School accountability and school choice
Cassandra Hart, University of California-DavisDavid Figlio, Northwestern University & National Bureau of Economic
Research
Conference on Competition and Subnational GovernmentsApril 26, 2014
Cream-skimming in school choice literature: concern that children of most-informed parents will use programs and leave public schools
School report cards under accountability programs meant to help parents make more informed choices
Relevant literatures on ◦ parental use of information (Hastings, van Weelden, &
Weinstein, 2007; Billings, Brunner, & Ross, 2014)◦ information on capitalization of information in housing
markets (Figlio & Lucas, 2004) But little work on how increased information (non-
targeted) affects distribution of children across schools
Motivation: Sorting between schools
Potential for provision of new information to either polarize or equalize composition of schools◦ Salience of grades—clear evaluation of quality from
an authoritative source—may be especially high here Might have greater effect on low-SES families,
if they had less access to reliable gauges of quality previously
Might have greater effect on high-SES families, if they are better situated to act on new information
Motivation: sorting between schools
Look at how kindergarten class composition changes based on the provision of new information based on introduction of/changes to accountability regimes◦ A+ Accountability Plan roll-out (1999)
Differences in effects based on available alternatives
Effects on segregation indices
This paper
Introduced in Spring 1999◦ Graded schools A-F◦ Replaced system in which parents primarily had
access to information on raw test scores-provided “lumpy” evaluation of schools
Florida A+ Accountability Plan
Grade
Number of schools
Percent
A 116 8.3%B 191 13.6%C 643 45.7%D 402 28.6%F 54 3.8%
Newspapers FLDOE website
Publicity around 1999 grades
Front-page news in high-performing districts…
…and low-performing districts
Real estate agents School spaces DOE website
Publicity around 1999 grades
1999 school average scores by 1999 grades
Florida Education Data Warehouse individual student records (school enrollments, data on lunch status, etc.)
Birth records for birth cohorts from 1992 to 1999◦ Detail on parental and family characteristics
Maternal education Maternal age Maternal marital status at birth Birth conditions, (e.g. birth weight, multiple births,
etc.)
Data
School-level information on changes in composition of incoming kindergarten classes ◦ Maternal characteristics recorded during birth of
child Years of education Age Marital status (binary indicator for married)
◦ Family income in kindergarten year (share FRL)◦ Index of all of these◦ Size of incoming kindergarten class
Analytic plan
1999: new grade shock (for all grade levels separately). Equation for A grade:
Kst=school average characteristics of incoming kindergarten class (or log number students in some specifications)
Key IV: series of year indicators*1999Grade τs: school fixed effect. SchoolVars includes excess
absenteeism rate (share of students absent 21+ days), stability/mobility rate, suspension rates, and average FCAT test scores
Years 1997/98-2001/02 Identify grade effect by controlling for underlying
elements of school grade (Figlio & Lucas, 2004)
stsstsst choolVarsSearYAearYK
1999*
Analytic plan-1999 shock
Composition: Mean maternal education
*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
A [compar:
B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 0.005 -0.028 0.050* -0.045 (0.040) (0.032) (0.026) (0.051)Grade X 1999 0.064** 0.004 -0.023 -0.090* (0.030) (0.028) (0.024) (0.048)Grade X 2000 0.104*** 0.027 -0.064** -0.084 (0.033) (0.033) (0.026) (0.080)Grade X 2001 0.122*** 0.017 -0.018 -0.101 (0.040) (0.032) (0.029) (0.083)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,033 1,087School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415Group Outcome Mean
13.450 13.189 11.308 11.110
Group Outcome SD 0.778 0.814 0.903 0.770
Composition: Mean maternal age
A [compar:
B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 -0.017 0.031 0.053 0.180 (0.093) (0.081) (0.067) (0.120)Grade X 1999 0.107 0.065 -0.065 0.039 (0.083) (0.074) (0.056) (0.128)Grade X 2000 0.147 0.042 -0.094 0.210 (0.091) (0.087) (0.065) (0.146)Grade X 2001 0.184* 0.154* -0.068 -0.075 (0.103) (0.084) (0.069) (0.167)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,033 1,087School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415Group Outcome Mean
28.459 27.973 25.209 24.655
