Research in Higher Education

, Volume 55, Issue 6, pp 601–625 | Cite as

Market-Based Higher Education: Does Colorado’s Voucher Model Improve Higher Education Access and Efficiency?

  • Nicholas W. Hillman
  • David A. Tandberg
  • Jacob P. K. Gross
Article

Abstract

In 2004, Colorado introduced the nation’s first voucher model for financing public higher education. With state appropriations now allocated to students, rather than institutions, state officials expect this model to create cost efficiencies while also expanding college access. Using difference-in-difference regression analysis, we find limited evidence that these outcomes occurred within the 4-year sector; however, the policy increased cost efficiencies among community college and reduced college access for some underrepresented groups. The paper discusses the challenges of applying market-based reforms to public higher education.

Keywords

Higher education finance State policy Market-based reforms 

References

  1. Alexander, F. K. (2000). The changing face of accountability: Monitoring and assessing institutional performance in higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 71(4), 411–431.Google Scholar
  2. Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. (2006). State higher education spending and the tax revolt. The Journal of Higher Education, 77(4), 618–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Archibald, R. B., & Feldman, D. H. (2011). Why does college cost so much? Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, T., Calcagno, J. C., Jenkins, D., Kienzl, G., & Leinbach, T. (2005). The effects of institutional factors on the success of community college students. New York: Community College Research Center, Teachers College, Columbia University.Google Scholar
  5. Barrow, L., & Rouse, C. (2008). School vouchers: Recent findings and unanswered questions. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 32(3), 2–16.Google Scholar
  6. Baumol, W. J. (1993). Health care, education and the cost disease: A looming crisis for public choice. Public Choice, 77(1), 17–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Becker, W. (1990). The demand for higher education. In S. Hoenack & E. Collins (Eds.), The economics of American universities: Management, operations, and fiscal environment (pp. 155–188). New York: SUNY.Google Scholar
  8. Bell Policy Center. (2003). Ten years of tabor: A study of Colorado’s taxpayer’s bill of rights. Denver, CO: Bell Policy Center.Google Scholar
  9. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. The American Political Science Review, 84(2), 395–415.Google Scholar
  10. Blundell, R., & Costa Dias, M. (2000). Evaluation methods for non-experimental data. Fiscal Studies, 21(4), 427–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bowen, W. G., Chingos, M. M., & McPherson, M. S. (2009). Crossing the finish line. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Brewer, D., Gates, S., & Goldman, C. (2002). In pursuit of prestige. RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  13. Cameron, K. (1978). Measuring organizational effectiveness in institutions of higher education. Administrative Science Quarterly, 23(4), 604–632.Google Scholar
  14. Camou, M., & Patton, W. (2012). Deregulation and higher education: Potential impact on access, affordability, and achievement in Ohio. Policy Matters Ohio.Google Scholar
  15. Chubb, J. E., & Moe, T. M. (1990). Politics, markets, and America’s schools. Washington: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  16. Clotfelter, C. T. (1992). Explaining the demand. In C. Clotfelter, R. Ehrenberg, M. Getz, & J. Siegfried (Eds.), Economic challenges in higher education (pp. 59–88). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  17. College Board. (2012). Total federal, institutional, private and employer, and state grants over time. Trends in Higher Education. Retrieved December 31, 2013 from https://trends.collegeboard.org/student-aid/figures-tables/growth-federal-institutional-private-and-employer-and-state-grants-over-time.
  18. Colorado Commission on Higher Education. (2008). College opportunity fund status report FY07-08. Denver, CO: Colorado Commission on Higher Education.Google Scholar
  19. Colorado Office of the State Auditor. (2012). Performance audit of the implementation of the college opportunity fund program (no. 2162) (p. 58). Denver, CO: State of Colorado, Office of the State Auditor.Google Scholar
  20. Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (1986). The causal assumptions of quasi-experimental practice. Synthese, 68(1), 141–180.Google Scholar
  21. Creedy, J. (1994). Financing higher education: Public choice and social welfare. Fiscal Studies, 15(3), 87–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Delaney, J. A., & Doyle, W. R. (2011). State spending on higher education: Testing the balance wheel over time. Journal of Education Finance, 36(4), 343–368.Google Scholar
  23. Deller, S., Stallmann, J. I., & Amiel, L. (2012). The impact of state and local tax and expenditure limitations on state economic growth. Growth and Change, 43(1), 56–84.Google Scholar
  24. Desrochers, D., Lenihan, C., & Wellman, J. (2010). Trends in college spending, 19982008. Delta project on postsecondary education costs, productivity, and accountability.Google Scholar
