1 / 31

School Size and Returns to Education

School Size and Returns to Education. Christopher Berry Harris School of Public Policy The University of Chicago & Martin West Department of Government Harvard University. A Great Transformation. From 1930 to 1970: 115,000 school districts eliminated 130,000 schools closed

Download Presentation

School Size and Returns to Education

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. School Size and Returns to Education Christopher Berry Harris School of Public Policy The University of Chicago & Martin West Department of Government Harvard University

  2. A Great Transformation • From 1930 to 1970: • 115,000 school districts eliminated • 130,000 schools closed • Avg. district size increases fourteenfold • Avg. school size increases fivefold • Governance transferred from informal community institutions to large, professional bureaucracies • What were the consequences for students? • Provides important context for the current “small schools” movement

  3. Number of School Districts

  4. Why Might Size Matter? • Larger Schools • Pro: comprehensive curricula, specialization, attract better teachers and administrators • Con: “manning,” belonging, parental involvement, community control • Larger Districts • Pro: economies of scale, professional management, egalitarian • Con: bureaucratic, unresponsive, “too political,” stifle competition

  5. What Do We Know? • Contemporary literature suggests: • Larger schools are associated with lower student performance, all else equal • But… • Existing studies are based on post-1970 data • Most studies are plagued by selection bias

  6. Empirical Strategy • 1980 PUMS : Wages for 1 million workers • White men born 1920-1949, 3 cohorts • Educated 1926-1966: roughly the period of rapid consolidation • Two-Step Analysis • Estimate returns to a year of education, by state and cohort  147 estimates • Relate changes in returns across cohorts to changes in state-average school size

  7. Return to Education Wage Years of Education

  8. Interpretation • 100 student increase in school size  • 4-6 percent drop in earnings for H.S. grad • Standardized beta = +/- 0.8 to 1.2 • Smaller, inconsistent results for district size • No effect for state share of funding

  9. Alternative Explanation? • Is school size merely a proxy for other early environmental influences? • Unlikely given contemporary opinion • Controlling for average income and share of population in rural areas does not affect our results

  10. School Size and Attainment • Consolidation’s role in the mid-century growth in attainment remains unclear • Were changes in educational attainment related to trends in school size?

  11. Trends in Educational Attainment

  12. Attainment Results • 100 student increase in school size  • 2.5 percentage point increase in dropout rate • 2.5 percentage point decrease in college participation • No impact on college graduation • The consolidation movement appears to have slowed the pace of educational expansion

  13. Methodological Issues • Selective migration • “Sheepskin effects” • Omitted variables and aggregation effects • Endogeneity • Offsetting effects on attainment or intercepts

  14. Conclusions: a cautionary tale? • Conventional wisdom may be wrong • Need for rigorous evaluation • Need to explain why school size matters • Focus on Student Outcomes

  15. School Size and Returns to Education Christopher Berry Harris School of Public Policy The University of Chicago & Martin West Department of Government Harvard University

  16. Determinants of the Return to Education

  17. Omitted Variables, Endogeneity, and Aggregation • Model isolates a state-of-birth effect • 2nd stage relates SoB effect to school and district size (incl. fixed effects) • But is size merely a proxy for other early environmental influences? • Omitted variables: e.g., family background • Aggregation bias heightens problems of omitted variables • Endogeneity: consolidation driven by state influence, unionization, urbanization

  18. Family Background • Spearman Correlations

  19. Population Characteristics and the Return to Education All models exclude Washington, DC

  20. Selective Migration • Model identified by workers born in one state but working in another • But migration is not random, choices are based on expected earnings • Theoretically, this bias could result in over- or under-estimating quality effects • Is there a coherent migration story for both district and school size effects?

  21. Discussion • Larger districts, smaller schools? • Legacy of the consolidation movement • Governance issues • Policy implications, use caution • Directions for future research

  22. Consolidation in Context • Roots in late 19th century turn toward professionalization • Two dimensions of centralization 1. “Administrative progressives” • Centralizing authority in the hands of “experts” curtails city corruption and rural parochialism • Focus on businesslike efficiency and scale • “Transfer of power from laymen to professionals” 2. State governments • Initiated many consolidation proposals • Provided fiscal incentives and political pressure to consolidate • Gradually extended their authority in other areas • e.g., accreditation, curriculum, teacher certification

  23. Outline • Background: Consolidation 1930-1970 • Estimation Strategy and Data • Main Results • Methodological Issues

  24. Correlation Table School Characteristics, 1930-39 Cohort

  25. First-Stage Model • 3 cohort-specific regressions • State of birth • State of residence • X = marital status, experience, SMSA • Years of education interacted with state of birth and region of residence • State of birth rates of return are key parameters • Model identified by those educated in one state but working in another

  26. Second-Stage Model • 147 state-of-birth by cohort estimated rates of return, regressed against: • State-of-birth and cohort dummies • School characteristics, matched to state & cohort • GLS, weighted by inverse sampling variance • Assumption: family background influences level of earnings, not rate of return to education

More Related