2012
DOI: 10.1016/j.jue.2011.10.001
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Closing schools in a shrinking district: Do student outcomes depend on which schools are closed?

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
118
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
9
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 133 publications
(119 citation statements)
references
References 21 publications
1
118
0
Order By: Relevance
“…As noted earlier, analyses have demonstrated very high rates of student mobility in school voucher programs in Milwaukee (Carlson, Cowen, & Fleming, 2013;Cowen et al, 2012), Washington, D.C. (Wolf et al, 2010), and New York City (Howell, 2004), as well as charter schools in several states including Florida, Texas, and Idaho (Ballou et al, 2006;Cowen & Winters, 2013;Hanushek et al, 2007). Such findings raise the possibility that increased levels of student mobility-particularly for disadvantaged populations-represent an unintended consequence of school choice policies, a possibility that is potentially troublesome given the large body of work demonstrating student mobility to have a negative effect on academic outcomes, specifically student achievement (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1996;Engberg, Gill, Zamarro, & Zimmer, 2012;Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004;Ingersoll, Scamman, & Eckerling, 1989;Kerbow, Azcoitia, & Buell, 2003;Lash & Kirkpatrick, 1990, 1994Rumberger et al, 1999;South, Haynie, & Bose, 2007;Temple & Reynolds, 1999;Xu, Hannaway, & D'Souza, 2009;Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). In the light of such possibilities, the results suggest that policymakers should concentrate on not only using school choice programs to provide disadvantaged populations with access to high-quality schools but also to design such programs in a manner that maximizes the stability and continuity of that access.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As noted earlier, analyses have demonstrated very high rates of student mobility in school voucher programs in Milwaukee (Carlson, Cowen, & Fleming, 2013;Cowen et al, 2012), Washington, D.C. (Wolf et al, 2010), and New York City (Howell, 2004), as well as charter schools in several states including Florida, Texas, and Idaho (Ballou et al, 2006;Cowen & Winters, 2013;Hanushek et al, 2007). Such findings raise the possibility that increased levels of student mobility-particularly for disadvantaged populations-represent an unintended consequence of school choice policies, a possibility that is potentially troublesome given the large body of work demonstrating student mobility to have a negative effect on academic outcomes, specifically student achievement (Alexander, Entwisle, & Dauber, 1996;Engberg, Gill, Zamarro, & Zimmer, 2012;Hanushek, Kain, & Rivkin, 2004;Ingersoll, Scamman, & Eckerling, 1989;Kerbow, Azcoitia, & Buell, 2003;Lash & Kirkpatrick, 1990, 1994Rumberger et al, 1999;South, Haynie, & Bose, 2007;Temple & Reynolds, 1999;Xu, Hannaway, & D'Souza, 2009;Zimmer & Buddin, 2009). In the light of such possibilities, the results suggest that policymakers should concentrate on not only using school choice programs to provide disadvantaged populations with access to high-quality schools but also to design such programs in a manner that maximizes the stability and continuity of that access.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, these statements fail to acknowledge that multiple studies have found that most students impacted by school closing do not have better academic outcomes (see de la Torre and Gwynne, 2009;Dowdall, 2011, Engberg et al, 2012Pacer, 2013). Byrd Bennett's reference to the under resourced school neglects to acknowledge the role city and CPS Board policies, especially the decision to open 120 new schools since 2000, have had on enrollment (Vevea, Lutton, Karp, 2013).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 98%
“…13 In addition to the reported variables, PERFORMANCE, COHORT, FEMALE and BIRTH ORDER occur as in the fixed effects regressions. Table 8 presents average outcomes by treatment status.…”
Section: A1 Empirical Strategy and Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%