We estimate the importance of teachers in Chicago public high schools using matched student-teacher administrative data. A one standard deviation, one semester improvement in math teacher quality raises student math scores by 0.13 grade equivalents or, over 1 year, roughly one-fifth of average yearly gains. Estimates are relatively stable over time, reasonably impervious to a variety of conditioning variables, and do not appear to be driven by classroom sorting or selective score reporting. Also, teacher quality is particularly important for lower-ability students. Finally, traditional human capital measures—including those determining compensation—explain little of the variation in estimated quality.

In this paper we use a "market-based" approach to examine whether increased school expenditures are valued by potential residents and whether the current level of public school provision is inefficient. We do so by employing an instrumental variables strategy to estimate the effect of state education aid on residential property values. We find evidence that, on net, additional state aid is valued by potential residents and that school districts do not appear to overspend on education. We also find that school districts may overspend in areas in which residents are poor or less educated, in large districts, and in districts with higher shares of rental property. One interpretation of these results is that increased competition has the potential to reduce overspending on public schools in some areas.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We thank the many dedicated principals, teachers and staff of the school districts that participated in this project as well as Gadi Barlevy, Thomas Cook, Jonas Fisher, Jean Grossman, Brandi Jeffs, Alan Krueger, Lisa Krueger, Sean Reardon, Jesse Rothstein, Pei Zhu, and seminar participants at Columbia University, Duke University, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, McMaster University, Queens University, and the University of Notre Dame for helpful conversations and comments. Benjamin Kaplan, Katherine Meckel, Kyung-Hong Park, Ana Rocca, and Nathan Wozny provided expert research assistance. Funding for this project was generously provided by the Education Research Section at Princeton University. Any views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors are ours. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractBecause a significant portion of U.S. students lacks critical mathematic skills, schools across the country are investing heavily in computerized curriculums as a way to enhance education output, even though there is surprisingly little evidence that they actually improve student achievement. In this paper we present results from a randomized study in three urban school districts of a welldefined use of computers in schools: a popular instructional computer program which is designed to teach pre-algebra and algebra. We assess the impact of the program using statewide tests that cover a range of math skills and tests designed specifically to target pre-algebra and algebra skills. We find that students randomly assigned to computer-aided instruction score at least 0.17 of a standard deviation higher on a pre-algebra/algebra test than students randomly assigned to traditional instruction. We hypothesize that the effectiveness arises from increased individualized instruction as the effects appear larger for students in larger classes and those in classes in which students are frequently absent.

Using data from the Consumer Expenditure Survey, we investigate whether the Earned Income Credit (EIC) leads to changes in seasonal expenditure patterns of low-income workers. We find that EIC eligible households spend approximately 3 percent more total during February, the modal month of EIC refunds, and 9 percent more on durable goods than non-eligible households. The increased spending on durable goods indicates that the EIC facilitates the purchasing of big-ticket items by low-income families. These estimates, when converted to dollars, also suggest that EIC recipients smooth expenditure somewhat since the average increase in expenditure is less than the average EIC refund.

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. We thank the many dedicated principals, teachers and staff of the school districts that participated in this project as well as Gadi Barlevy, Thomas Cook, Jonas Fisher, Jean Grossman, Brandi Jeffs, Alan Krueger, Lisa Krueger, Sean Reardon, Jesse Rothstein, Pei Zhu, and seminar participants at Columbia University, Duke University, the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago, McMaster University, Queens University, and the University of Notre Dame for helpful conversations and comments. Benjamin Kaplan, Katherine Meckel, Kyung-Hong Park, Ana Rocca, and Nathan Wozny provided expert research assistance. Funding for this project was generously provided by the Education Research Section at Princeton University. Any views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect those of the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors are ours. Terms of use: Documents in AbstractBecause a significant portion of U.S. students lacks critical mathematic skills, schools across the country are investing heavily in computerized curriculums as a way to enhance education output, even though there is surprisingly little evidence that they actually improve student achievement. In this paper we present results from a randomized study in three urban school districts of a welldefined use of computers in schools: a popular instructional computer program which is designed to teach pre-algebra and algebra. We assess the impact of the program using statewide tests that cover a range of math skills and tests designed specifically to target pre-algebra and algebra skills. We find that students randomly assigned to computer-aided instruction score at least 0.17 of a standard deviation higher on a pre-algebra/algebra test than students randomly assigned to traditional instruction. We hypothesize that the effectiveness arises from increased individualized instruction as the effects appear larger for students in larger classes and those in classes in which students are frequently absent.