Proponents of school choice and school reform often claim that different school "types" will produce better academic outcomes for students than does the traditional public school model. Unstated but implicit in these views is a causal assumption that certain school types are "better" and produce improved student academic achievement, a very difficult hypothesis to test. Not only is large-scale randomized treatment assignment of students to schools infeasible, but it is essentially impossible to create school settings that are identical in every aspect but the "treatment." Because of these differences in subject assignment and setting equivalency, as well as the nested nature of education, when there are differences in academic performances between schools it is extremely difficult to determine whether it is due to school differences, student differences, or some combination of the two.
This study uses student and school-level observational data from the Educational Longitudinal Study (ELS) of 2002, a nationally representative sample of high school sophomores and seniors with vertically scored mathematics tests from the 10th and 12th grades. To determine if there are statistically significant (p<05) differences in performance based on school type, I employ propensity score models to identify and match similar treatment and control students, as well as similar treatment and control schools, more closely approximating a randomized experiment. I estimate the magnet school effect on individual student mathematics achievement two ways: calculating the within and overall stratum average treatment effects on the stratified matched students and schools using analysis of variance, and with a hierarchical linear regression model that accounts for the clustering of students within schools. A final analysis examines selected post-secondary indicators to see if there are differences between magnet and public school students on these outcomes.
The results question the current broad and imprecise policy of wholesale school change to accomplish school improvement, and suggest a more precise focus on specific school practices. A policy that focused on school practices and targeting and reforming those practices in need of change might be more productive, less disruptive, and less expensive than changing school types or closing or restructuring entire schools.
|Advisor:||Cobb, Casey D.|
|School:||University of Connecticut|
|School Location:||United States -- Connecticut|
|Source:||DAI-A 72/05, Dissertation Abstracts International|
|Subjects:||Mathematics education, Education Policy|
|Keywords:||HLM, Magnet schools, Mathematics achievement, Propensity score matching, School achievement, School effects|
Copyright in each Dissertation and Thesis is retained by the author. All Rights Reserved
The supplemental file or files you are about to download were provided to ProQuest by the author as part of a
dissertation or thesis. The supplemental files are provided "AS IS" without warranty. ProQuest is not responsible for the
content, format or impact on the supplemental file(s) on our system. in some cases, the file type may be unknown or
may be a .exe file. We recommend caution as you open such files.
Copyright of the original materials contained in the supplemental file is retained by the author and your access to the
supplemental files is subject to the ProQuest Terms and Conditions of use.
Depending on the size of the file(s) you are downloading, the system may take some time to download them. Please be