Who Wants School Vouchers in America? A Comprehensive Study Using Multilevel Regression and Poststratification

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article seeks to understand the perception of the American public regarding the introduction of vouchers. Although the arguments in favor defend the possibility for families to choose schools for their children, as well as the fact that vouchers allow socioeconomically disadvantaged families to opt for private schools (which are typically inaccessible), it is important to understand how the population positions itself on this issue. The article's focus on socioeconomic, ethnic, and religious issues helps narrow down and deepen the social awareness of the topic. 

The article provides relevant theoretical contextualization, although mostly outdated, and it would be important to introduce more recent bibliographic references to provide a more current framework. The authors present a historical perspective, and I believe it would be important to introduce the political and ideological debate surrounding the introduction of vouchers. 

The methodology is appropriate for the questions it seeks to answer. However, the databases they rely on are about 20 years old, which implies that the obtained results are outdated. 

Finally, the results presented by the authors are essentially in line with the existing literature, without providing data that could contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 1 Comments

Point 1: The article provides relevant theoretical contextualization, although mostly outdated, and it would be important to introduce more recent bibliographic references to provide a more current framework. The authors present a historical perspective, and I believe it would be important to introduce the political and ideological debate surrounding the introduction of vouchers.

Response 1: Thank you for your valuable comment. We acknowledge that outdated references were an issue in the old version of this paper. To address this concern, we have added new paragraphs on lines 36-65 of page 2, incorporating the most recent references regarding the effectiveness of school vouchers in the US. These new references range from 2013 to 2022, effectively covering the reference gap in the old version of the paper.

Point 2: The methodology is appropriate for the questions it seeks to answer. However, the databases they rely on are about 20 years old, which implies that the obtained results are outdated.

Response 2: Thank you for pointing out the inadequacy of data. However, the scientific inquiry of this paper aims to examine the American populace in a broader context, requiring national representative data. The only available datasets meeting this criterion are NAES 2000 and 2004. As far as we know, there are no other recent datasets that exist. Consequently, despite the potential for more recent data to make our findings more relevant to current real-life politics, we lack the means to access it. Therefore, we acknowledge this limitation in the introduction section, lines 77-80 on page 2, and in the conclusion section, lines 325-335. In these passages, we also explain why our findings remain relevant despite using older datasets.

Point 3: Finally, the results presented by the authors are essentially in line with the existing literature, without providing data that could contribute to the advancement of scientific knowledge.

Response 3: Thank you for your critical comment. We acknowledge that the inefficiency lies in our failure to elaborate sufficiently on our findings, thereby failing to present novel results that differentiate our study from existing ones. As a result, we have taken your feedback into consideration and made significant revisions to the "MrP" results section. Additionally, we have expanded the conclusion section to provide a more comprehensive explanation of our findings and their contribution to the existing literature, along with their implications for educational policy. Thank you again for your valuable input, and we believe these improvements will strengthen the overall impact and significance of our research.

Reviewer 2 Report

The manuscript examines the level of support for education voucher policies among different populations. The research topic on education vouchers is a classic subject within the fields of educational economics or educational finance. While research on education vouchers was quite popular in the early years of this century, there has been relatively little recent research on the topic. However, I believe this manuscript is highly significant, and I recommend publication after addressing the following points for revision.

1. Abstract: Avoid including references in the abstract section. Instead, provide a concise and clear introduction to the research background, methods, findings, and policy recommendations.
2. Overall Structure: The author should rearrange the structure to enhance clarity. It is essential to include a separate conclusion section and a section discussing the limitations of the study. Avoid blending the conclusions entirely within the results and discussion sections, as this makes it difficult to identify explicit research findings.
3. Emphasize Research Contribution: The author should clearly highlight the marginal contribution of this study. Given that research on education vouchers is a well-established topic, there may already be existing literature on the subject. Therefore, the author needs to explain where their research makes a unique contribution to the existing body of knowledge.
4. Selection of Education Vouchers: It is worth noting that similar issues with education voucher policies exist in other countries, where such policies have not been successful in many cases. The author should analyze why education voucher policies have failed in other countries and explore the underlying reasons. This analysis would be beneficial for the author's examination of different populations and their preferences for education voucher policies.

Overall, with these revisions, I believe the manuscript will be ready for publication.

Author Response

Response to Reviewer 2 Comments

Point 1: Abstract: Avoid including references in the abstract section. Instead, provide a concise and clear introduction to the research background, methods, findings, and policy recommendations.

Response 1: Thank you for your instructive comment. As per your guidance, we have completely reworked the abstract and included an entirely new version in the revised manuscript.

Point 2: Overall Structure: The author should rearrange the structure to enhance clarity. It is essential to include a separate conclusion section and a section discussing the limitations of the study. Avoid blending the conclusions entirely within the results and discussion sections, as this makes it difficult to identify explicit research findings.

Response 2: Thank you for bringing attention to this structural inadequacy. We apologize for the confusion caused by the mixing of the conclusion section with the MrP result in the previous manuscript during formatting. However, we have taken necessary steps to rectify this issue. A new section for the MrP result has been created, and it delves further into the discussion of our findings. Additionally, we have composed a new conclusion that effectively summarizes our analysis and highlights the limitations of this study. Once again, we appreciate your valuable feedback, and we believe these revisions will enhance the clarity and organization of the manuscript.

Point 3: Emphasize Research Contribution: The author should clearly highlight the marginal contribution of this study. Given that research on education vouchers is a well-established topic, there may already be existing literature on the subject. Therefore, the author needs to explain where their research makes a unique contribution to the existing body of knowledge.

Response 3: Thank you for your valuable comment. We have taken it into consideration and made significant improvements to the manuscript. Firstly, we have added new paragraphs to the introduction to identify relevant literature in this regard. This addition will provide readers with a clearer understanding of the study's background and context. Secondly, we have completely rewritten the contribution section to further elaborate on our study's significance and its contribution to existing research. This will undoubtedly strengthen the originality and impact of our work. We appreciate your feedback, and these revisions demonstrate our commitment to enhancing the quality and relevance of the research.

Point 4: Selection of Education Vouchers: It is worth noting that similar issues with education voucher policies exist in other countries, where such policies have not been successful in many cases. The author should analyze why education voucher policies have failed in other countries and explore the underlying reasons. This analysis would be beneficial for the author's examination of different populations and their preferences for education voucher policies.

Response 4: Thank you for your insightful comment. Our study is primarily focused on the United States, and in response to your feedback, we have made important revisions to the manuscript. To strengthen the discussion on the effectiveness of school vouchers in different states, we have added more references that specifically address this aspect. This allows us to draw more comprehensive conclusions and insights from the existing literature. Additionally, we have included references that examine school vouchers globally, incorporating meta-analyses to shed further light on our research. Regarding the suggestion of finite categorization of school vouchers, we acknowledge its potential to provide a deeper understanding of the issue in the American context. While our current approach treats school vouchers as a general concept without distinguishing various types, we find merit in your comment, and it has inspired us to consider this as a valuable research topic for future studies. We appreciate your valuable input, and these changes demonstrate our commitment to enhancing the quality and relevance of our research. If you have any further suggestions or comments, please do not hesitate to let us know. Thank you once again for your insightful feedback.