IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/epplan/v112y2025ics0149718925001338.html

A quasi-experimental approach to evaluating magnet schools

Author

Listed:
  • Wang, Jia
  • Straubhaar, Rolf
  • Leon, Seth
  • Kikoler, David
  • Rosales, Elaine

Abstract

The purpose of this article is to document an innovative and effective quasi-experimental, mixed methods approach developed for evaluating the effectiveness of magnet schools throughout the United States. Magnet schools continue to be one of the most common school choice mechanisms in the United States, and as a research team the authors have been evaluating the effectiveness of magnet schools in improving student achievement since 2010. In this paper, the authors share the evaluation research design that they have used through this work, with the intent of sharing best practices in effective magnet school evaluation with other scholars and practitioners engaged in work in similar school settings. Specifically, the authors here explain the benefits of various elements of their evaluation design: their selection of comparison schools, of comparison students within those schools, and their means of measuring magnet program implementation to evaluate the degree to which implementation affected student outcomes.

Suggested Citation

  • Wang, Jia & Straubhaar, Rolf & Leon, Seth & Kikoler, David & Rosales, Elaine, 2025. "A quasi-experimental approach to evaluating magnet schools," Evaluation and Program Planning, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).
  • Handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:112:y:2025:i:c:s0149718925001338
    DOI: 10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102666
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0149718925001338
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.evalprogplan.2025.102666?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Donald B. Rubin, 2005. "Causal Inference Using Potential Outcomes: Design, Modeling, Decisions," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 100, pages 322-331, March.
    2. Julie Berry Cullen & Brian A. Jacob & Steven Levitt, 2003. "The Effect of School Choice on Student Outcomes: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries," NBER Working Papers 10113, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Martin Huber & Michael Lechner & Andreas Steinmayr, 2015. "Radius matching on the propensity score with bias adjustment: tuning parameters and finite sample behaviour," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 49(1), pages 1-31, August.
    4. Kenneth A. Couch & Robert Bifulco, 2012. "Can Nonexperimental Estimates Replicate Estimates Based on Random Assignment in Evaluations of School Choice? A Within‐Study Comparison," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 31(3), pages 729-751, June.
    5. Ho, Daniel E. & Imai, Kosuke & King, Gary & Stuart, Elizabeth A., 2007. "Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 15(3), pages 199-236, July.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Steven M. Smith, 2019. "The Relative Economic Merits of Alternative Water Rights," Working Papers 2019-08, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business.
    2. Michael Lechner & Anthony Strittmatter, 2019. "Practical procedures to deal with common support problems in matching estimation," Econometric Reviews, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(2), pages 193-207, February.
    3. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    4. Gerhard Krug, 2017. "Augmenting propensity score equations to avoid misspecification bias – Evidence from a Monte Carlo simulation [Erweiterung der Propensity Score Gleichung zur Vermeidung von Fehlspezifikationen? Ein," AStA Wirtschafts- und Sozialstatistisches Archiv, Springer;Deutsche Statistische Gesellschaft - German Statistical Society, vol. 11(3), pages 205-231, December.
    5. Brittany Tarufelli & Ben Gilbert, 2019. "Leakage in Regional Climate Policy? Implications of Electricity Market Design," Working Papers 2019-07, Colorado School of Mines, Division of Economics and Business, revised Dec 2021.
    6. Haotian Zhong & Wei Li & Marlon G Boarnet, 2021. "A two-dimensional propensity score matching method for longitudinal quasi-experimental studies: A focus on travel behavior and the built environment," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 48(7), pages 2110-2122, September.
    7. Christoph Wunder & Johannes Schwarze, 2014. "Is Posner Right? An Empirical Test of the Posner Argument for Transferring Health Spending from Old Women to Old Men," Journal of Happiness Studies, Springer, vol. 15(6), pages 1239-1257, December.
    8. Hugo Bodory & Lorenzo Camponovo & Martin Huber & Michael Lechner, 2020. "The Finite Sample Performance of Inference Methods for Propensity Score Matching and Weighting Estimators," Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 38(1), pages 183-200, January.
    9. Seonho Shin, 2022. "Evaluating the Effect of the Matching Grant Program for Refugees: An Observational Study Using Matching, Weighting, and the Mantel-Haenszel Test," Journal of Labor Research, Springer, vol. 43(1), pages 103-133, March.
    10. Jordan H. Rickles & Michael Seltzer, 2014. "A Two-Stage Propensity Score Matching Strategy for Treatment Effect Estimation in a Multisite Observational Study," Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, , vol. 39(6), pages 612-636, December.
    11. Christian Hopp & Francis J. Greene & Benson Honig & Tomas Karlsson & Mikael Samuelsson, 2018. "Revisiting the influence of institutional forces on the written business plan: a replication study," Management Review Quarterly, Springer, vol. 68(4), pages 361-398, November.
    12. Julien, Jacques C. & Bravo-Ureta, Boris E. & Rada, Nicholas E., 2023. "Gender and agricultural Productivity: Econometric evidence from Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda," World Development, Elsevier, vol. 171(C).
    13. Vishal Ahuja & Carlos A. Alvarez & John R. Birge & Chad Syverson, 2021. "Enhancing Regulatory Decision Making for Postmarket Drug Safety," Management Science, INFORMS, vol. 67(12), pages 7493-7510, December.
    14. Estifanos, Tafesse Kefyalew & Polyakov, Maksym & Pandit, Ram & Hailu, Atakelty & Burton, Michael, 2020. "The impact of protected areas on the rural households’ incomes in Ethiopia," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 91(C).
    15. Cousineau, Martin & Verter, Vedat & Murphy, Susan A. & Pineau, Joelle, 2023. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," European Journal of Operational Research, Elsevier, vol. 304(2), pages 367-380.
    16. Jeremy G. Weber & J. Wesley Burnett & Irene M. Xiarchos, 2016. "Broadening Benefits from Natural Resource Extraction: Housing Values and Taxation of Natural Gas Wells as Property," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 35(3), pages 587-614, June.
    17. Goller, Daniel & Lechner, Michael & Moczall, Andreas & Wolff, Joachim, 2020. "Does the estimation of the propensity score by machine learning improve matching estimation? The case of Germany's programmes for long term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    18. Martin Cousineau & Vedat Verter & Susan A. Murphy & Joelle Pineau, 2022. "Estimating causal effects with optimization-based methods: A review and empirical comparison," Papers 2203.00097, arXiv.org.
    19. Vivian C. Wong & Peter M. Steiner & Kylie L. Anglin, 2018. "What Can Be Learned From Empirical Evaluations of Nonexperimental Methods?," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 147-175, April.
    20. Clark Muntean Susan, 2011. "Corporate Independent Spending in the Post-BCRA to Pre-Citizens United Era," Business and Politics, De Gruyter, vol. 13(1), pages 1-39, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:epplan:v:112:y:2025:i:c:s0149718925001338. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/evalprogplan .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.