You are here:

The new school advantage? Examining the effects of strategic new school openings on student achievement
ARTICLE

, Rossier School of Education, United States ; , College of Education, United States ; , Rossier School of Education, United States

Economics of Education Review Volume 62, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

This paper examines the effects of strategic new school openings (SNSOs) on student achievement at brand new (“relief”) campuses built to alleviate overcrowding at neighboring “feeder” campuses in the Los Angeles Unified School District (LAUSD). We focus on a subset of schools involved in LAUSD's Public School Choice Initiative (PSCI), which aimed to increase high quality school options by awarding management of newly-constructed relief schools to diverse operators based on innovative and evidence-based school plans and autonomies from district policies. We employ a Comparative Interrupted Time Series approach using administrative student-level data that tracks students for 10 years, following students in the first (1.0) and second (2.0) cohorts of PSCI schools for three and two years of implementation, respectively. We find that relief school openings had negative start-up effects on student achievement, but led to improved achievement in subsequent years of PSCI. We find suggestive evidence that improvements made to the reform after the first round of relief school openings helped Cohort 2.0 schools perform significantly better than Cohort 1.0 schools.

Citation

Hashim, A.K., Strunk, K.O. & Marsh, J.A. (2018). The new school advantage? Examining the effects of strategic new school openings on student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 62(1), 254-266. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved February 25, 2021 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.12.002

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Alexander, S., Lewis, L., & Ralph, J. (2014). Condition of America's public school facilities: 2012-13. Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics.
  2. Bifulco, R., & Unterman, R. (2014). The relative costs of New York City's new small public high schools of choice. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
  3. Bloom, H., & Unterman, R. (2014). Can small high schools of choice improve educational prospects for disadvantaged students?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 33(2), pp. 290-314.
  4. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Ing, M., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2011). The influence of school administrators on teacher retention decisions. American Educational Research Journal, 48(2), pp. 303-333.
  5. Cellini, S.R., Ferreira, F., & Rothstein, J. (2010). The value of school facility investments: Evidence from a dynamic regression discontinuity design. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, pp. 215-261.
  6. Chetty, R., Friedman, J.N., & Rockoff, J.E. (2014). Measuring the impacts of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. The American Economic Review, 104(9), pp. 2633-2679. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.9.2633.
  7. Datnow, A. (2005). The sustainability of comprehensive school reform models in changing district and state contexts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 41(1), pp. 121-153.
  8. Dauter, L., & Fuller, B. (2016). Student movement in social context: The influence of time, peers, and place. American Educational Research Journal, 53(1), pp. 33-70.
  9. Desimone, L.M. (2002). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), pp. 433-479.
  10. Frey, S. (2016). (2016, June 21) . Report: California and the nation don't spend enough on school facilities. Retrieved from https://edsource.org/2016/report-california-and-the-nation-dont-spend-enough-on-school-facilities/562142.
  11. Gibbons, S., & Silva, O. (2008). Urban density and pupil attainment. Journal of Urban Economics, 63, pp. 631-650.
  12. Goldhaber, D., & Theobald, R. (2013). The determinants and implications of teacher layoffs. Education Finance and Policy, 8(4), pp. 494-527.
  13. Graves, J. (2010). The academic impact of multi-track year-round school calendars: A response to school overcrowding. Journal of Urban Economics, 67, pp. 378-391.
  14. Gross, B., Booker, K., & Goldhaber, D. (2009). Boosting student achievement: The effect of comprehensive school reform on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(2), pp. 111-126.
  15. Gunter, T., & Shao, J. (2016). Synthesizing the effect of building condition quality on academic performance. Education Finance and Policy, 11(1), pp. 97-123.
  16. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Disruption versus tiebout improvement: The costs and benefits of switching schools. Journal of Public Economics, 88, pp. 1721-1746.
  17. Hashim, A.K., Bush-Mecenas, S., Strunk, K.O., & Marsh, J.A. (2014). School autonomy in practice: Factors that mediate autonomy implementation and outcomes in a portfolio management district. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Association of Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, Texas.
  18. Honig, M.I., & Rainey, L.R. (2012). Autonomy and school improvement: What do we know and where do we go from here?. Educational Policy, 26(3), pp. 465-495.
  19. Kemple, J.J. (2016). School closures in New York city. EducationNext, 16(4) Available online: http://educationnext.org/school-closures-in-new-york-city-did-students-do-better/.
  20. Kerchner, C. (2013). (2013, November 19) . L.A. “Public School Choice” Program Swaps Competition for Collaboration. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charles-kerchner/la-public-school-choice-program_b_4288225.html.
  21. Leithwood, K., & Jantzi, D. (2009). A review of empirical evidence about school size effects: A policy perspective. Review of Educational Research, 79(1), pp. 464-490.
  22. Marsh, J.A., Strunk, K.O., & Bush, S. (2013). Portfolio district reform meets school turnaround. Journal of Educational Administration, 51(4), pp. 498-527.
  23. Martorell, P., Stange, K., & McFarlin, I. (2016). Investing in schools: Capital spending, facility conditions, and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 140, pp. 13-29.
  24. Neilson, C.A., & Zimmerman, S.D. (2014). The effect of school construction on test scores, school enrollment, and home prices. Journal of Public Economics, 120, pp. 18-31.
  25. Rockoff, J.E. (2004). The impact of individual teachers on student achievement: Evidence from panel data. The American Economic Review, 94(2), pp. 247-252.
  26. Schwartz, A.E., Stiefel, L., & Cordes, S.A. (2016). Moving matters: The causal effect of moving schools on student performance. Education Finance Policy Available online: https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00198.
  27. Schwartz, A.E., Stiefel, L., & Wiswall, M. (2013). Do small schools improve performance in large, urban districts? Causal evidence from New York City. Journal of Urban Economics, 77, pp. 27-40.
  28. Somers, M., Zhu, P., Jacob, R., & Bloom, H.S. (2013). The validity and precision of the comparative interrupted time series design and the difference-in-difference design in educational evaluation. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
  29. Strunk, K.O., Goldhaber, D., Knight, D.S., & Brown, N. (2015). Are there hidden costs associated with conducting layoffs? The impact of RIFs and layoffs on teacher effectiveness (No. 140). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
  30. Strunk, K.O., Marsh, J.A., Bush-Mecenas, S.C., & Duque, M. (2015). The best laid plans: An examination of school plan quality and implementation in a school improvement initiative. Educational Administration Quarterly, 52(2), pp. 259-309.
  31. Strunk, K.O., Marsh, J.A., Hashim, A.K., & Bush-Mecenas, S.C. (2016). The impact of turnaround reform on student outcomes: Evidence and insights from the Los Angeles Unified School District. Education Finance and Policy Available online: https://doi.org/10.1162/EDFP_a_00188.
  32. Weinhardt, F. (2014). School housing, neighborhood quality, and student performance. Journal of Urban Economics, 82, pp. 12-31.
  33. Welsh, W., Coghlan, E., Fuller, B., & Dauter, L. (2012). New Schools, Overcrowding Relief, and Achievement in Los Angeles - Strong Returns from a $19.5 Billion Investment (Policy Brief 12-2). Palo Alto, CA: PACE.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References