Group Outcome SD 1.587 1.615 1.511 1.335*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Composition: Fraction with married parents
A [compar:
B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 -0.006 -0.002 -0.003 -0.003 (0.007) (0.006) (0.005) (0.011)Grade X 1999 0.006 -0.003 -0.002 0.009 (0.005) (0.006) (0.004) (0.011)Grade X 2000 0.015** 0.005 -0.002 0.016 (0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.013)Grade X 2001 0.010 0.004 0.002 0.021* (0.007) (0.006) (0.005) (0.012)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,033 1,087School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415Group Outcome Mean
0.819 0.788 0.459 0.326
Group Outcome SD 0.098 0.104 0.157 0.148*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Composition: Fraction on subsidized lunch
A [compar:
B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 0.002 0.010 -0.019** -0.028* (0.008) (0.007) (0.007) (0.014)Grade X 1999 -0.009 -0.012** -0.002 -0.017 (0.007) (0.006) (0.006) (0.013)Grade X 2000 -0.038*** -0.011 0.012 -0.016 (0.009) (0.009) (0.008) (0.018)Grade X 2001 -0.019** -0.012 0.023** 0.011 (0.009) (0.009) (0.010) (0.019)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,033 1,087School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415Group Outcome Mean
0.219 0.261 0.732 0.853
Group Outcome SD 0.142 0.158 0.168 0.132*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Empirically driven Regressed grade-year standardized FCAT score
(average of math and reading) on:◦ Maternal education◦ Maternal age◦ Maternal marital status◦ Lunch status as of kindergarten◦ Race dummies (Black, White, Latino, Asian)◦ Maternal immigrant status
“Index” is the predicted third grade (standardized) test score based on these characteristics, fixed at birth or (for lunch status) K entry
Index creation
Composition: Advantage index A
[compar: B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 -0.000 -0.005 0.012*** 0.008 (0.006) (0.005) (0.004) (0.009)Grade X 1999 0.014*** 0.003 -0.004 -0.003 (0.005) (0.005) (0.004) (0.008)Grade X 2000 0.025*** 0.005 -0.006 0.003 (0.006) (0.006) (0.005) (0.012)Grade X 2001 0.022*** 0.006 -0.009* 0.007 (0.007) (0.006) (0.005) (0.012)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,034 1,088School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415Group Outcome Mean
0.280 0.239 -0.251 -0.398
Group Outcome SD 0.134 0.128 0.202 0.157*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Advantage index: First-borns only
A [compar:
B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 0.000 0.002 0.019*** -0.000 (0.008) (0.008) (0.007) (0.014)Grade X 1999 0.018** 0.014** -0.001 0.010 (0.008) (0.007) (0.006) (0.011)Grade X 2000 0.027*** 0.020** -0.007 0.012 (0.009) (0.008) (0.007) (0.019)Grade X 2001 0.031*** 0.020** -0.006 0.011 (0.010) (0.008) (0.007) (0.018)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,034 1,088School-Years 4,688 4,118 5,142 5,412Group Outcome Mean
0.290 0.246 -0.236 -0.403
Group Outcome SD 0.143 0.139 0.219 0.192*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Ln(enrollment) A
[compar: B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 -0.034 -0.007 0.032** 0.087*** (0.025) (0.019) (0.016) (0.026)Grade X 1999 0.057*** 0.049*** 0.022* 0.025 (0.019) (0.015) (0.012) (0.030)Grade X 2000 0.052** 0.057*** -0.045*** -0.058 (0.025) (0.019) (0.015) (0.037)Grade X 2001 0.033 0.073*** -0.094*** -0.046 (0.024) (0.020) (0.017) (0.037)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,034 1,088School-Years 4,693 4,123 5,145 5,415
*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Ln(enrollment): First-borns A
[compar: B,C]
B [compar: C]
D [compar: C]
F [compar:
C,D]Grade X 1997 -0.016 -0.036 0.013 0.053 (0.034) (0.027) (0.023) (0.052)Grade X 1999 0.068** 0.031 0.030 0.010 (0.028) (0.024) (0.019) (0.041)Grade X 2000 0.098*** 0.022 -0.023 -0.085 (0.032) (0.029) (0.021) (0.053)Grade X 2001 0.072** 0.050* -0.081*** 0.003 (0.031) (0.026) (0.023) (0.051)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 943 829 1,034 1,088School-Years 4,688 4,118 5,142 5,412
*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Ln(enrollment): Effect of 1999 A Mother:
CollegeMother: No
CollegeNot FRL FRL
Grade X 1997 -0.045 -0.066* -0.038 -0.074 (0.035) (0.037) (0.029) (0.056)Grade X 1999 0.077*** 0.021 0.070*** 0.016 (0.024) (0.025) (0.022) (0.038)Grade X 2000 0.067** -0.019 0.110*** -0.187*** (0.030) (0.032) (0.031) (0.060)Grade X 2001 0.057* -0.047 0.064** -0.062 (0.030) (0.036) (0.030) (0.058)School Controls Y Y Y YSchool FE Y Y Y YUnique Schools 945 945 945 944School-Years 4,704 4,704 4,704 4,669