  25. Dill, D. D. (2003). Allowing the market to rule: The case of the United States. Higher Education Quarterly, 57(2), 136–157.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Dolan, R., & Schmidt, R. (1994). Modeling institutional production of higher education. Economics of Education Review, 13, 197–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., & Vega, B. E. (2012). Popular but unstable: Explaining why state performance funding systems in the United States often do not persist. Teachers College Record, 114(3), 1–41.Google Scholar
  28. Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. Stata Journal, 3(2), 168–177.Google Scholar
  29. Dynarski, S. (2000). Hope for whom? Financial aid for the middle class and its impact on college attendance (Working paper no. 7756). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  30. Dynarski, S. M. (2003). Does aid matter? Measuring the effect of student aid on college attendance and completion. American Economic Review, 93(1), 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Fischer, K. (2005, July 8). In Colorado, a new voucherlike program offers promise and perils to colleges and students. The Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved from http://chronicle.com/article/In-Colorado-a-New-Voucherlike/121483/.
  32. Flores, S. (2010). The First State Dream Act: In-state resident tuition and immigration in Texas. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(4), 435–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Friedman, M. (1962). Capitalism and freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  34. Fryar, A. H. (2012). What do we mean by privatization in higher education? In J. C. Smart & M. B. Paulsen (Eds.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 27, pp. 521–547). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  35. Gerald, D., & Haycock, K. (2006). Engines of inequality: Diminishing equity in the nation’s premier public universities (pp. 1–25). Education Trust.Google Scholar
  36. Glover, D., & Levacic, R. (2007). Educational resource management: An international perspective. Institute of Education-London. 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK.Google Scholar
  37. Goldrick-Rab, S., Harris, D. N., & Trostel, P. A. (2009). Why financial aid matters (or does not) for college success: Toward a new interdisciplinary perspective. In Higher Education: Handbook of Theory and Research, Vol. 24, pp. 1–45.Google Scholar
  38. Greene, W. H. (2011). Econometric analysis, 7th Ed. New Jersey: Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  39. Hamilton, R. (2011). Who’s behind proposed reforms to Texas higher Ed? Texas: The Texas Tribune.Google Scholar
  40. Harbour, C. P., Davies, T. G., & Lewis, C. W. (2006). Colorado’s voucher legislation and the consequences for community colleges. Community College Review, 33(3–4), 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Heller, D. E. (1999). The effects of tuition and state financial aid on public college enrollment. The Review of Higher Education, 23(1), 65–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Heller, D. E. (2000). Tuition pricing and higher education participation in Colorado. Olympia, WA: Northwest Education Research Center.Google Scholar
  43. Hemelt, S. W., & Marcotte, D. E. (2011). The impact of tuition increases on enrollment at public colleges and universities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(4), 435–457.Google Scholar
  44. Hovey, H. A. (1999). State spending for higher education in the next decade: The battle to sustain current support. San Jose, CA: National Center for Public Policy and Higher Education.Google Scholar
  45. James, F. J., & Wallis, A. (2004). Tax and spending limits in Colorado. Public Budgeting & Finance, 24(4), 16–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Johnstone, D. B. (2001). Higher education and those “Out of Control Costs”. In P. G. Altbach, P. J. Gumport, & D. B. Johnstone (Eds.), In defense of American higher education (pp. 144–180). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Johnstone, D. B. (2004). The economics and politics of cost sharing in higher education: Comparative perspectives. Economics of Education Review, 23(4), 403–410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jongbloed, B. (2004). Regulation and competition in higher education. In P. Teixeira, B. Jongbloed, D. Dill & A. Amaral (Eds.), Markets in higer education: Rhetoric or reality? (Vol. 6, pp. 87–111). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  49. Kane, T. (1996). Lessons from the largest school voucher program ever: Two decades of experience with pell grants. In B. Fuller, R. Elmore, & G. Orfield (Eds.), Who chooses? Who loses? Culture, institutions, and the unequal effects of school choice. New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Google Scholar
  50. Karch, A. (2007). Emerging issues and future directions in state policy diffusion research. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 7(1), 54–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Levin, H. M. (1992). Market approaches to education: vouchers and school choice. Economics of Education Review, 11(4), 279–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindsay, A. W. (1982). Institutional performance in higher education: The efficiency dimension. Review of Educational Research, 52(2), 175–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Long, B. T., & Kurlaender, M. (2009). Do community colleges provide a viable pathway to a baccalaureate degree? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(1), 30–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Martin, R. E. (2005). Cost control, college access, and competition in higher education. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.Google Scholar
