1. IMPROVING SERVICE
PROVISION IN THE PUBLIC
SECTOR
The Impact of Choice and Competition in BC
Friday April 3, 2009
Neha Bangar, Allison Prieur,
Bhar Sihota, Laura Spencer,
Burke VanDrimmelen

2. SCOPE OF STUDY
Investigate whether increased choice
increases competition, and whether related
policies provide better quality service
Examine the impact of policies used to
introduce increased choice and competition
on the BC Primary School system
2

3. CONTENTS
1. Choice and Competition
2. BC Education System
3. Methodology
4. Criteria
5. Policies
6. Evaluation
7. Conclusions
3

4. CHOICE AND COMPETITION
 Applies quasi-market concepts to public
service
 Examples in health, education and
services for people who have disabilities
 Choice can increase competition
4

5. BC EDUCATION SYSTEM
Three Key Policy Developments
1. Partially fund group 1 & 2 independent
schools
2. Publicize results of standardized testing
3. ‘Open Boundaries’ legislation
5

6. INDEPENDENT SCHOOL FUNDING
Independent
School
Provincial
Funding*
Schools in BC
Group 1 50% 251
Group 2 35% 65
Group 3 - 18
Group 4 - 12
6
* Provincial funding based on percentage of school districts per pupil funding

7. FSA TESTING
Implemented in 1999
Administered annually to grade 4 and 7
students
First time in BC history individual student
and school results are publicized
Results are used to rank schools by
institutions 7

8. OPEN BOUNDARIES POLICY
Implemented in 2002
Allows students to attend out-of-catchment
area schools
Presently 25% of students attend out-of-
catchment area schools
Barriers to student enrolment remain 8

9. METHODOLOGY
9

10. METHODOLOGY
 Literature
Review
 Case Studies
 Key Informant
Interviews
10

11. LITERATURE REVIEW 1
Increase in choice of movement increased students’
math and reading test scores and their level of
educational attainment
Use of voucher programs and charter schools led to
gains in school productivity.
The structure or design of the program is what
makes a voucher or a charter program effective.
Public schools can respond positively to competition11

12. LITERATURE REVIEW 2
Competition invoked by improving quality of a few
schools and not others led to a significant increase in
test scores of students.
School responsiveness to increased competition is
greater in more educated neighbourhoods
When parents picked schools by consulting school
performance tables schools competed for students.
12

13. LITERATURE REVIEW 3
Equity
Increasing gap in social composition of schools.
Poorly performing schools are geographically
concentrated.
Vouchers coupled with tuition constraints can help in
inducing competition without stratification of socio-
economic classes
*Rouse, 1998; Epple & Romane, 2008; Bradley & Taylor, (2002);
Bayer and McMillan, 2005; Hoxby, 2000, 2002,2003
13

14. KEY INFORMANT INTERVIEWS
Respondent Issue Key Comments
Rick Davis
Status Quo
•Choice and competition is sufficient as it is today
•Against any performance testing and ranking
Jane Friesen Advocated status quo
•Status Quo is the strongest option. BC is doing
well
•All other options lack empirical evidence to justify
the costs
14

15. INTERVIEWS CONTINUED
Doug McArthur
Advocated
status quo with
an increase in
quality of
resources
provided to
teachers.
•Many parents just desire more quality
•"Socioeconomic factors will be a factor parents take into
account”
•Ranking may not be objective in CAP
•Voucher schools will not work, as they will result in several
schools that pick and choose they also have low stakeholder
acceptability
•Charter schools have already been discouraged by the current
government due to low stakeholder acceptability
John Richards Ranked Options
•Collaborative Evaluation- School ranking is going to happen
regardless. Doing it in a more sophisticated way is a good idea.
•Charter Schools- There is a role for charter schools, so long as
they continue to stress the basics (reading, writing arithmetic).
•Voucher System- Less sympathetic, sees it as a red flag for
teachers unions. 15

16. CASE STUDIES 1
Case Study Results
Alberta:
Charter
Schools
•Increase parental choice through specialized programs
•Numerous "alternative programs" added to public schools
•Charter school provincial standardized test scores similar to provincial
averages
•Stakeholder acceptance low due to lack of support from the teacher and
school board unions
Chile:
Voucher
System
• Increased school choice, as over 1000 private schools immediately entered
the market
• Deficits were avoided by extra funding when needed (soft budgets)
• Performance in international science and math competitions has not
improved
• Parents choose schools based on SES
16

17. CASE STUDIES 2
Case Study Results
Milwaukee:
Voucher System
•Voucher students scored lower than MPS students during the first two
years of implementation and higher during the third
•Milwaukee ranked 3rd
lowest in terms of high school completion in the 50
largest US markets
New Zealand:
Charter Schools
•The gap between the declining schools and high performing schools
widened
•Some schools were overpopulated and others were under populated
•Government costs increased in order to fund under-populated schools
•After implementation in 1989, the charter school system was revoked in
1997 17

