The authors examine whether standards based accountability reforms of the past two decades have closed the achievement gap among public and private high school students. They analyzed data from the Education Longitudinal Study (ELS) to examine sector differences in high school achievement in the era of standards based reforms. The authors found that students in Catholic and private secular schools enjoy greater math gains from 10th to 12th grade than comparable public school students. However, they found that these advantages are largely concentrated among more advanced math skills. Moreover, private school students took more academic math courses than public school students, even after controlling for family background and prior achievement. These differences in course taking accounted for most of the public-private difference in achievement gains.
AdelmanClifford. 1999. Answers in the Tool Box: Academic Intensity, Attendance Patterns, and Bachelor’s Degree Attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
2.
AdelmanClifford. 2004. Principal Indicators of Student Academic Histories in Postsecondary Education, 1972-2000. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
3.
AlexanderKarlPallasAaron. 1985. “School Sector and Cognitive Performance: When Is a Little a Little?” Sociology of Education58:170–82.
4.
AltonjiJosephElderToddTaberChristopher. 2005a. “An Evaluation of Instrumental Variable Strategies for Estimating the Effects of Catholic Schooling.” The Journal of Human Resources40:791–821.
5.
AltonjiJosephElderToddTaberChristopher. 2005b. “Selection on Observed and Unobserved Variables: Assessing the Effectiveness of Catholic Schools.” Journal of Political Economy113:151–84.
6.
BarrRebeccaDreebenRobert. 1983. How Schools Work. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
7.
BeckerSascha O.IchinoAndrea. 2002. “Estimation of Average Treatment Effects Based on Propensity Scores.” Stata Journal2(4):358–77.
8.
BerkRichard. 1983. “An Introduction to Sample Selection Bias in Sociological Data.” American Sociological Review48:386–98.
9.
BidwellCharlesDreebenRobert. 2006. “Public and Private Education: Conceptualizing the Distinction.” Pp. 9–38 in School Sector and Student Outcomes, edited by HallinanM.Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.
10.
BozickRobertIngelsSteven. 2008. “Mathematics Coursetaking and Achievement at the End of High School: Evidence from the Education Longitudinal Study of 2002 (ELS:2002).” (NCES 2008-319). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
11.
BrykAnthonyLeeValerieHollandPeter. 1993. Catholic Schools and the Common Good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
12.
CainGlenGoldbergerArthur. 1983. “Private and Public Schools Revisited.” Sociology of Education56:208–18.
13.
CahalanMargaret W.IngelsSteven J.BurnsLaura J.PlantyMichaelDanielBruce. 2006. “United States High School Sophomores: A Twenty-Two Year Comparison, 1980-2002.” NCES 2006-327. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
14.
CarbonaroWilliam. 2003. “Sector Differences in Student Learning: Differences in Achievement Gains across School Years and During the Summer.” Journal of Catholic Education7:219–45.
15.
CarbonaroWilliam. 2006. “Public-Private Differences in Achievement among Kindergarten Students: Differences in Learning Opportunities and Student Outcomes.” American Journal of Education113:31–65.
16.
CarnoyMartinLoebSusan. 2002. “Does External Accountability Affect Student Achievement? A Cross State Analysis.” Education Evaluation Policy Analysis25:305–31.
17.
ChaneyBradfordBurgdorfKennethAtashNadir. 1997. “Influencing Achievement through High School Graduation Requirements.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19:229–44.
CluneWilliam H.WhitePaula A.1992. “Education Reform in the Trenches: Increased Academic Course Taking in High Schools with Lower Achieving Students in States with Higher Graduation Requirements.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis14(1):2–20.
20.
ColemanJamesCampbellErnestHobsonCarolMcPartlandJamesMoodAlexanderWeinfeldFrederickYorkRobert. 1966. Equality of Educational Opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
21.
ColemanJamesHofferThomas. 1987. Private and Public Schools. New York: Basic Books.
22.
ColemanJamesHofferThomasKilgoreSally. 1982. “Cognitive Outcomes in Public and Private Schools.” Sociology of Education55:65–76.
23.
DillJeffrey S.2009. “Preparing for Public Life: School Sector and the Educational Context of Lasting Citizen Formation.” Social Forces87:1265–90.
24.
DiPreteThomasGanglMarkus. 2004. “Assessing Bias in the Estimation of Causal Effects: Rosenbaum Bounds on Matching Estimators and Instrumental Variables Estimation with Imperfect Instruments.” Sociological Methodology34:271–310.
25.
EvansWilliamSchwabRobert. 1995. “Finishing High School and Starting College: Do Catholic Schools Make a Difference?” Quarterly Journal of Economics110:947–74.
26.
FrankKenneth. 2000. “Impact of a Confounding Variable on the Inference of a Regression Coefficient.” Sociological Methods and Research29(2):147–94.
27.
GamoranAdam. 1996. “Student Achievement in Public Magnet, Public Comprehensive, and Private City High Schools.” Educational Evaluation Policy Analysis18:1–15.
28.
GanglMarkus. 2004. “rbounds. Stata Ado File to Estimate Rosenbaum Bounds for Treatment Effects Established by nearest Neighbor Propensity Score Matching.” Retrieved March 22, 2010 (http://ideas.repec.org/s/boc/bocode.html).
29.
GaretMichaelDeLanyBrian1988. “Students, Courses, and Stratification.” Sociology of Education61(2):61–77.
30.
