IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/7349.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Educational Production

Author

Listed:
  • Edward P. Lazear

Abstract

The literature on class size yields a number of findings. First, class size effects are difficult to find except when using data where class size variations are truly exogenous. Second, Catholic schools have large classes and better performance. Third, to the extent that class size matters, it is more important for disadvantaged children. Special education classes are smaller than advanced placement classes. Fourth, when many children have joined a class recently, the joiners and their classmates do worse. The theory presented below reconciles all of these facts by recognizing that classroom teaching is a public good where congestion effects are potentially important. Because the optimal class size is larger for behaved-students, the observed relation of educational output to class size is small or even positive. However, increasing class size to ranges away from equilibrium levels will adversely affect educational output. The theory argues for a particular non-linear relation of educational output to class size and is consistent with observed variations in class size by grade level, student and teacher characteristics. Class sizes are more significant in small classes than large ones. There is a special function that maps the substitution of discipline for class size, which may explain why Catholic schools, with large classes, out-perform public schools. The same technology also implies that class size effects are larger for problem children than for well-behaved children. Private schools, which charge a positive price and compete with free public schools, attract better students. This selection may help explain why Catholic schools out-perform public schools even though expulsion rates are lower in Catholic schools than in public ones. Teachers may prefer smaller class size than students or parents either because wages do not reflect working conditions fully or because teachers as a group can raise the demand for their services by lowering class size. The theory provides a measurable and operational way to define school quality that can be tested empirically. Finally, because public schools that operate in a centralized environment do not capture the returns to their successes, public school incentives differ from those of private schools.

Suggested Citation

  • Edward P. Lazear, 1999. "Educational Production," NBER Working Papers 7349, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
  • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:7349
    Note: LS PE
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w7349.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Alan B. Krueger, 1999. "Experimental Estimates of Education Production Functions," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 497-532.
    2. Henderson, Vernon & Mieszkowski, Peter & Sauvageau, Yvon, 1978. "Peer group effects and educational production functions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 10(1), pages 97-106, August.
    3. Alan B. Krueger, 1998. "Reassessing the view that American schools are broken," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 4(Mar), pages 29-43.
    4. Edward P. Lazear, 1999. "Culture and Language," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 107(S6), pages 95-126, December.
    5. William N. Evans & Robert M. Schwab, 1995. "Finishing High School and Starting College: Do Catholic Schools Make a Difference?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 941-974.
    6. repec:fth:prinin:395 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Donald Robertson & James Symons, 2003. "Self-selection in the state school system," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 11(3), pages 259-272.
    8. Jacob Mincer & Boyan Jovanovic, 1981. "Labor Mobility and Wages," NBER Chapters, in: Studies in Labor Markets, pages 21-64, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Neal, Derek, 1997. "The Effects of Catholic Secondary Schooling on Educational Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 15(1), pages 98-123, January.
    10. Derek Neal, 1998. "What have we learned about the benefits of private schooling?," Economic Policy Review, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, vol. 4(Mar), pages 79-86.
    11. Fernandez, Raquel & Rogerson, Richard, 1998. "Public Education and Income Distribution: A Dynamic Quantitative Evaluation of Education-Finance Reform," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(4), pages 813-833, September.
    12. Rees, Daniel I. & Argys, Laura M. & Brewer, Dominic J., 1996. "Tracking in the United States: Descriptive statistics from NELS," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 15(1), pages 83-89, February.
    13. Summers, Anita A & Wolfe, Barbara L, 1977. "Do Schools Make a Difference?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 67(4), pages 639-652, September.
    14. Epple, Dennis & Romano, Richard E, 1998. "Competition between Private and Public Schools, Vouchers, and Peer-Group Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(1), pages 33-62, March.
    15. Joshua D. Angrist & Victor Lavy, 1999. "Using Maimonides' Rule to Estimate the Effect of Class Size on Scholastic Achievement," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 114(2), pages 533-575.
    16. Elizabeth M. Caucutt, 2001. "Peer group effects in applied general equilibrium," Economic Theory, Springer;Society for the Advancement of Economic Theory (SAET), vol. 17(1), pages 25-51.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:nbr:nberwo:7349. 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: (). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.