On testing, schools and families choose from a menu—the state assessment or one of several nationally normed tests—and, with state board approval, a school may substitute an assessment “substantially aligned with its program of study.” Participating schools will not receive letter grades based on the results.

在测试方面，学校和家庭从菜单中进行选择——州评估或几个国家标准化测试之一——并且，经州委员会批准，学校可以替代“与其学习计划基本一致”的评估。参与学校不会收到基于结果的字母等级。

The statute does let the department restrict or end a school’s participation for “gross or a persistent lack of academic competence,” but that is a discretionary finding for egregious cases, and may or may not be enforced .

该法规确实允许该部门以“严重或持续缺乏学术能力”为由限制或终止学校的参与，但这是针对严重案件的酌情裁决，可能会也可能不会被执行。

Same state, same word, “voucher”, on the press release, and but the answers to the three questions that matter most differ completely: what students get in, what schools can participate, and whether parents or anyone else outside the school can tell how it is doing.

新闻稿中同样的州、同样的词“优惠券”，但对三个最重要问题的答案完全不同：学生可以入学、哪些学校可以参与，以及家长或校外其他人是否可以了解学校的情况。

This isn’t a new issue.

这不是一个新问题。

Another recent review of 150 years of voucher legislation identifies three waves of these programs—with the new vouchers/ESAs being just the latest.

最近对 150 年代金券立法的另一项审查确定了这些计划的三波浪潮，其中新的代金券/ESA 是最新的。

It would be difficult to claim these programs share a common purpose, mechanism, constituency, or a likely effect on children.

很难说这些计划有共同的目的、机制、支持者或对儿童可能产生的影响。

They only share a label: “voucher.”

他们只共享一个标签：“优惠券”。

Rather than argue about labels, we need to look at how policies are actually designed.

我们不应该争论标签，而需要看看政策的实际设计方式。

We began by identifying nine elements of choice policy that theory suggests should matter for almost any educational objective, then carried out a systematic review of the rigorous evidence on each one—90 studies beyond our own at REACH.

我们首先确定了选择政策的九个要素，理论认为这些要素对几乎任何教育目标都至关重要，然后对每个要素的严格证据进行了系统审查——90 项研究超出了我们在 REACH 中的研究范围。

Some of these elements, such as accountability, impact the set of schools that can participate in a choice program (referred to as the “supply side”) while others, such as transportation, impact how families choose across schools within that set (referred to as the “demand side”).

其中一些因素（例如问责制）影响可以参与选择计划的学校组（称为“供给方”），而其他因素（例如交通）则影响家庭如何在该组学校中进行选择（称为“需求方”）。

The full element-by-element findings are in the report.

报告中包含了完整的逐项调查结果。

Here, we highlight five conclusions that cut across all nine policy elements, because each one bears on decisions states are making right now.

在这里，我们强调五个结论，涵盖所有九个政策要素，因为每一个结论都与各国目前正在做出的决策有关。

Centralized enrollment fixes much of this, and it measurably increased access to high-demand schools for Black students in New Orleans.

集中招生在很大程度上解决了这个问题，并且显着增加了新奥尔良黑人学生进入高需求学校的机会。

But even there, lottery priorities still worked against Black applicants.

但即便如此，抽签优先权仍然不利于黑人申请人。

And underneath all of it sits a harder trade-off.

而在这一切的背后隐藏着一个更艰难的权衡。

Seats in the schools that families most want are finite, which means choice policy operates as a sorting mechanism: It improves access for one group by reducing it for another.

家庭最想要的学校的座位是有限的，这意味着选择政策作为一种排序机制发挥作用：它通过减少一个群体的入学机会来改善另一个群体的入学机会。

Efficiency, equity, and the other objectives states say they are pursuing do not all move together.

效率、公平以及各国声称追求的其他目标并非齐头并进。

One complication in all of this is that the nine elements are interconnected, so the right setting for any one of them depends on the others.

所有这一切的一个复杂之处在于九个元素是相互关联的，因此其中任何一个元素的正确设置取决于其他元素。

If schools may use essentially any admissions criteria they like, for example, then a centralized enrollment system matters much less.

例如，如果学校基本上可以使用他们喜欢的任何招生标准，那么集中招生系统的重要性就小得多。

There is no optimal design for a single element considered in isolation, which is why the fine print must be read as a package.

孤立地考虑单个元素并没有最佳设计，这就是为什么细则必须作为一个整体来阅读。

The new federal Education Freedom Tax Credit marks a major expansion of school choice but provides scant detail.

