The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement
Whether additional school spending translates to overall improved student learning remains unclear. One explanation for the mixed findings in the literature is the possibility that studies confound the effects of school resources with those of unobserved variables. We show that commonly used "v...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Educational evaluation and policy analysis 1999, Vol.21 (4), p.385-403 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 403 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 4 |
| container_start_page | 385 |
| container_title | Educational evaluation and policy analysis |
| container_volume | 21 |
| creator | Ludwig, Jens Bassi, Laurie J. |
| description | Whether additional school spending translates to overall improved student learning remains unclear. One explanation for the mixed findings in the literature is the possibility that studies confound the effects of school resources with those of unobserved variables. We show that commonly used "value-added" models are misspecified when estimated using the National Education Longitudinal Study, which raises questions about whether previous value-added studies are unbiased. We also review a more recent literature that uses instrumental variables (IV) methods to address omitted variables bias. Most IV studies suggest that additional resources typically translate to (modest) gains in test scores and that the biases associated with value-added models are large enough to be of practical importance. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.3102/01623737021004385 |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_3102_01623737021004385</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><ericid>EJ604335</ericid><jstor_id>1164484</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1164484</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-89b87096c6f005fae008983c2090c0f1c5ccbe37ed1696a77f59467327e02b053</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNplj1FLwzAUhYMoWKc_QPAhf6B6k7RJ8-DDKHMqA8XN59KmN7ajayVpBffrbZmo4H05F75zDhxCLhlcCwb8BpjkQgkFnAFEIomPSMC0iEMGkh-TYOLhZDglZ95vYTyleEBuNxXS52G_b-r2jaa5R9pZujZV1zX0BX03OIOe5m1J1_1QYtvTualq_MDd-J-TE5s3Hi--dUZe7xab9D5cPS0f0vkqNFzoPkx0kSjQ0kgLENscARKdCMNBgwHLTGxMgUJhyaSWuVI21pFUgisEXkAsZoQdeo3rvHdos3dX73L3mTHIpv3Zv_1j5uqQQVebH__iUY5Y_MFb33fut4_JKEoi8QX5XF4Q</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement</title><source>Jstor Complete Legacy</source><source>SAGE Complete</source><creator>Ludwig, Jens ; Bassi, Laurie J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Ludwig, Jens ; Bassi, Laurie J.</creatorcontrib><description>Whether additional school spending translates to overall improved student learning remains unclear. One explanation for the mixed findings in the literature is the possibility that studies confound the effects of school resources with those of unobserved variables. We show that commonly used "value-added" models are misspecified when estimated using the National Education Longitudinal Study, which raises questions about whether previous value-added studies are unbiased. We also review a more recent literature that uses instrumental variables (IV) methods to address omitted variables bias. Most IV studies suggest that additional resources typically translate to (modest) gains in test scores and that the biases associated with value-added models are large enough to be of practical importance.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0162-3737</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1935-1062</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.3102/01623737021004385</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>American Educational Research Association</publisher><subject>Academic Achievement ; Children ; Class size ; Educational resources ; Elementary Secondary Education ; Error rates ; Estimation bias ; Expenditures ; Learning ; Mathematics education ; National Education Longitudinal Study 1988 ; Parents ; Resource Allocation ; School Effectiveness ; Test scores ; Value Added Model</subject><ispartof>Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 1999, Vol.21 (4), p.385-403</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1999 The American Educational Research Association</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-89b87096c6f005fae008983c2090c0f1c5ccbe37ed1696a77f59467327e02b053</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-89b87096c6f005fae008983c2090c0f1c5ccbe37ed1696a77f59467327e02b053</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1164484$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1164484$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,799,4010,27900,27901,27902,57992,58225</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/detail?accno=EJ604335$$DView record in ERIC$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Ludwig, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bassi, Laurie J.</creatorcontrib><title>The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement</title><title>Educational evaluation and policy analysis</title><description>Whether additional school spending translates to overall improved student learning remains unclear. One explanation for the mixed findings in the literature is the possibility that studies confound the effects of school resources with those of unobserved variables. We show that commonly used "value-added" models are misspecified when estimated using the National Education Longitudinal Study, which raises questions about whether previous value-added studies are unbiased. We also review a more recent literature that uses instrumental variables (IV) methods to address omitted variables bias. Most IV studies suggest that additional resources typically translate to (modest) gains in test scores and that the biases associated with value-added models are large enough to be of practical importance.