Limitations of experiments in education research

Education Finance and Policy

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 219-232

  Schanzenbach, Diane Whitmore ^a  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858953456     PISSN: 15573060     EISSN: 15573079     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1162/EDFP_a_00063     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Cascio, Elizabeth, and Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach. 2007. First in the class? Age and the education production function. NBER Working Paper No. 13663.
2. Chetty, Raj, John N. Friedman, Nathaniel Hilger, Emmanuel Saez, Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, and Danny Yagan. 2011. How does your kindergarten classroom affect your earnings? Evidence from Project STAR. Quarterly Journal of Economics 126(4): 1593-1660.
3. Cook, Thomas D. 2002. Randomized experiments in educational policy research: A critical examination of the reasons the educational evaluation community has offered for not doing them. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(3): 175-99.
4. Currie, Janet, and Duncan Thomas. 1995.DoesHead Start make a difference? American Economic Review 85(3): 341-63.
5. Deaton, Angus. 2009. Instruments of development: Randomization in the tropics, and the search for the elusive keys to economic development. NBER Working Paper No. 14690.
6. Dee, Thomas S. 2004. Teachers, race, and student achievement in a randomized experiment. Review of Economics and Statistics 86(1): 195-210.
7. Deming, David. 2009. Early childhood intervention and life-cycle skill development: Evidence from Head Start. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics 1(3): 111-34.
8. Duflo, Esther. 2006. Field experiments in development economics. In Advances in Economics and Econometrics: Theory and Applications,Ninth World Congress, Vol. 2, edited by Richard Blundell, Whitney K. Newey, and Torsten Persson, pp. 322-48. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
9. Easton, John Q. 2010. Out of the tower, into the schools: How new IES goals will reshape researcher roles. Presidential address to the American Educational Research Association Conference, Denver, CO, May.
10. Figlio, David N., and Lawrence Getzler. 2006. Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? In Improving school accountability (advances in applied microeconomics), Vol. 14, edited by Timothy J. Gronberg and Dennis W. Jansen, pp. 35-49. Bingley, UK: Emerald Group Publishing.
11. Figlio, David N., and Maurice E. Lucas. 2004. What's in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. American Economic Review 94(3): 591-604.
12. Figlio, David N., and Cecilia Elena Rouse. 2006. Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics 90(1-2): 239-55.
13. Graham, Bryan S. 2008. Identifying social interactions through conditional variance restrictions. Econometrica 76(3): 643-60.
14. Hoxby, Caroline Minter. 1996. How teachers' unions affect education production. Quarterly Journal of Economics 111(3): 671-718.
15. Jacob, Brian A. 2003. A closer look at achievement gains under high-stakes testing in Chicago. In No Child Left Behind? The politics and practice of school accountability, edited by Paul Peterson and Martin West, pp. 269-91. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
16. Jacob, Brian A. 2005. Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of highstakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics 89(5-6): 761-96.
17. Kane, Thomas J., and Douglas O. Staiger. 2002. The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives 16(4): 91-114.
18. Krueger, Alan B., and Diane M. Whitmore. 2001. The effect of attending a small class in the early grades on college-test taking and middle school test results: Evidence from Project STAR. Economic Journal 111(468): 1-28.
19. Lalonde, Robert J. 1986. Evaluating the econometric evaluations of training programs with experimental data. American Economic Review 76(4): 604-20.
20. Lovenheim, Michael F. 2009. The effect of teachers' unions on educational production: Evidence from union election certifications in three midwestern states. Journal of Labor Economics 27(4): 525-87.
21. Michalopoulos, Charles, Christine Schwartz, and Diana Adams-Ciardullo. 2001. What works best for whom: Impacts of 20 welfare-to-work programs by subgroup. Report prepared for the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Administration for Children and Families. New York: MDRC.
22. Neal, Derek. 2010. Education policy as a mechanism design problem. President's address to the Midwest Economics Association Annual Meeting, Chicago, March.
23. Neal, Derek, and William R. Johnson. 1996. The role of pre-market factors in blackwhite wage differences. Journal of Political Economy 104(5): 869-95.
24. Payne, Charles M. 2008. So much reform, so little change: The persistence of failure in urban schools. Boston: Harvard Education Press.
25. Pepper, John. 2003. Using experiments to evaluate performance standards: What do welfare-to-work demonstrations reveal to welfare reformers? Journal of Human Resources 38(4): 860-80.
26. Pop-Eleches, Cristian, and Miguel Urquiola. 2011. Going to a better school: Effects and behavioral responses. NBER Working Paper No. 16886.
27. Sojourner, Aaron. 2011. Identification of peer effects with missing peer data: Evidence from Project STAR. IZA Discussion Paper No. 5432.
28. Tierney, Joseph P., and Jean Baldwin Grossman. 1995. Making a difference: An impact study of Big Brothers/Big Sisters. Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.