新的联邦教育自由税收抵免标志着学校选择的重大扩大，但提供的细节很少。

If a state opts in, this new program allows individuals to receive a federal income tax credit for donating to approved organizations that then provide scholarships for K-12 students.

如果某个州选择加入，这项新计划允许个人向经批准的组织捐款，然后为 K-12 学生提供奖学金，从而获得联邦所得税抵免。

Students whose families earn up to 300% of the area’s median household income are eligible and can use these scholarships for private school tuition and other educational expenses.

家庭收入达到该地区家庭收入中位数 300% 的学生有资格，可以使用这些奖学金支付私立学校的学费和其他教育费用。

It has been adopted into law and will start disbursing funds in 2027, but most of the key rules have not been written.

它已被采纳为法律，并将于 2027 年开始支付资金，但大多数关键规则尚未制定。

The goal has apparently been to create as much choice as possible as fast as possible and see what happens.

我们的目标显然是尽快创造尽可能多的选择，然后看看会发生什么。

The good news is that, through legislative accident, states will be allowed to control some of the rules (though we don’t yet know which or how much).

好消息是，通过立法意外，各州将被允许控制一些规则（尽管我们还不知道哪些规则或多少）。

Governing bodies represent one of our nine elements and perhaps the most important one because almost all the others are directly connected to it, especially those influencing the supply of schooling options available to families.

管理机构代表了我们的九个要素之一，也许也是最重要的一个，因为几乎所有其他要素都与其直接相关，特别是那些影响向家庭提供学校教育选择的机构。

The scholarship granting organizations (SGOs) will likely be key to any accountability mechanism, but will they be allowed or inclined to act more like: (a) hands-on charter school authorizers that try to make sure the funds are used well; or (b) banks that try to bring in as much money as they can, disburse funds to anyone with an account, and hope for the best?

奖学金授予组织 (SGO) 可能是任何问责机制的关键，但它们是否会被允许或倾向于采取更像以下的行为： (a) 亲自动手的特许学校授权者，努力确保资金得到良好使用；或者 (b) 银行试图尽可能多地引进资金，向任何有账户的人发放资金，并希望得到最好的结果？

The intent of its advocates seems to be more like the bank approach, but the more hands-on approach could emerge, especially in blue states.

其支持者的意图似乎更像是银行的方法，但可能会出现更实际的方法，尤其是在蓝色州。

It’s noteworthy, too, that SGOs will have a strong incentive to bring in as much funding as they can.

还值得注意的是，SGO 将有强烈的动机尽可能多地引入资金。

Like banks, they get a share of the proceeds.

像银行一样，他们也能分享收益。

They will also have extremely wide latitude on how they use those funds and for whom and without the usual transparency required by public institutions.

他们在如何使用这些资金以及为谁使用这些资金方面也将拥有极其广泛的自由度，并且没有公共机构通常要求的透明度。

Could the tax credit do anything new on the demand/consumer side?

税收抵免能否对需求/消费者方面产生新的影响？

This is unlikely regarding information or enrollment systems.

对于信息或注册系统来说，这是不太可能的。

But the funds could be used for transportation, perhaps even in public schools.

但这些资金可以用于交通，甚至可能用于公立学校。

The point here is not to predict the future, but to point out that this future can and should be shaped based on real, and sometimes conflicting, policy aims—as well as research evidence.

这里的重点不是预测未来，而是指出这个未来可以而且应该根据真实的、有时是相互冲突的政策目标以及研究证据来塑造。

States choosing whether to participate in the federal tax credit will decide who qualifies, what the funds can be spent on, and which organizations can award scholarships.

选择是否参与联邦税收抵免的各州将决定谁有资格、资金可以花在什么地方以及哪些组织可以颁发奖学金。

Those three decisions will do more to determine who benefits than anything in the program’s name.

这三个决定将比该计划名称中的任何内容更能决定谁受益。

Our goal in this report isn’t to tell states whether to expand choice.

我们本报告的目标不是告诉各州是否扩大选择。

It’s to point out that the decisions being made right now—the ones filed under administrative rules, the ones that get resolved in a conference committee at 2 a.m.—are the decisions that determine which children this program helps and how.

需要指出的是，现在正在做出的决定——根据行政规则提交的决定，以及凌晨 2 点在会议委员会中解决的决定——是决定该计划帮助哪些儿童以及如何帮助的决定。

The label will be on the press release.

该标签将出现在新闻稿上。

Read the fine print.

阅读细则。