Assessing the Effects of Small School Size on Mathematics Achievement: A Propensity Score-Matching Approach

Abstract

Background

Small schools have been promoted as an educational reform that is capable of improving student outcomes. However, a survey of the research on small schools indicates that much of the movement for decreasing school size is based primarily on correlational methods that do not control for selection effects in the data. In addition, several recent studies have suggested that smaller schools may be able to increase student attendance and graduation rates but that these gains might not necessarily translate into gains in student achievement.

Purpose

This study investigates the potential effect of attending smaller schools on student mathematics achievement using propensity score matching techniques.

Research Design

Data in the study are from the Educational Longitudinal Study of 2002 and represent over 12,000 high school students. Observed student responses from 10th and 12th grade are used in the analyses.

Data Collection and Analysis

An estimate of the potential effect of attending smaller schools is determined by matching students in the largest schools to smaller schools of four different sizes using propensity score matching techniques. These methods are used to attempt to account for selection effects present in these data and to approximate what the effect of attending a smaller school would be in each case.

Results

Results from the study suggest that simply switching students to smaller school environments does not necessarily raise the mathematics achievement of students in the largest schools. Further analysis indicated that there did not appear to be an optimal range of school sizes that would provide maximum levels of student mathematics achievement.

Conclusion

This study suggests that creating smaller schools might not be the best mechanism to raise student achievement. It is suggested that policy makers make careful deliberations before deciding to invest in small schools as an educational reform, because it is hard to establish when they will or will not be successful. Further research is needed into what makes some small schools effective.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Allison

(2002). Missing data. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Battistich

, Solomon

, Kim

D.-i.

, Watson

, and Schaps

(1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives, and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32, 627—658.

Borman

, and D'Agostino

(1996). Title I and student achievement: A meta-analysis of federal evaluation results. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 18, 309—326.

Burkam

, Ready

, Lee

V. E.

, and LoGerfo

(2004). Social-class differences in summer learning between kindergarten and first grade: Model specification and estimation. Sociology of Education, 77, 1—31.

Coleman

J. S.

, and Hoffer

(1987). Public and private high schools: the impact of communities. New York: Basic Books.

Dempster

A. P.

, Laird

, and Rubin

D. B.

(1977). Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series B, 39(1), 1—38.

Greene

, and Symonds

W. C.

(2006, June 26). Bill Gates gets schooled: Why he and other execs have struggled in their school reform efforts, and why they keep trying. Business Week, pp. 64—70.

Herszenhorn

D. M.

(2006, September 13). 11 city schools fail to meet state criteria. The New York Times, p. 8.

Hoffer

(1995). High school curriculum differentiation and postsecondary outcomes. In Cookson

P.W.

, and Schneider

(Eds.), Transforming schools (pp. 371—402). New York: Garland.

10.

Hong

, and Raudenbush

S. W.

(2005). Effects of kindergarten retention policy on children's cognitive growth in reading and mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 205—224.

11.

Hong

, and Raudenbush

S. W.

(2006). Evaluating kindergarten retention policy: A case study of casual inference for multilevel observational data. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 101, 901—910.

12.

Huebner

T. A.

(2005). Rethinking high school: An introduction to New York City's experience. San Francisco: WestEd for the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.

13.

Ingersoll

R. M.

(1999). The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools. Educational Researcher, 28(2), 26—37.

14.

Kahne

J. E.

, Sporte

S. E.

, de la Torre

, and Easton

(2006). Small high schools on a larger scale: The first three years of the Chicago High School Redesign Initiative. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research at the University of Chicago.

15.

Lee

V. E.

(2000). School size and the organization of secondary schools. In and and Hallinan

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 327—344). New York: Kluwer/Academic Plenum.

16.

Lee

V. E.

, and Smith

(1995). Effects of high school restructuring and size on early gains in achievement and engagement. Sociology of Education, 68, 241—270.

17.

Lee

V. E.

, and Smith

(1997). High school size: which works best and for whom? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 205—227.

18.

Little

R. J. A.

, and Rubin

D. B.

(1987). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

19.

Loveless

, and Hess

F. M.

(2007). Brookings papers on education policy 2006/2007. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

20.

McLachlan

G. J.

, and Krishnan

(1997). The EM algorithm and extensions. New York: Wiley.

21.

Monk

D. H.

(1994). Subject area preparation of secondary mathematics and science teachers and student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 13, 125—145.

22.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, §115, Stat. 1425 (2002).

23.

Petrin

(2005). School organization, curricular structure, and the distribution and effects of instruction for tenth-grade science. In Hedges

L.V.

, and Schneider

(Eds.), The social organization of schooling (pp. 175—199). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

24.

Phillips

(1997). What makes schools effective? A comparison of the relationships of communitarian climate and academic climate to mathematics achievement and attendance during middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 633—662.

25.

Pittman

R. B.

, and Haughwout

(1987). Influence of high school size on dropout rate. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 337—343.

26.

Porter

(1989). A curriculum out of balance: the case of elementary school mathematics. Educational Researcher, 18(5), 9—15.

27.

Raudenbush

, and Bryk

A. S.

(2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

28.

Ravitch

(2006, July 30). Bill Gates, the nation's superintendent of schools [Electronic version]. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved August 3, 2006, from http://www.latimes.com

29.

Raywid

M. A.

(1996). Taking stock: The movement to create mini-schools, schools-within-schools, and separate small schools (Urban Diversity Series No. 108). New York: ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban Education Institute for Urban and Minority Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED396045)

30.

Rosenbaum

(2002). Observational studies. New York: Springer Verlag.

31.

Rosenbaum

, and Rubin

D. B.

(1983). The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika, 70(1), 41—55.

32.

Rubin

D. B.

(1979). Using multivariate matched sampling and regression adjustment to control bias in observational studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 73, 318—328.

33.

Rubin

D. B.

, and Thomas

(2000). Combining propensity score matching with additional adjustments for prognostic covariates. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 95, 573—585.

34.

Schafer

J. L.

(1997). Analysis of incomplete multivariate data. New York: Chapman and Hall.

35.

Schneider

, Swanson

, and Riegle-Crumb

(1998). Opportunities for learning: Course sequences and positional advantages. Social Psychology of Education, 2, 25—53.

36.

Schneider

, Wyse

A. E.

, and Keesler

(2007). Is small really better? Testing some assumptions about high school size. In Loveless

, and Hess

F.M.

(Eds.), Brookings papers on education policy 2006/2007 (pp. 15—47). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

37.

Shadish

W. R.

, Cook

T. D.

, and Campbell

D. T.

(2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.

38.

Shouse

(1996). Academic press and sense of community: Conflict, congruence, and implications for student achievement. Social Psychology of Education, 1, 47—68.

39.

Shouse

(1997). Academic press, sense of community, and student achievement. In and and Coleman

J.S.

(Ed.), Redesigning American education (pp. 60—86). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.

40.

Stevenson

(2000). The fit and misfit of sociological research and educational policy. In and and Hallinan

(Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 547—563). New York: Kluwer Press.

41.

Toch

(1991). In the name of excellence. New York: Oxford University Press.

42.

Wasley

P. A.

, Fine

, Gladden

, Holland

N. E.

, King

S. P.

, and Mosak

. (2000). Small schools: Great strides. A study of new small schools in Chicago. New York: Bank Street College of Education.