Methodological Thoughts on Measuring the Impact of Private Sector Competition on the Educational Marketplace

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 25, Issue 2, 2003, Pages 217-232

  Goldhaber, Dan D ^a   Eide, Eric R ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON   (United States)

^b RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

Author keywords

Competition; Educational marketplace; Methodological thoughts; Private sector

Indexed keywords

EID: 0142169425     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737025002217     Document Type: Article

References (43)

1. Altonji, J., Elder, T., & Taber, C. (2000). Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of catholic schools. Unpublished NEBR 7831 Working Paper.
2. Angrist, J. D., Imbens, G. W., & Ruben, D. B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91, 444-455.
3. Borland, M. V., Howsen, R. M. (1992). Student academic achievement and the degree of market concentration in education. Economics of Education Review, 11(1), 31-39
4. Bound, J., Jaeger, D. A., & Baker, R. M. (1995). Problems with instrumental variables estimation when the correlation between the instruments and the endogenous explanatory variables is weak. Journal of the American Statistical Association 90(430), 443-450.
5. Coleman, J. S., Hoffer, T., & Kilgore, S. (1981). Public and private schools. Report to the National Center for Education Statistics. Chicago, IL: National Opinion Research Center.
6. Couch, J. F., Shughart, W. F., & Williams, A. L. (1993). Private school enrollment and public school performance. Public Choice, 76, 301-312.
7. Dee, T. S. (1998). Competition and the quality of public schools. Economics of Education Review, 17(4), 419-427.
8. Doolittle, F. (April, 1999). Designing education voucher experiments: Recommendations for researchers, funders, and users. Paper prepared for the Setting the Agenda Conference, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, Teachers College, Columbia University, New York.
9. Downes, T. A., & Greenstein, S. M. (1996). Understanding the supply decisions of non-profits: Modeling the location of private schools. The RAND Journal of Economics, 27(2), 365-390.
10. Eide, E. R., & Showalter, M. H. (1998). The effect of school quality on student performance: A quantile regression approach. Economics Letters, 58(3), 345-350.
11. Eide, E. R., Showalter, M. H., & Sims, D. P. (2002). The effect of secondary school quality on the distribution of earnings. Contemporary Economic Policy, 20(2), 160-170.
12. Epple, D., Figlio, D., & Romano, R. (2000). Competition between private and public schools: Testing stratification and pricing predictions. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #7956.
13. Evans, W. N., & Schwab, R. M. (1995). Finishing high school and starting college: Do Catholic schools make a difference? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 70(4), 941-974.
14. Figlio, D. N., & Stone, J. A. (1999). "School Choice and Student Performance: Are Private Schools Really Better?" Research in Labor Economics, 18, 115-140.
15. Friedman, M. (1955). The role of government in education. In R. A. Solo (Ed.), Economics and the public interest. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Retrieved July 8, 2003 from http://www. schoolchoices .org/roo/fried1.htm.
16. Goldberger, A. S., & Cain, G. C. (1982). The causal analysis of cognitive outcomes in the Coleman, Hoffer, and Kilgore Report. Sociology of Education, 2 & 3, 103-122.
17. Goldhaber, D. D. (1996). Public and private high schools: Is school choice an answer to the productivity problem? Economics of Education Review, 15(2), 93-109.
18. Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). School choice: An examination of the empirical evidence on achievement, parental decision-making, and equity. Educational Researcher, 28(9), 16-25.
19. Goldhaber, D. D. (1999). An endogenous model of public school expenditures and private school enrollment. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 106-128.
20. Goldhaber, D. D., Brewer, D. J., Eide, E. R., & Rees, D. I. (1999). Testing for sample selection in the Milwaukee School Choice Experiment. Economics of Education Review, 18, 259-267.
21. Greene, J. P., Peterson, P. E., & Du, J. (1998). School choice in Milwaukee: A randomized experiment. In P. E. Peterson and B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 335-356). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
22. Grosskopf, S. Hayes, K. J., Taylor, L. L., & Weber, W. L. (200). On the determinants of school district efficiency: Competition and monitoring. Journal of Urban Economics, 49(3), 453-478.
23. Heckman, James J. (1979). Sample selection as specification error. Econometrica 47, 153-161.
24. Heckman, J. J., & Smith, J. A. (1995). Assessing the case for social Experiments. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9(2), 85-110.
25. Hoxby, C. M. (1994). Do private schools provide competition for public schools? National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper #4978.
26. Hoxby, C. M. (1996). The effects of private school vouchers on schools and students. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, (pp. 177-208). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
27. Hoxby, C. M. (2000). Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers? American Economic Review, 90(5), 1209-1238.
28. Hsieh, C. T., & Urquiola, M. (2002).When schools compete, how do they compete ? An assessment of Chile's Nationwide School Voucher Program. Occasional Paper. Columbia University, New York, NY. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
29. Kane, T. J. (1996). Comments on chapters 5 and 6. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education, (pp. 209-217). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
30. Levin, H. M. (1998). Educational vouchers: Effectiveness, choice, and costs. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17(3), 373-392.
31. Levin, H. M., & Driver, C. E. (1997). Costs of an educational voucher system. Education Economics, 5(3), 265-283.
32. Neal, D. (1997). The effects of Catholic secondary schooling on educational achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 15(1), 98-123.
33. Noell, J. (1983). Public and private schools: A re-analysis of "Public and Private Schools." Sociology of Education, 56, 123-132.
34. Peterson, Paul E. (1998), "School Choice: A Report Card." In P. E. Peterson & B. C. Hassel (Eds.), Learning from school choice (pp. 335-356). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
35. Peterson, P. E., Myers, D., & Howell, W. G. (1998). An evaluation of the New York City School Choice Scholarships Program: The first year. Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Paper 98-12. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
36. Rouse, C. E. (1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 553-602.
37. Sander, W. (1999). Private schools and public school achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 34(4), 697-709.
38. Sander, W., & Krautman, A. C. (1995). Catholic schools, dropout rates and educational attainment. Economic Inquiry, 33(2), 217-233.
39. Witte, J. F. (January, 1997). Achievement effects of the Milwaukee Voucher Program. Paper presented at the American Economic Association's Annual Meeting, New Orleans, LA.
40. Witte, J. P., & Thorn, C. A. (1996). Who chooses? Voucher and interdistrict choice programs in Milwaukee. American Journal of Education, 104, 186-217.
41. Wolf, P. J., Howell, W. G., & Peterson, P. E. (2000). School choice in Washington, DC: An evaluation after one year. Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Paper, Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University.
42. Wooldridge, J. M. (2000). Introductory econometrics: A modern approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing.
43. Zimmer, R. W., & Toma, E. F. (2000). Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 19(1), 75-92.