Measuring the Effect of School Choice on Economic Outcomes(Owyang and Vermann 2012)
The Value of Catholic Education
Stark County Catholic elementary and high schools offer:
Studies show that Catholic schools are more likely to
present greater opportunities than public schools and produce
students who achieve higher academically overall.
Higher Academic Performance
- In Catholic schools, the student achievement gap is smaller than in public schools.
- In Catholic schools, overall academic achievement is higher.
- In Catholic schools, student math scores improve between sophomore and senior years.
- Latino and African American students in Catholic schools are more likely to graduate from high school and college.
- The poorer and more at-risk a student is, the greater the relative achievement gains in Catholic schools.
Better Attitude & Behavior
- Catholic schools tend to operate as communities rather than bureaucracies, which links to higher levels of teacher commitment, student engagement, and student achievement.
- The Catholic school climate, mission, and purpose positively impact student achievement and attendance.
- Students with multiple disadvantages benefit most from Catholic schools.
More Interest in Citizenship & Community
- Catholic schools tend to produce graduates who are more civically engaged, more tolerant of diverse views, and more committed to service as adults.
- Graduates of Catholic high schools are more likely to vote.
- A faith-based orientation builds coherence and integration of schools and school community.
Greater Opportunities for the Future
- The total amount of College Scholarship money received by Stark County Catholic High School Students in 2012 is $10,096,661.00. With a total of 179 graduating seniors in 2012, this equates to an average of $56,406.00 per student.
- Graduates of Catholic high schools are more likely to earn higher wages.
1. Jeynes, 2007; Marks & Lee, 1989. | 2. Coleman, Hoffer, & Kilgore, 1982; Sander, 1996. | 3. Carbonaro, & Covay, 2010. | 4. Grogger & Neal, 2000. | 5. York, 1996. | 6. Marks, 2009. | 7. Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993. | 8. Greeley, 1982; Evans & Schwab, 1995; Neal, 1997. | 9. Campbell, 2001; Wolf, Greene, Kleitz, & Thalhammer, 2001. | 10. Dee, 2005. | 11. Bryk, Lee, & Holland, 1993. | 12. Neal, 1997.