18. POLICIES
18

19. POLICIES
 Status Quo
 Charter Schools
 Voucher Program
 Collaborative Assessment Policy 19

20. CHARTER SCHOOLS
Charter
Describes the unique educational service the school
provides
Choice
Users have opportunity to create schools
Competition
Encourages public schools to provide innovative programs
20

21. VOUCHER PROGRAMS
Voucher
Government issues education coupons to parents
Choice
Allows users the option to enter private schools
Competition
Public and private schools compete to maintain enrollment
levels 21

22. COLLABORATIVE ASSESSMENT POLICY
(CAP)
School rankings will be done as long as FSA
results are published
Collaborates with stakeholder groups (BCTF,
School Boards) to determine meaningful and
effective ranking scheme
Schools will be ranked with proper weighting
put on pertinent socio-economic factors 22

23. CRITERIA

24. CRITERIA 1
Criteria Definition Measure
Cost Cost to implement Transitional costs and operational
costs as compared to the status
quo
Equity Transitional: Who is affected
during reform?
Identifiable winners and losers
Vertical: How new technique
affects different socio-
economic classes
Impact on low-income students
Horizontal: Direct effects
within socio-economic classes
Impact on rural versus urban low-
income students
24

25. CRITERIA 2
Criteria Definition Measure
Political
Feasibility
Stakeholder acceptability Acceptability of parents and
students
Acceptability of the BC
Teacher’s Federation
Effectiveness Impact on educational
performance
• Parental choice
• Level of competition
• Scores on standardized tests
• High school completion rates
25

26. EVALUATION

27. EVALUATION OF STATUS QUO
Although parents can choose between
schools, only 25% choose to do so
BC schools have very high PISA test scores
and secondary school completion rates
Low income, Aboriginal and rural students are
more likely to attend schools with lower
performance 27

28. EVALUATION OF CHARTER SYSTEM
More choice and competition
Test scores and high school completion predicted to
decline
Some parents benefit and BCTF strongly oppose
Implementation and operation Costs are higher
Negatively effect low-income and rural children 28

29. EVALUATION OF VOUCHER
SYSTEM
 Case studies show an exodus of the
middle class from public to private schools
 Very unpopular with providers, who object
to any system where they could be hired
and fired at will
 With increased choice, schools may start
to pick and choose based on SES 29

30. EVALUATION OF COLLABORATIVE
ASSESSMENT POLICY
Increases user choice through additional
information on individual school performance
Greater emphasis on FSA scores may increase
school competition
Only beneficial to users in high density urban
centres
Potential for increased stakeholder acceptance 30

31. Evaluation Outcomes
*Measured on a scale of 1 to 5
31

32. EVALUATION OUTCOMES 1
Criteria Measure Status Quo Charter Voucher CAP
Effectiveness Inputs
Parental
Choice
3 4 4.5 3.5
Competition 2 4.5 2.5 3
Outputs
Test Scores
4.5 3 3 5
High School
Completion
5 2 2.5 5
Cost Public
Expenditure
per student
4 2 1 3
32

33. EVALUATION OUTCOMES 2
Criteria Measure Status Quo Charter Voucher CAP
Political
Feasibility
Parents and
students
3 3.5 3.5 4
BCTF 3 1.5 1 4
Equity Vertical 2 2.5 2 2.5
Horizontal 2 3 2 2
Transitional 5 3.5 3 4
Total 33.5 29.5 25 36
33

34. CONCLUSIONS
34

35. CONCLUSIONS
Public Education
BC students performing well on international
standardized tests and high school completion rates
Increase in school choice does not directly lead to
improved school performance
Recommendation
BC Ministry of Education should maintain the
status-quo and attempt to work collaboratively
with key stakeholder groups to construct a
meaningful school ranking system 35

36. OTHER PUBLIC SECTORS
Crucial to balance preferences of
different stakeholders
Lack of concrete data supporting the
effectiveness of choice and competition
in improving service provision
36

37. THANK YOU
We invite your questions

38. PISA SCORES
Testing Category BC Average
Score
National Average National Ranking International
Ranking
Combined
Sciences
539 534 2nd
place behind
Alberta
4th
place, leader
Finland at 563
Reading 528 527 3rd
place behind
Alberta and
Ontario
6th
place, leader
Korea at 556
Mathematics 523 527 4th
place behind
Ontario, Alberta
and Quebec
12th
place, leader
Chinese Taipei at
549
38

39. HIGH SCHOOL COMPLETION
Provinces “No certificate, diploma
or degree” (Ages 20-24)
Population (Ages
20-24)
“Drop Out” Proportion (Ages
20-24)
BC 27825 264725 11%
Alb 43490 250115 17%
Sask 12200 66770 18%
Man 16655 77315 22%
Ont 92375 794440 12%
Que 71440 470660 15%
NB 5515 44260 12%
NS 7275 56340 13%
PEI 925 8590 11%
NFL 5335 31235 17%
Canada 283035 2064450 14%
39