IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/cesifo/v62y2016i1p126-147..html

The Heterogeneity of the ‘Private School Effect’ in Italian Primary Education

Author

Listed:
  • Tommaso Agasisti
  • Samuele Murtinu
  • Piergiacomo Sibiano

Abstract

In this study, we have carried out an empirical investigation on the potential differences in school performance between pupils attending public schools and those attending private schools in the most densely populated region of Italy (Lombardy), employing a new data set of about 77,000 students in the final or fifth year (grade 5) of around 1000 schools. This is the first study to be carried out on the effects of private schooling in primary education in Italy. Our analysis uses an Instrumental Variables methodology to test the effectiveness of the voucher plan implemented by the regional government—the Region. The results show that, on average, there is no statistically significant ‘private school effect’. However, when exploring the potential heterogeneity of such effect, we did find that attending a private school is associated with higher performance in standardized test scores for two categories of pupils: immigrants and those from a relatively disadvantaged socio-economic background. From a policy perspective, we believe that private schools at primary level can serve disadvantaged pupils better and so help to improve equal opportunities throughout the entire educational system. These results challenge previous evidence about the role of private schooling in the Italian educational system.

Suggested Citation

  • Tommaso Agasisti & Samuele Murtinu & Piergiacomo Sibiano, 2016. "The Heterogeneity of the ‘Private School Effect’ in Italian Primary Education," CESifo Economic Studies, CESifo Group, vol. 62(1), pages 126-147.
  • Handle: RePEc:oup:cesifo:v:62:y:2016:i:1:p:126-147.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/cesifo/ifv008
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2003. "The Economics of School Choice," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number hox03-1, January-J.
    2. Daniele Checchi & Claudio Lucifora (ed.), 2004. "Education, Training and Labour Market Outcomes in Europe," Palgrave Macmillan Books, Palgrave Macmillan, number 978-0-230-52265-7, July.
    3. Oecd, 2011. "Private schools: Who Benefits?," PISA in Focus 7, OECD Publishing.
    4. Joshua D. Angrist & Jörn-Steffen Pischke, 2009. "Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion," Economics Books, Princeton University Press, edition 1, number 8769.
    5. Caroline Minter Hoxby, 2003. "School Choice and School Productivity. Could School Choice Be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 287-342, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    6. Daniele Checchi & Claudio Lucifora, 2004. "Education, Training and Labour Market Outcomes," Palgrave Macmillan Books, in: Daniele Checchi & Claudio Lucifora (ed.), Education, Training and Labour Market Outcomes in Europe, chapter 1, pages 3-7, Palgrave Macmillan.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Andrea Bendinelli & Angela Martini, 2018. "Efficacia della scuola paritaria e della scuola statale in Italia: un confronto alla luce dei dati delle prove Invalsi 2016," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 71(281), pages 67-91.

    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. Giorgio Brunello & Lorenzo Rocco, 2008. "Educational Standards in Private and Public Schools," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 118(533), pages 1866-1887, November.
    2. Helen Simpson, 2009. "Productivity In Public Services," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 23(2), pages 250-276, April.
    3. Sorensen, Lucy C. & Holt, Stephen B., 2021. "Sorting it Out: The Effects of Charter Expansion on Teacher and Student Composition at Traditional Public Schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 82(C).
    4. Hsieh, Chang-Tai & Urquiola, Miguel, 2006. "The effects of generalized school choice on achievement and stratification: Evidence from Chile's voucher program," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 90(8-9), pages 1477-1503, September.
    5. Gibbons, Stephen & Silva, Olmo, 2008. "Urban density and pupil attainment," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 63(2), pages 631-650, March.
    6. Verena Wondratschek & Karin Edmark & Markus Frolich, 2013. "The Short- and Long-term Effects of School Choice on Student Outcomes - Evidence from a School Choice Reform in Sweden," Annals of Economics and Statistics, GENES, issue 111-112, pages 71-101.
    7. Ni, Yongmei, 2009. "The impact of charter schools on the efficiency of traditional public schools: Evidence from Michigan," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 28(5), pages 571-584, October.
    8. Chakrabarti, Rajashri, 2013. "Do vouchers lead to sorting under random private school selection? Evidence from the Milwaukee voucher program," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 191-218.
    9. Francisco Martínez Mora, 2003. "Opting-out of Public Education in Urban Economies," Economic Working Papers at Centro de Estudios Andaluces E2003/52, Centro de Estudios Andaluces.
    10. Kim, Youngran, 2018. "Privatization and school practices: Evidence from Seoul’s high school choice policy," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 62(C), pages 322-332.
    11. Hinnerich, Björn Tyrefors & Vlachos, Jonas, 2017. "The impact of upper-secondary voucher school attendance on student achievement. Swedish evidence using external and internal evaluations," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 47(C), pages 1-14.
    12. Chakrabarti, Rajashri, 2008. "Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(5-6), pages 1371-1393, June.
    13. Caterina Calsamiglia & Chao Fu & Maia Güell, 2014. "Structural Estimation of a Model of School Choices: the Boston Mechanism vs. Its Alternatives," Working Papers 2014-21, FEDEA.
    14. Giorgio Brunello & Daniele Checchi, 2004. "School Vouchers Italian Style," Giornale degli Economisti, GDE (Giornale degli Economisti e Annali di Economia), Bocconi University, vol. 63(3-4), pages 357-399, December.
    15. Andrea Bendinelli & Angela Martini, 2018. "Efficacia della scuola paritaria e della scuola statale in Italia: un confronto alla luce dei dati delle prove Invalsi 2016," Moneta e Credito, Economia civile, vol. 71(281), pages 67-91.
    16. Marco Ovidi, 2021. "Parents know better: primary school choice and student achievement in London," Working Papers 919, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    17. Martin Gaynor & Carol Propper & Stephan Seiler, 2016. "Free to Choose? Reform, Choice, and Consideration Sets in the English National Health Service," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(11), pages 3521-3557, November.
    18. Clara E. Piano, 2022. "The family and the state: a public choice perspective," The Review of Austrian Economics, Springer;Society for the Development of Austrian Economics, vol. 35(3), pages 383-405, September.
    19. Joshi, Priyadarshani, 2020. "Do private schools improve public school quality or increase stratification?," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 77(C).
    20. Hanushek, Eric A. & Kain, John F. & Rivkin, Steven G. & Branch, Gregory F., 2007. "Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 91(5-6), pages 823-848, June.

    More about this item

    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:oup:cesifo:v:62:y:2016:i:1:p:126-147.. 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesifde.html .

    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.