Detracking America's schools: Equity at zero cost?

Argys, Laura M.; Rees, Daniel I.; Brewer, Dominic J.

doi:10.1002/(sici)1520-6688(199623)15:4<623::aid-pam7>3.0.co;2-j

Cited by 161 publications

(116 citation statements)

References 23 publications

(10 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

109

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In light of evidence that teacher quality matters a great deal for student achievement and yet is not strongly linked to observed teacher characteristics (Rockoff (2004), Rivkin et al (2005), Kane et al (2006)), and evidence that teacher assignments are non-random within schools ((Oakes (1990), Argys, Rees, and Brewer (1996), Vigdor and Nechyba (forthcoming), Feng (2005), Clotfelter et al (2006)), controlling for unobserved teacher inputs would appear to be crucial when measuring classroom-level peer effects. While previous studies have accounted for the average teacher quality each student encounters with student fixed effects, and in some cases for average teacher quality at the school-by-grade level, such controls are likely to be insufficient at the classroom level.…”

Section: B Modeling and Measuring Peer Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement

Burke

Sass²

2013

Journal of Labor Economics

303

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. In this paper we analyze the impact of classroom peers on individual student performance with a unique longitudinal data set covering all Florida public school students in grades 3-10 over a five-year period. Unlike many previous data sets used to study peer effects in education, our data set allow us to identify each member of a given student's classroom peer group in elementary, middle, and high school as well as the classroom teacher responsible for instruction. As a result, we can control for individual student fixed effects simultaneously with individual teacher fixed effects, thereby alleviating biases due to endogenous assignment of both peers and teachers, including some dynamic aspects of such assignments. Our estimation strategy, which focuses on the influence of peers' fixed characteristics-both observed and unobserved-on individual test score gains, also alleviates potential biases due to error in measuring peer quality, simultaneity of peer outcomes, and mean reversion. Under linear-inmeans specifications, estimated peer effects are small to non-existent, but we find some sizable and significant peer effects within non-linear models. For example, we find that peer effects depend on an individual student's own ability and on the ability level of the peers under consideration, results that suggest Pareto-improving redistributions of students across classrooms and/or schools. Estimated peer effects tend to be smaller when teacher fixed effects are included than when they are omitted, a result that suggests co-movement of peer and teacher quality effects within a student over time. We also find that peer effects tend to be stronger at the classroom level than at the grade level. Terms of use: Documents in

show abstract

Section: B Modeling and Measuring Peer Effectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement

Burke

Sass²

2013

Journal of Labor Economics

303

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Conventional wisdom has suggested that heterogeneous grouping is good because the higher achievers help the lower achievers but are not affected by having low achieving classmates (Oakes (1985(Oakes ( , 1992). A careful review of this literature along with new estimation of tracking effects is found in Argys, Rees, and Brewer (1996). Nonetheless, this important policy issue deserves more attention, particularly in terms of the underlying methodological difficulties.…”

Section: The Role Of Peersmentioning

confidence: 99%

Publicly Provided Education

Hanushek

2002

183

171

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Historically, most attention in public programs has been given to the resources devoted to the activity, and resources have been used to index both commitment and quality. Education differs from other areas of public expenditure because direct measures of outcomes are available, making it is possible to consider results and, by implication, to consider the efficiency of provision. Early interpretations of the evidence, emanating from popular interpretations of the Coleman Report that "schools do not make a difference," are incorrect, but the basic evidence behind the statement suggests serious performance problems of government supply, because purchased inputs to schools are not closely related to outcomes. This paper reviews that evidence along with providing an evaluation of the various controversial aspects including issues of causality, consumer behavior, and estimation approaches. Two detailed policy areas are discussed in terms of the evidence on performance: public versus private provision and the financing of schools.

show abstract

“…The most elementary empirical strategy to assess the effects from tracking consists of comparing students in tracking and nontracking schools. The earlier empirical estimations seemed to suggest that although tracking was beneficial for the high-skilled students, it ended up hurting the low-skilled students, thus augmenting inequality (see for instance Kerckhoff (1986), Hoffer (1992) and Argys et al (1996)). In particular, the PISA 2009 Assessment Framework was very critical of tracking programs because of the possibility that they increase the differences across students while not improving overall performance.…”

Section: [Figure 1 About Here]mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Argys, Rees and Brewer (1996) Cross section of students, OLS with a selectivity correction term USA, 1988 10th grade students in public schools…”

Section: Average Fixed Effects Of Classroom Peersmentioning

confidence: 99%