GreenwaldRobHedgesLarry V.LaineRichard D.1996. “The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement.” Review of Educational Research66:361–96.
31.
HallinanMaureen T.1992. “The Organization of Students for Instruction in the Middle School.” Sociology of Education65(2):114–27.
32.
HanushekEric. 1997. “Assessing the Effects of School Resources on Student Performance: An Update.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19:141–64.
33.
HanushekEricRaymondMargaret. 2005. “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance?” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management24:297–327.
34.
HofferThomas. 1998. “Social Background and Achievement in Public and Catholic High Schools.” Social Psychology of Education2:7–23.
35.
HofferThomasGreeleyAndrewColemanJames. 1985. “Achievement Growth in Catholic and Public Schools.” Sociology of Education54:74–97.
36.
HydeJanetLindbergSaraLinnMarciaEllisAmyWilliamsCaroline. 2008. “Gender Similarities Characterize Math Performance.” Science321:494–95.
37.
JacobBrian. 2005. “Accountability, Incentives, and Behavior: The Impact of High Stakes Testing in Chicago Public Schools.” Journal of Public Economics89:761–96.
38.
JencksChristopher. 1985. “How Much Do High School Students Learn?” Sociology of Education58:128–35.
39.
JepsenChristopher. 2003. “The Effectiveness of Catholic Primary Schooling.” The Journal of Human Resources38:928–41.
40.
KonstantopoulosSpyros. 2006. “Trends of School Effects on Student Achievement: Evidence from NLS:72, HSB:82, and NELS:92.” Teachers College Record108:2550–81.
41.
LeeValerieChow-HoyToddBurkhamDavidGeverdtDouglasSmerdonBecky. 1998. “Sector Differences in High School Course Taking: A Private or Catholic School Effect?” Sociology of Education71:314–35.
42.
LeeValerieCroningerRobertSmithJulia. 1997. “Coursetaking, Equity, and Mathematics Learning.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis19:99–121.
43.
LeuvenEdwinSianesiBarbara. 2003. “PSMATCH2: Stata Module to Perform Full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing.” Retrieved March 22, 2010 (http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html).
44.
LubienskiSarahLubienskiChristopher. 2006. “School Sector and Academic Achievement: A Multilevel Analysis of NAEP Data.” American Education Research Journal43:651–700.
45.
LubienskiSarahLubienskiChristopherCraneCorinna. 2008. “Achievement Differences and School Type: The Role of School Climate, Teacher Certification, and Instruction.” American Journal of Education115:97–138.
46.
McFarlandDaniel A.2006. “Curricular Flows: Trajectories, Turning Points, and Assignment Criteria in High School Math Careers.” Sociology of Education79(3):177–205.
47.
MorganStephen. 2001. “Counterfactuals, Causal Effect Heterogeneity, and the Catholic School Effect on Learning.” Sociology of Education74:341–74.
48.
MorganStephenSørensenAage. 1999. “Parental Networks, Social Closure, and Mathematics Learning: A Test of Coleman’s Social Capital Explanation of School Effects.” American Sociological Review64:661–81.
49.
MorganStephenWinshipChristopher. 2007. Counterfactuals and Causal Inference. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
50.
National Science Board. 2004. “Elementary and Secondary Education.” (Science and Engineering Indicators 2004). Arlington, VA: National Science Board. Retrieved June 24, 2009 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind04/).
51.
National Science Board. 2006. “Elementary and Secondary Education.” (Science and Engineering Indicators 2006). Arlington, VA: National Science Board. Retrieved June 24, 2009 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind06/).
52.
National Science Board. 2008. “Elementary and Secondary Education.” (Science and Engineering Indicators 2008). Arlington, VA: National Science Board. Retrieved June 24, 2009 (http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/seind08/).
53.
NealDerek. 1997. “The Effects of Catholic Secondary School on Educational Attainment.” The Journal of Labor Economics15:98–123.
54.
PhillipsMeredithFlashmanJennifer. 2007. “How Did the Statewide Assessment and Accountability Policies of the 1990s Affect Instructional Quality in Low Income Schools.” Pp. 45–88 in Standards-Based Reform and the Poverty Gap, edited by GamoranA.Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
55.
PowellArthurFarrarEleanorCohenDavid. 1985. The Shopping Mall High School: Winners and Losers in the Educational Marketplace. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
56.
RaudenbushStephenRowanBrianCheongYuk Fai. 1992. “Contextual Effects on the Self-perceived Efficacy of High School Teachers.” Sociology of Education65:150–67.
57.
ReardonSeanCheadleJacobRobinsonJoseph. 2009. “The Effect of Catholic Schooling on Math and Reading Development in Kindergarten through Fifth Grade.” Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness2(1):45–87.
RowanBrianMiracleAndrewJr. 1983. “Systems of Ability Grouping and the Stratification of Achievement in Elementary Schools.” Sociology of Education56:133–44.
61.
RubinDonald. 1997. “Estimating Causal Effects from Large Scale Data Sets Using Propensity Scores.” Annals of Internal Medicine127:757–63.
62.
WillmsJ. Douglass. 1985. “Catholic School Effects on Academic Achievement: New Evidence from the High School and Beyond Follow-Up Study.” Sociology of Education58:98–114.
63.
YounissJamesConveyJohn, eds. 2000. Catholic Schools at the Crossroads: Survival and Transformation. New York: Teachers College Press.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