  55. McLendon, M., & Cohen-Vogel, L. (2008). Understanding education policy change in the American States: Lessons from political science. In B. Cooper, J. Cibulka, & L. Fusarelli (Eds.), Handbook of education politics and policy. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  56. McLendon, M., & Mokher, C. (2009). The origins and growth of state policies that privatize public higher education. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy (pp. 7–32). Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  57. Meyer, B. D. (1995). Natural and quasi-experiments in economics. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(2), 151–161.Google Scholar
  58. New, M. J. (2010). U.S state tax and expenditure limitations: A comparative political analysis. State Politics & Policy Quarterly, 10(1), 25–50.Google Scholar
  59. Pascarella, E. T. & Terenzini, P. T. (2005). How college affects students: Volume 2 A third decade of research. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  60. Prescott, B. (2010). Is Colorado’s voucher system worth vouching for? Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 42(4), 20–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Protopsaltis, S. (2006). The colorado voucher system: Implications for higher education. College and University, 81(2), 45–48.Google Scholar
  62. Pusser, B. (2002). Higher education, the emerging market, and the public good. In The knowledge economy and postsecondary education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.Google Scholar
  63. Pusser, B. (2005) From ideology to policy: The evolution of choice in higher education. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  64. Pusser, B. (2006). Higher education, markets, and the preservation of the public good. In D. Breneman, B. Pusser, & S. Turner (Eds.), Earnings from learning: The rise of for-profit universities (pp. 23–50). New York: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  65. Scott-Clayton, J. (2012). Information constraints and financial aid policy. National bureau of economic research working paper series, no. 17811.Google Scholar
  66. St. Clair, T. (2012). The effect of tax and expenditure limitations on revenue volatility: Evidence from Colorado. Public Budgeting & Finance, 32(3), 61–78.Google Scholar
  67. St. John, E. P. (2003). Refinancing the college dream: Access, equal opportunity, and justice for taxpayers. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Stater, M. (2009). Policy lessons from the privatization of public agencies. In C. Morphew & P. Eckel (Eds.), Privatizing the public university: Perspectives from across the academy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Steinberg, R. (2006). Economic theories of nonprofit organizations. In W. W. Powell & R. Steinberg (Eds.), The nonprofit sector: A research handbook (2nd ed., pp. 117–135). New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Stiglitz, J. E. (1999). Knowledge as a global public good. Global public goods, 1(9), 308–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. U.S. Census Bureau. (2013). American Community Survey: State and County Quick Facts accessed online (1/20/2013). http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/08000.html.
  72. U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Distribution of federal Pell Grant recipients by family income and type and control of institution (Table 6). 20092010 Federal pell grant end-of-year report. Reports; Datasets; Statistical Reports.Google Scholar
  73. Waisanen, B. (2010). State tax and expenditure limits, 2010. Denver, CO: National Conference of State Legislatures.Google Scholar
  74. Watkins, K. (2009). State spending limitations: TABOR and referendum C. Denver: Colorado Legislative Council Staff.Google Scholar
  75. Weibel, A., Rost, K., & Osterloh, M. (2010). Pay for performance in the public sector—Benefits and (hidden) costs. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 20(2), 387–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. WICHE. (2009). An evaluation of Colorado’s college opportunity fund and related policies. Boulder, CO: Western Interstate Commission for Higher Education.Google Scholar
  77. WICHE. (2013). Knocking at the college door. WICHE: Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
  78. Winston, G. C. (1999). Subsidies, hierarchy and peers: The awkward economics of higher education. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 13(1), 13–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Zhang, L., & Ness, E. C. (2010). Does state merit-based aid stem brain drain? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 32(2), 143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Zumeta, W. (2006). The new finance of public higher education. The NEA 2006 Almanac of Higher Education, pp 37–48.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Nicholas W. Hillman
    • 1
  • David A. Tandberg
    • 2
  • Jacob P. K. Gross
    • 3
  1. 1.University of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Florida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA
  3. 3.University of LouisvilleLouisvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations