Cost-Effectiveness of Two Math Programs as Moderated by Pupil SES

Evaluations That Consider the Cost of Educational Programs

“…Other cost studies of single programs, although less rigorous than the Perry Preschool and STAR evaluations, demonstrated that the programs assessed were worth the money invested in them. Stern, Dayton, Paik, and Weisberg (1989) found that special schools for at-risk students that combined academic and vocational courses were cost-effective, as were a Mexican technical education program for low-income students (Lopez-Acevedo, 2003), a Grade 5 mathematics program (Quinn, van Mondfrans, & Worthen, 1984), and a computerassisted instructional program (Fletcher, Hawley, & Piele, 1990).…”

The State of Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses in Education

“…For example, Warfield (1994), in an early intervention study of infants and toddlers with developmental disabilities or delays, found that age at initiation of intervention and level of cognitive impairment were related to the number of hours of service required and consequently the cost. Quinn, Van Mondfrans, and Worthen (1984) examined math programs and found that students of middle to lower SES achieved at a much higher level with a program that emphasized individualized instruction, a potentially more costly instructional program to deliver. However, the individualized approach was more cost-effective than a standard, group-instruction textbook approach.…”

“…Evaluating these studies offers a way forward in developing models for future application. These studies address the cost-effectiveness of alternative teacher education programs (Denton & Smith, 1985), computer-assisted instruction (Levin, Glass, & Meister, 1987), alternative mathematics programs (Quinn et al, 1984), and early intervention services (Warfield, 1994). Although these studies have some methodological limitations and wide variations in sample size, they are notable for their attempts to thoroughly apply the principles of cost-effectiveness analysis.…”

“…The four studies were selected based on the following criteria: (a) as a quality control measure, the study was published in a refereed education journal within the last 20 years; (b) to eliminate the difficulties in comparing educational inputs and outputs across differing international educational systems, the study was undertaken on a sample drawn from the United States; (c) the study compared educational Levin, Glass, and Meister (1987) and Warfield (1994) use E/C ratio. Denton and Smith (1985) and Quinn, Van Mondfrans, and Worthen (1984) use C/E ratio. Warfield (1994) programs or interventions that could be replicated; (d) the outcomes measured included student achievement and/or cognitive or psychological development; and, (e) results were presented as a cost-effectiveness or effectiveness-cost ratio.…”

“…The perspective or scope of the analysis undertaken in the four selected education studies ranged from that of a particular college of education (Denton & Smith, 1985), to a particular school district (Quinn et al, 1984), to state level policy on early intervention in Massachusetts (Warfield, 1994). Levin, Glass, and Meister's (1987) study of computer-assisted instruction was concerned with the educational productivity of schools from an educational policy perspective.…”