IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

On the Public-Private School Achievement Debate

  • Peterson, Paul E.

    (Harvard U)

  • Llaudet, Elena
Registered author(s):

    On July 14, 2006, the U. S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) released a study that compared the performance in reading and math of 4th and 8th-graders attending private and public schools. Using information from a nationwide, representative sample of public and private school students collected in 2003 as part of the ongoing National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), the NCES study reported that the performance of students attending private schools was superior to that of students attending public schools. But after statistical adjustments were made for student characteristics, the private school advantage among 4th-graders was reported to give way to a 4.5-point public school advantage in math and school-sector parity in reading. After the same adjustments were made for 8th-graders, private schools retained a 7-point advantage in reading but achieved only parity in math. In this paper, we argue that NCES’s measures of student characteristics were flawed by inconsistent classification across the public and private sectors and by the inclusion of factors open to school influence. Utilizing the same data as the original study but substituting better measures of student characteristics, improved, alternative models identify a private school advantage in 11 out of 12 public-private comparisons. In 8th-grade math, the private school advantage varies between 3 and 6.5 test points; in reading, it varies between 9 and 12.5 points. Among 4th graders, in math, parity is observed in one model, but private schools outperform public schools by 2 and 3 points in the other two models; in 4th-grade reading, private schools have an advantage that ranges from 7 to 10 points. However, although the alternative models constitute an improvement on the NCES model, no conclusions should be drawn as to causal relationships from these or any other results based on NAEP test scores, because they are too fragile to be used for such purposes. Inferring causality from observations at one point in time is highly problematic.

    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.

    File URL: http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-036/$File/rwp_06_036_ppeterson_SSRN.pdf
    Our checks indicate that this address may not be valid because: 404 Not Found (http://ksgnotes1.harvard.edu/research/wpaper.nsf/rwp/RWP06-036/$File/rwp_06_036_ppeterson_SSRN.pdf [302 Found]--> http://web.hks.harvard.edu/publications/workingpapers/Index.aspx). If this is indeed the case, please notify ()


    Download Restriction: no

    Paper provided by Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government in its series Working Paper Series with number rwp06-036.

    as
    in new window

    Length:
    Date of creation: Sep 2006
    Date of revision:
    Handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp06-036
    Contact details of provider: Postal: 79 JFK Street, Cambridge, MA 02138
    Fax: 617-496-2554
    Web page: http://www.ksg.harvard.edu/research/working_papers/index.htm

    More information through EDIRC

    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.:

    as in new window
    1. Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2009. "New Evidence about Brown v. Board of Education: The Complex Effects of School Racial Composition on Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 27(3), pages 349-383, 07.
    2. 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.
    3. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2000. "The Effects Of Class Size On Student Achievement: New Evidence From Population Variation," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 115(4), pages 1239-1285, November.
    4. Barnard J. & Frangakis C.E. & Hill J.L. & Rubin D.B., 2003. "Principal Stratification Approach to Broken Randomized Experiments: A Case Study of School Choice Vouchers in New York City," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 98, pages 299-323, January.
    5. Martin R. West & Paul E. Peterson, 2006. "The Efficacy of Choice Threats Within School Accountability Systems: Results from Legislatively Induced Experiments," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(510), pages C46-C62, 03.
    6. Cecilia Elena Rouse, 1998. "Private School Vouchers And Student Achievement: An Evaluation Of The Milwaukee Parental Choice Program," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 113(2), pages 553-602, May.
    7. David Myers & Robert B. Olsen & Neil Seftor & Julie Young & Christina Clark Tuttle, 2004. "The Impacts of Regular Upward Bound: Results from the Third Follow-Up Data Collection," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 145dc84be33e47e494cb5569f, Mathematica Policy Research.
    8. Steven G. Rivkin & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain, 2005. "Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 73(2), pages 417-458, 03.
    9. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2000. "Does Competition among Public Schools Benefit Students and Taxpayers?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 90(5), pages 1209-1238, December.
    10. Peter Z. Schochet & Sheena McConnell & John Burghardt, 2003. "National Job Corps Study: Findings Using Administrative Earnings Records Data," Mathematica Policy Research Reports 9da2c5a07ad046419448e94e1, Mathematica Policy Research.
    11. Caroline M. Hoxby, 2002. "School Choice and School Productivity (or Could School Choice be a Tide that Lifts All Boats?)," NBER Working Papers 8873, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Thomas S. Dee & Benjamin J. Keys, 2004. "Does merit pay reward good teachers? Evidence from a randomized experiment," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 23(3), pages 471-488.
    13. Thomas S. Dee, 2004. "Teachers, Race, and Student Achievement in a Randomized Experiment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 86(1), pages 195-210, February.
    14. Kane, Thomas J. & Rockoff, Jonah E. & Staiger, Douglas O., 2008. "What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(6), pages 615-631, December.
    15. Donald Boyd & Pamela Grossman & Hamilton Lankford & Susanna Loeb & James Wyckoff, 2005. "How Changes in Entry Requirements Alter the Teacher Workforce and Affect Student Achievement," NBER Working Papers 11844, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Alan Krueger, 1997. "Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions," Working Papers 758, Princeton University, Department of Economics, Industrial Relations Section..
    17. repec:mpr:mprres:3693 is not listed on IDEAS
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

    When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ecl:harjfk:rwp06-036. 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: ()

    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.

    This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.