This article explores the impact of school district consolidation on house values based on house sales in upstate New York State from 2000 to 2012. By combining propensity score matching (PSM) and double-sales data to compare house value changes in consolidating and comparable school districts, we find that, except in one relatively large district, consolidation has a negative impact on house values during the years right after it occurs and that this effect then fades away and is eventually reversed. This pattern suggests that it takes time either for the advantages of consolidation to be apparent or for the people who prefer consolidated districts to move in. Finally, as in previous studies, the long-run impacts of consolidation on house values are positive in census tracts that initially have low incomes, but negative in high-income census tracts, where parents may have a relatively large willingness to retain the nonbudgetary advantages of small districts.
AbadieAlbertoImbensGuido. 2006. “Large Sample Properties of Matching Estimators for Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica74:235–67.
2.
AndrewsMatthewDuncombeWilliam D.YingerJohn. 2002. “Revisiting Economies of Size in American Education: Are We Any Closer to a Consensus?” Economics of Education Review21:245–62.
3.
BarkerR. G.GumpP. V.. 1964. Big School, Small School: High School Size and Student Behavior. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
4.
BeckerSascha O.IchinoAndrea. 2002. “Estimation of Average Treatment Effects based on Propensity Scores.” The Stata Journal2:358–77.
5.
BoginAlexander. 2011. “The Impact of a No Child Left Behind ‘Failing’ School Designation on Local Property Values.” Unpublished Manuscript, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY.
6.
BrasingtonDavid M.1999. “Joint Provision of Public Goods: The Consolidation of School Districts.” Journal of Public Economics73:373–93.
7.
BrasingtonDavid M.2003. “Size and School District Consolidation: Do Opposites Attract?” Economica70:673–90.
8.
BrasingtonDavid M.2004. “House Prices and the Structure of Local Government: An Application of Spatial Statistics.” Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics29:211–31.
9.
CaliendoMarcoKopeinigSabine. 2005. “Some Practical Guidance for the Implementation of Propensity Score Matching.” IZA Discussion Paper 1588, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA), Bonn, Germany.
10.
CottonKathleen. 1996. “Affective and Social Benefits of Small-scale Schooling.” Eric Digest no. ED401088. Accessed December 11, 2013. www.ericdigests.org/1997-2/small.htm.
DuncombeWilliam D.YingerJohn. 2007. “Does School District Consolidation Cut Costs?” Education Finance and Policy2:341–75.
13.
FiglioDavid N.LucasMaurice E.. 2004. “What's in a Grade? School Report Cards and the Housing Market.” American Economic Review94:591–604.
14.
GordonNoraKnightBrian. 2006. “The Causes of Political Integration: An Application to School Districts.” National Bureau of Economic ResearchWorking Paper No. 12047, Cambridge, MA.
15.
GordonNoraKnightBrian. 2009. “A Spatial Merger Estimator with an Application to School District Consolidation.” Journal of Public Economics93:752–65.
HallerEmil J.MonkDavid H.. 1988. “New Reforms, Old Reforms, and the Consolidation of Small Rural Schools.” Educational Administration Quarterly24:470–83.
18.
HeckmanJamesIchimuraHidehikoToddPetra. 1997. “Matching as an Econometric Evaluation Estimator: Evidence from Evaluating a Job Training Programme.” Review of Economic Studies64:605–54.
19.
HeinrichCarolynMaffioliAlessandroVazquezGonzalo. 2010. “A Primer for Applying Propensity-Score Matching.” Technical Notes No. IDB-TN-161, Inter-American Development Bank.
20.
HoDaniel E.ImaiKosukeKingGaryStuartElizabeth A.. 2007. “Matching as Nonparametric Preprocessing for Reducing Model Dependence in Parametric Causal Inference.” Political Analysis15:199–236.
21.
HuYueYingerJohn. 2008. “The Impact of School District Consolidation on Housing Prices.” National Tax Journal61:609–34.
22.
HuangYao. 2004. “Appendix B: A Guide to State Operating Aid Programs for Elementary and Secondary Education.” In Helping Children Left Behind: State Aid and the Pursuit of Educational Equity, edited by YingerJohn, 331–52. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
23.
KennyLawrence. 1982. “Economies of Scale in Schooling.” Economics of Education Review2:1–24.
24.
LeuvenEdwinSianesiBarbara. 2003. “PSMATCH2: Stata Module to Perform Full Mahalanobis and Propensity Score Matching, Common Support Graphing, and Covariate Imbalance Testing.” Accessed January 31, 2013. http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s432001.html.
25.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2001. Public School Finance Programs of the United States and Canada: 1998-99. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.
NCES (National Center for Education Statistics). 2011. Numbers and Types of Public Elementary and Secondary Local Education Agencies from the Common Core of Data: School Year 2009-10. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, NCES.
28.
Nguyen-HoangPhuongYingerJohn. 2011. “The Capitalization of School Quality into House Values: A Review.” Journal of Housing Economics20:30–48.
SianesiBarbara. 2004. “An Evaluation of the Swedish System of Active Labor Market Programs in the 1990s.” The Review of Economics and Statistics86:133–55.
32.
SteinerPeterCookDavid. 2013. “Matching and Propensity Scores.” In The Oxford Handbook of Quantitative Methods, Volume 1, edited by LittleTodd D.. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
33.
StuartElizabeth A.RubinDonald B.. 2007. “Best Practices in Quasi-experimental Designs: Matching Methods for Causal Inference.” In Best Practices in Quantitative Social Science, edited by OsborneJason, 155–176. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
34.
StuartElizabeth A.RubinDonald B.. 2008. “Matching with Multiple Control Groups and Adjusting for Group Differences.” Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics33:279–306.
