How to Create and Use State-Level Policy Data Sets in Education Research

AERA Open

Volumn 5, Issue 3, 2019, Pages

  Kelchen, Robert ^a   Rosinger, Kelly Ochs ^b   Ortagus, Justin C ^c  

^a SETON HALL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA   (United States)

Author keywords

data collection; difference in differences analyses; state policies

Indexed keywords

EID: 85083791354     PISSN: None     EISSN: 23328584     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/2332858419873619     Document Type: Article

References (60)

1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. S. (2008). Mostly harmless econo-metrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Baird, M., Kofoed, M., Miller, T., & Wenger, J. (2018). For-profit higher education responsiveness to price shocks: An investiga-tion of changes in post 9-11 GI Bill allowed maximum tuitions. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract _id=3174763
3. Card, D. (1992). Using regional variation in wages to measure the effects of the federal minimum wage. ILR Review, 46, 22–37.
4. Card, D., & Payne, A. A. (2002). School finance reform, the distribution of school spending, and the distribution of student test scores. Journal of Public Economics, 83, 49–82.
5. Carruthers, C. K., & Fox, W. F. (2016). Aid for all: College coach-ing, financial aid, and post-secondary persistence in Tennessee. Economics of Education Review, 51, 97–112.
6. Chetty, R., Friedman, J. N., Saez, E., Turner, N., & Yagan, D. (2017, July). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (Working Paper 23618). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
7. Dillon, S. (2011, September 23). Obama turns some powers of education back to states. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/24/education/24educ.html
8. Domina, T., McEachin, A., Penner, A., & Penner, E. (2015). Aiming high and falling short: California’s eighth-grade alge-bra-for-all effort. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 275–295.
9. Dougherty, K. J., & Natow, R. S. (2015). The politics of performance funding for higher education: Origins, discontinuations, and transformations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
10. Dougherty, K. J., Natow, R. S., Pheatt, L., & Reddy, V. (2016). Performance funding for higher education. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
11. Doyle, W. R. (2010). Does merit-based aid “crowd out” need-based aid? Research in Higher Education, 51, 397–415.
12. Elazar, D. (1972). American federalism. New York, NY: Thomas Crowell.
13. Fain, P. (2018, May 9). Plans for performance funding for Calif.’s 2-year colleges. Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved from https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2018/05/09/plans-performance-funding-califs-2-year-colleges
14. Finger, L. K. (2018). Vested interests and the diffusion of education reform across the states. Policy Studies Journal, 46, 378–401.
15. Fitzpatrick, M. D., & Jones, D. (2016). Post-baccalaureate migra-tion and merit-based scholarships. Economics of Education Review, 54, 155–172.
16. Gándara, D., & Rutherford, A. (2018). Mitigating unintended impacts? The effects of premiums for underserved populations in performance-funding policies for higher education. Research in Higher Education, 59, 681–703.
17. Gershenson, S., & Tekin, E. (2018). The effect of community trau-matic events on student achievement: Evidence from the Beltway Sniper attacks. Education Finance and Policy, 13, 513–544.
18. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
19. Hearn, J. C., McLendon, M. K., & Linthicum, K. C. (2017). Conceptualizing state policy adoption and diffusion. In M. B. Paulsen (Ed.), Higher education: Handbook of theory and research (Vol. 32, pp. 309–354). Dordrecht, Netherlands: Springer.
20. Hillman, N. W., Fryar, A. H., & Crespín-Trujillo, V. (2018). Evaluating the impact of performance funding in Ohio and Tennessee. American Educational Research Journal, 55, 144– 170.
21. Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Fryar, A. H. (2015). Evaluating the impacts of “new” performance funding in higher education. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 501–519.
22. Hillman, N. W., Tandberg, D. A., & Gross, J. P. (2014). Performance funding in higher education: Do financial incentives impact college completions? Journal of Higher Education, 85, 826–857.
23. Imbens, G. W., & Wooldridge, J. M. (2009). Recent develop-ments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5–86.
24. Jackson, C. K., Johnson, R. C., & Persico, C. (2016). The effects of school spending on educational and economic outcomes: Evidence from school finance reforms. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131, 157–218.
25. Jones, T., Jones, S., Elliott, K., Owens, L., Assalone, A., & Gándara, D. (2017). Outcomes based funding and race in higher educa-tion. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
26. Jordan, M. P., & Grossmann, M. (2017). The Correlates of State Policy Project v.2.1. Retrieved from http://ippsr.msu.edu/pub-lic-policy/correlates-state-policy
27. Karch, A. (2007). Democratic laboratories: Policy diffusion among the American states. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
28. Kelchen, R. (2018a). Do performance-based funding policies affect underrepresented student enrollment? Journal of Higher Education, 89, 702–727.
