No cohort left behind?
Much of the debate over the allocation of education resources focuses on the alleged benefits of smallness—of classroom or school—and is based on evidence from small-scale studies. This paper reframes the question in terms of cohort size. Using national data, we find that a 10% increase in kindergarten enrollment yields a 0.5% increase in cohort shrinkage across early grade transitions, which implies that larger cohorts feature higher rates of retention. Consistent with previous work on class and school size in more restricted settings, this cohort-tracking exercise provides robust evidence at the national level that smallness confers benefits.
If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:114:y:1999:i:2:p:497-532 is not listed on IDEAS
- Alan Krueger, 2000.
"Economic Considerations and Class Size,"
826, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
- Alan B. Krueger, 2002. "Economic Considerations and Class Size," NBER Working Papers 8875, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Alan B. Krueger, 2000. "Economic Considerations and class size," Working Papers 975, Princeton University, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:114:y:1999:i:2:p:533-575 is not listed on IDEAS
- Akerhielm, Karen, 1995. "Does class size matter?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 14(3), pages 229-241, September.
- repec:oup:qjecon:v:115:y:2000:i:4:p:1239-1285 is not listed on IDEAS
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:juecon:v:71:y:2012:i:3:p:347-354. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.
Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.