</description><subject>Academic Achievement</subject><subject>Children</subject><subject>Class size</subject><subject>Educational resources</subject><subject>Elementary Secondary Education</subject><subject>Error rates</subject><subject>Estimation bias</subject><subject>Expenditures</subject><subject>Learning</subject><subject>Mathematics education</subject><subject>National Education Longitudinal Study 1988</subject><subject>Parents</subject><subject>Resource Allocation</subject><subject>School Effectiveness</subject><subject>Test scores</subject><subject>Value Added Model</subject><issn>0162-3737</issn><issn>1935-1062</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1999</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><recordid>eNplj1FLwzAUhYMoWKc_QPAhf6B6k7RJ8-DDKHMqA8XN59KmN7ajayVpBffrbZmo4H05F75zDhxCLhlcCwb8BpjkQgkFnAFEIomPSMC0iEMGkh-TYOLhZDglZ95vYTyleEBuNxXS52G_b-r2jaa5R9pZujZV1zX0BX03OIOe5m1J1_1QYtvTualq_MDd-J-TE5s3Hi--dUZe7xab9D5cPS0f0vkqNFzoPkx0kSjQ0kgLENscARKdCMNBgwHLTGxMgUJhyaSWuVI21pFUgisEXkAsZoQdeo3rvHdos3dX73L3mTHIpv3Zv_1j5uqQQVebH__iUY5Y_MFb33fut4_JKEoi8QX5XF4Q</recordid><startdate>1999</startdate><enddate>1999</enddate><creator>Ludwig, Jens</creator><creator>Bassi, Laurie J.</creator><general>American Educational Research Association</general><scope>7SW</scope><scope>BJH</scope><scope>BNH</scope><scope>BNI</scope><scope>BNJ</scope><scope>BNO</scope><scope>ERI</scope><scope>PET</scope><scope>REK</scope><scope>WWN</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1999</creationdate><title>The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement</title><author>Ludwig, Jens ; Bassi, Laurie J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c239t-89b87096c6f005fae008983c2090c0f1c5ccbe37ed1696a77f59467327e02b053</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1999</creationdate><topic>Academic Achievement</topic><topic>Children</topic><topic>Class size</topic><topic>Educational resources</topic><topic>Elementary Secondary Education</topic><topic>Error rates</topic><topic>Estimation bias</topic><topic>Expenditures</topic><topic>Learning</topic><topic>Mathematics education</topic><topic>National Education Longitudinal Study 1988</topic><topic>Parents</topic><topic>Resource Allocation</topic><topic>School Effectiveness</topic><topic>Test scores</topic><topic>Value Added Model</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Ludwig, Jens</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bassi, Laurie J.</creatorcontrib><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Ovid)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>ERIC( SilverPlatter )</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>ERIC PlusText (Legacy Platform)</collection><collection>Education Resources Information Center (ERIC)</collection><collection>ERIC</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Educational evaluation and policy analysis</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Ludwig, Jens</au><au>Bassi, Laurie J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><ericid>EJ604335</ericid><atitle>The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement</atitle><jtitle>Educational evaluation and policy analysis</jtitle><date>1999</date><risdate>1999</risdate><volume>21</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>385</spage><epage>403</epage><pages>385-403</pages><issn>0162-3737</issn><eissn>1935-1062</eissn><abstract>Whether additional school spending translates to overall improved student learning remains unclear. One explanation for the mixed findings in the literature is the possibility that studies confound the effects of school resources with those of unobserved variables. We show that commonly used "value-added" models are misspecified when estimated using the National Education Longitudinal Study, which raises questions about whether previous value-added studies are unbiased. We also review a more recent literature that uses instrumental variables (IV) methods to address omitted variables bias. Most IV studies suggest that additional resources typically translate to (modest) gains in test scores and that the biases associated with value-added models are large enough to be of practical importance.</abstract><pub>American Educational Research Association</pub><doi>10.3102/01623737021004385</doi><tpages>19</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0162-3737 |
| ispartof | Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 1999, Vol.21 (4), p.385-403 |
| issn | 0162-3737 1935-1062 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_crossref_primary_10_3102_01623737021004385 |
| source | Jstor Complete Legacy; SAGE Complete |
| subjects | Academic Achievement Children Class size Educational resources Elementary Secondary Education Error rates Estimation bias Expenditures Learning Mathematics education National Education Longitudinal Study 1988 Parents Resource Allocation School Effectiveness Test scores Value Added Model |
| title | The Puzzling Case of School Resources and Student Achievement |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-02-06T09%3A34%3A09IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20Puzzling%20Case%20of%20School%20Resources%20and%20Student%20Achievement&rft.jtitle=Educational%20evaluation%20and%20policy%20analysis&rft.au=Ludwig,%20Jens&rft.date=1999&rft.volume=21&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=385&rft.epage=403&rft.pages=385-403&rft.issn=0162-3737&rft.eissn=1935-1062&rft_id=info:doi/10.3102/01623737021004385&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_cross%3E1164484%3C/jstor_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_ericid=EJ604335&rft_jstor_id=1164484&rfr_iscdi=true |