*** p<.01, **, p<.05, *, p<.10,.
Does the effect of school grades depend on the performance/availability of neighboring schools◦ Availability=>can’t easily sort if nothing else
easily available◦ Performance=>benchmarking/signaling story
School grades and signaling
Lee
Measures of availability/quality of alternatives:◦ Any other public elementary within 3 miles (with
1999 grade)◦ Any other public elementary within 3 miles with
1999 grade C or lower◦ Had Public Choice grant (to support open
enrollment plans) in 1999
Effects: by available alternatives
Available alternatives: by grade
Weighted by 1998 student populations
A B C mean/sd mean/sd mean/sdAny Other Schools in 3 mi (%) 70.435 70.106 72.745 (45.854) (45.908) (44.563)Any Schools C or lower in 3 mi (%) 48.968 49.840 66.478 (50.231) (50.140) (47.245)District Had Public Choice Grant: 1999 (%)
57.851 54.430 49.589
(49.598) (49.934) (50.037)
Index outcome: by alternatives (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Interactions None w/i 3 Any w/i 3 None C or lower w/i
3
Any C or lower w/i
3
No Open Enroll 1999
Open Enroll Grant 1999
A X 1997 -0.001 -0.000 0.001 -0.001 -0.008 0.006 (0.011) (0.007) (0.009) (0.008) (0.009) (0.008)A X 1999 0.011 0.019*** 0.013* 0.018** 0.011 0.016** (0.010) (0.006) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007) (0.007)A X 2000 0.023** 0.029*** 0.023*** 0.028*** 0.012 0.033*** (0.011) (0.007) (0.009) (0.007) (0.009) (0.007)A X 2001 0.002 0.032*** 0.004 0.037*** 0.015 0.026*** (0.014) (0.008) (0.010) (0.009) (0.012) (0.007)Unique Schools 261 636 357 540 474 471School-Years 1,299 3,167 1,776 2,690 2,358 2,346
1997 diff p 0.964 0.871 0.2431999-01 joint p 0.116 0.040 0.255
IV: Within-city std dev of 1999 grades (standardized)
Outcome measures: Multigroup segregation index (Theil’s Information Index)◦ By race (White, Black, Latino, other)◦ By parental education (HS dropout, HS grad, some
college, college grad)◦ By lunch status (not FRL/FRL)
Segregation
Racial Seg H Education H Not FRL Hstd_sd99GPA_cX1997 0.000 0.000 -0.001 (0.001) (0.001) (0.002)std_sd99GPA_cX1999 -0.000 0.001** 0.002 (0.001) (0.000) (0.001)std_sd99GPA_cX2000 0.000 0.001** 0.002 (0.001) (0.000) (0.002)std_sd99GPA_cX2001 -0.002 0.001* 0.000 (0.001) (0.001) (0.002)Year FE Y Y YControls Y Y YNumber of Cities 180 180 180City-Years 896 897 896Seg Measure Mean 0.076 0.038 0.075Seg Measure SD 0.071 0.031 0.074Seg Measure Min 0.001 0.000 0.000Seg Measure Max 0.426 0.146 0.467p-value ‘99, ‘00, ‘01 F test
0.329 0.067 0.462
Evidence of parental response to new provision of information (response to high-quality), especially among more educated parents◦ Modest evidence of benchmarking—response
somewhat greater when alternatives judged poor quality (or too far to be easy alternatives)
◦ Robust to district-by-district exclusion, exclusion of red-shirters and repeaters
◦ Some evidence of segregative effects (by parental education levels only)
Conclusion
Thank you!
Suggestions?
Top Related