29. Kelchen, R. (2018b). Higher education accountability. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
30. Kelchen, R., & Stedrak, L. J. (2016). Does performance-based funding affect colleges’ financial priorities? Journal of Education Finance, 41, 302–321.
31. Klein, A. (2016, January 5). Under ESSA, states, districts to share more power. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2016/01/06/under-essa-states-districts-to-share-more.html
32. Kramer, D. A., II, Ortagus, J. C., & Lacy, T. A. (2018). Tuition-setting authority and broad-based merit aid: The effect of policy intersection on pricing strategies. Research in Higher Education, 59, 489–518.
33. Krane, D. (2007). The middle tier in American federalism: State government policy activism during the Bush presidency. Publius, 37, 453–477.
34. Lacy, T. A., & Tandberg, D. A. (2014). Rethinking policy diffu-sion: The interstate spread of “finance innovations.” Research in Higher Education, 55, 627–649.
35. Li, A. Y. (2018). In high demand: Performance funding policy impacts on STEM degree attainment. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904818755455
36. Lucas, A. M. (2010). Malaria eradication and educational attain-ment: Evidence from Paraguay and Sri Lanka. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(2), 46–71.
37. Lucas, A. M., & Mbiti, I. M. (2012a). Access, sorting, and achieve-ment: The short-run effects of free primary education in Kenya. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 4(4), 226–253.
38. Lucas, A. M., & Mbiti, I. M. (2012b). Does free primary education narrow gender differences in schooling? Evidence from Kenya. Journal of African Economies, 21, 691–722.
39. Lumina Foundation. (n.d.). Frequently asked questions outcomes-based funding. Retrieved from https://www.luminafoundation.org/outcomes-based-funding-faq
40. McDermott, K. A. (2003). What causes variation in states’ accountability policies? Peabody Journal of Education, 78(4), 153–176.
41. Miller, G. N. S., & Morphew, C. C. (2017). Merchants of opti-mism: Agenda-setting organizations and the framing of perfor-mance-based funding for higher education. Journal of Higher Education, 88, 754–784.
42. Mintrom, M. (1997). The state-local nexus in policy innovation dif-fusion: The case of school choice. Publius, 27(3), 41–59.
43. Mississippi Institutions of Higher Education. (2013). Performance allocation model summary. Retrieved from www.mississippi. edu/downloads/ihl_130418-2.pdf
44. Mokher, C. G., & McLendon, M. K. (2009). Uniting secondary and postsecondary education: An event history analysis of state adoption of dual enrollment policies. American Journal of Education, 115, 249–277.
45. National Association of State Budget Officers. (2018). The fiscal survey of states: Spring 2018. Washington, DC: Author.
46. National Conference of State Legislatures. (2015). Performance-based funding for higher education. Retrieved from https://web.archive.org/web/20180709174718/http://www.ncsl.org/research/education/performance-funding.aspx
47. Perna, L. W., & Leigh, E. W. (2018). Understanding the prom-ise: A typology of state and local college promise programs. Educational Researcher, 47, 155–180.
48. Polikoff, M., & Conaway, C. (2018, September 25). Getting beyond “did it work?”: Proposing a new approach to integrate research and policy. Retrieved from https://www.brookings.edu/blog/brown-center-chalkboard/2018/09/25/getting-beyond-did-it-work-proposing-a-new-approach-to-integrate-research-and-policy/
49. Reardon, S. F. (2016). School segregation and racial academic achievement gaps. RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences, 2(5), 34–57.
50. Shores, K., & Steinberg, M. (2017). The impact of the Great Recession on student achievement: Evidence from population data. Retrieved from https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3026151
51. Sjoquist, D. L., & Winters, J. V. (2015). State merit aid programs and college major: A focus on STEM. Journal of Labor Economics, 33, 973–1006.
52. Snyder, M., & Boelscher, S. (2018). Driving better outcomes: Fiscal year 2018 state status & typology update. Washington, DC: HCM Strategists.
53. Snyder, M., & Fox, B. (2016). Driving better outcomes: Fiscal year 2016 state status & typology update. Washington, DC: HCM Strategists.
54. Springer, M. G. (2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27, 556–563.
55. St. Clair, T., & Cook, T. D. (2015). Difference-in-differences methods in public finance. National Tax Journal, 68, 319–338.
56. Tandberg, D. A., Hillman, N., & Barakat, M. (2014). State higher education performance funding for community colleges: Diverse effects and policy implications. Teachers College Record, 116(12), 1–31.
57. Umbricht, M. R., Fernandez, F., & Ortagus, J. C. (2017). An exam-ination of the (un)intended consequences of performance funding in higher education. Educational Policy, 31, 643–673.
58. Wing, C., Simon, K., & Bello-Gomez, R. A. (2018). Designing difference in difference studies: Best practices for public health policy research. Annual Review of Public Health, 39, 453–469.
59. Wong, K. K., & Shen, F. X. (2002). Politics of state-led reform in education: Market competition and electoral dynamics. Educational Policy, 16, 161–192.
60. Wong, V. C., Wing, C., Martin, D., & Krishnamachari, A. (2018). Did states use implementation discretion to reduce the strin-gency of NCLB? Evidence from a database of state regulations. Educational Researcher, 47, 9–33.