Using lotteries to evaluate schools of choice: Evidence from a national study of charter schools

Economics of Education Review

Volumn 31, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 237-253

  Tuttle, Christina Clark ^a   Gleason, Philip ^a   Clark, Melissa ^a  

^a MATHEMATICA POLICY RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Charter schools; Lotteries; Randomized control trials; School choice

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE; COMPETITIVENESS; PRIMARY EDUCATION; RESEARCH WORK; SECONDARY EDUCATION; STUDENT;

EID: 84857372482     PISSN: 02727757     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.002     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Abdulkadiroglu A., Angrist J., Cohodes S., Dynarski S., Fullerton J., Kane T., et al. Informing the debate: Comparing Boston's charter, Pilot and traditional schools 2009, Boston Foundation, Boston.
2. Angrist J.D., Dynarski S.M., Kane T.J., Pathak P.A., Walters C.R. " Who Benefits from KIPP?" NBER Working Paper Series No. 15740 2010, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA.
3. Ballou D. Magnet school outcomes. Handbook of research on school choice 2009, 409-426. Routledge, NY. Berends, Mark (Eds.).
4. Bifulco R., Cobb C.D., Bell C. Can interdistrict choice boost student achievement? the case of connecticut's interdistrict magnet school program. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2009, 31(4).
5. Center for Education Reform. (2010) Annual Survey of America's Charter Schools. Washington, DC.
6. Cullen J.B., Jacob B.A., Levitt S. The effect of school choice on student outcomes: Evidence from randomized lotteries. Econometrica 2006, 74(5):1191-1230.
7. Dee T.S., Fu H. Do charter schools skim students or drain resources?. Economics of Education Review 2004, 23(3).
8. Deming D., Hastings J., Kane T., Staiger D. School choice and college attendance: Evidence from randomized lotteries. Paper Presented at the APPAM Annual Conference 2010.
9. Dobbie W., Fryer W.G. Are high-quality schools enough to increase achievement among the poor? Evidence from the Harlem Children's Zone. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 2011, 3(3):158-187.
10. Dolle J.R., Newman A. Luck of the draw? On the fairness of charter school admissions policies 2008, National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education, New York.
11. Gleason, P., Clark, M., Tuttle, C.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.
12. Hoxby C.M., Murarka S., Kang J. How New York City's charter schools affect student achievement: August 2009 Report. Second report in series 2009, New York City Charter Schools Evaluation Project, Cambridge, MA.
13. Hoxby C.M., Rockoff J.E. Findings from the city of big shoulders. Education Next 2005, 5(4):52-58.
14. Howell W.G., Peterson P. The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools 2002, Brookings Institution Press, Washington, DC.
15. McEwan P.J., Olsen R.B. Admissions Lotteries in Charter Schools. Taking measure of charter schools: Better assessments, better policymaking, better schools 2010, Rowman and Littlefield, Lanham, MD. R. Julian, Betts, T. Paul, Hill (Eds.).
16. Gutmann P., Puma M., Kisida B., Rizzo L., Eissa N. Evaluation of the DC opportunity scholarship program: Impacts after three years (NCEE 2009-4050). 2010, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U. S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
17. Zimmer R., Buddin R., Chou D., Daley G., Gill B., Guarino C., et al. Charter school operations and performance: Evidence from California 2003, RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.