Public subsidies to private schools do make a difference for achievement in mathematics: Longitudinal evidence from Canada

Economics of Education Review

Volumn 30, Issue 1, 2011, Pages 79-98

  Lefebvre, Pierre ^a   Merrigan, Philip ^a   Verstraete, Matthieu ^a  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À MONTRÉAL   (Canada)

Author keywords

Longitudinal data; Private high schools; Subsidies; Test scores

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE; SECONDARY EDUCATION; SOCIOECONOMIC CONDITIONS; SOCIOECONOMIC SURVEY; SUBSIDY SYSTEM; TESTING METHOD;

CANADA; QUEBEC [CANADA];

EID: 78649837972     PISSN: 02727757     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2010.07.005     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Altonji J., Todd E., Taber C. An evaluation of instrumental variable strategies for estimating the effects of catholic schooling. Journal of Human Resources 2005, 40(1):1-30.
2. Altonji J., Todd E., Taber C. Selection on observed and unobserved variables: Assessing the effectiveness of catholic schools. Journal of Political Economy 2005, 113(1):151-184.
3. Ashenfelter O. Estimating the effect of training programs on earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics 1978, 6(1):47-57.
4. Blundell, R., & Costa-Dias, M. (2009). Alternative approaches to evaluation in empirical microeconomics. Journal of Human Resources, 44 (3), 565-640. http://www.ucl.ac.uk/~uctp39a/Blundell-CostaDias-Dec-2007.pdf.
5. Boucher, V., Bramoullé, Y., Djebbari, H., & Fortin, B. (2010). Do peers affect student achievement? Evidence from Canada using group size variation. Working paper 10-07, http://www.cirpee.org/en/recherche/cahiers_du_cirpee/.
6. Bramoullé Y., Habiba D., Fortin B. Identification of peer effects through social networks. Journal of Econometrics 2009, 150(1):41-55.
7. Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) Multiple choice: Charter school performance in 16 States June 2009, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
8. Center for Research on Education Outcomes (CREDO) Charter school performance in New York City January 2010, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.
9. Chay K., McEwan P., Urquiola P. The central role of noise in evaluating interventions that use test scores to rank schools. American Economic Review 2005, 95(4):1237-1258.
10. Cohen-Zada D. An alternative instrument for private school competition. Economics of Education Review 2009, 28:29-37.
11. Dee T., Fu H. Do charter schools skim students or drain resources. Economics of Education Review 2004, 23:259-271.
12. Federation of private schools institutions (FEEP). (2006). Documentation on private schooling in Québec. http://www.recit.cadre.qc.ca/~feep/.
13. Fraser Institute. (2008). Report card on Québec's secondary schools (2008 ed.). http://www.fraserinstitute.org/.
14. Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C., & Dwoyer, E. (2010). The evaluation of charter school impacts: Final report (NCEE 2010-4029). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/publications3.aspx.
15. Hanushek E., Woessmann L. The role of cognitive skills in economic development. Journal of Economic Literature 2008, 46(3):607-668.
16. Hanushek, E., & Woessmann, L. (2009). Do better schools lead to more growth? Cognitive skills, economic outcomes, and causation. NBER Working Paper No. 14633, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
17. Hanushek E., Woessmann L. The high cost of low educational performance: The long-run economic impact of improving PISA outcomes. 2010, OECD, Paris.
18. Higher Council of Education. (2007). The particular pedagogical projects in high school: Diversity with equity. Advice to the Ministry of Education, Leisure and Sports.
19. Horowitz J., Spector L. Is there a difference between private and public education on college performance. Economics of Education Review 2005, 24:189-195.
20. Hoxby C. Does competition among public schools benefit students and taxpayers?. American Economic Review 2002, 90(5):1209-1238.
21. Hoxby, C. (2009). A serious statistical mistake in the CREDO study of charter schools. Available at http://www.nber.org/~schools/charterschoolseval.
22. Hoxby, C., Murarka, C., & Kang, K. (September 2009). How New York City's charter schools affect achievement, August 2009 Report. Second report in series. Cambridge, MA: New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project.
23. Levine D., Painter G. Are measured school effects just sorting? Causality and correlation in the National Education Longitudinal Survey. Economics of Education Review 2008, 27:460-470.
24. Li M. Is there " White Flight" into private schools? New evidence from high school and beyond. Economics of Education Review 2009, 28:382-392.
25. Liu H., Mroz T., van der Klaauw W. Maternal employment, migration, and child development. Journal of Econometrics 2010, 156:212-228.
26. Manski C. Identification of endogenous social effects: The reflection problem. Review of Economic Studies 1993, 60(3):531-542.
27. Marois J. The state of private education in the ten Canadian provinces: Preschool, elementary and secondary education 2005, Study for the Federation of Private Schools Institutions.
28. McEwan P. The effectiveness of public, catholic, and non-religious private schools in Chile's voucher system. Education Economics 2001, 9(2):103-128.
29. MELS. (2005). Statistics of education-2006 edition: Primary, secondary, college and university education. Annual. http://www.mels.gouv.qc.ca/.
30. Montreal Economic Institute. Portrait of Québec high schools. http://www.iedm.org/main/main_en.php.
31. Neal D. The effects of catholic secondary schooling on educational attainment. Journal of Labor Economics 1997, 15(1):98-123.
32. Neal D. What have we learned about the benefits of private schooling?. Federal Reserve Bank New York Economic Policy Review 1998, 4(March):79-86.
33. OECD. (2004). Learning for tomorrow's world-First results from PISA 2003. Paris: OECD. The PISA homepage at http://ww.pisa.oecd.org/.
34. OECD. (2007). PISA 2006 science competencies for tomorrow's world. Paris: OECD. The PISA homepage at http://ww.pisa.oecd.org/.
35. Rouse C. Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1998, 113(2):553-602.
36. Vandenberghe V., Robin S. Evaluating the effectiveness of private education across countries: A comparison of methods. Labour Economics 2004, 11:487-506.
37. Walsh P. Effects of school choice on the margin: The cream is already skimmed. Economics of Education Review 2009, 28:227-236.
38. Walton N. The price of admission: Who gets into private school, and how much do they pay. Economics of Education Review 2010, 29:738-750.
39. Witte, J., Cowen, J., Fleming, D., Wolf, P., Condon, M., & Lucas-McLean, J. (2010). The MPCP longitudinal educational growth study: Third year report, school choice demonstration project. University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR, SCDP Milwaukee Evaluation Report #15, April 2010, available at http://ww.uark.edu/ua/der/SCDP/Milwaukee_Research.html.
40. Zimmer R., Gill R., Booker K. Charter schools in eight States: Effects on achievement, attainment, integration, and competition 2009, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.
41. Zimmer R., Toma E. Peer effects in private and public schools across countries. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2000, 19(1):75-92.