Cost studies are program evaluations that judge program worth by relating program costs to program benefits. There are three sets of strategies: cost—benefit, cost-effectiveness, and cost-utility analysis, although the last appears infrequently. The authors searched relevant databases to identify 103 cost studies in education and then reduced the set to 31 using criteria focused on rigor in determining program effects and assessment of costs. They found that cost studies provide evidence of the worth of educational spending at the macro and individual program levels, information that is not provided by other evaluation approaches; provide direction for program improvement that differs from recommendations based solely on effect sizes; and contribute to knowledge development by constructing and testing models that link spending to student learning.
Balfanz, R., MacIver, D.J., & Byrnes, V. (2006). The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site, multi-year study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 33—64.
2.
Barnett, W.S. (1985). Benefit-cost analysis of the Perry Preschool Program and its policy implications. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7(4), 333—342.
3.
Barnett, W.S. (1992). Benefits of compensatory preschool education. Journal of Human Resources, 27(2), 279—312.
4.
Barnett, W.S. (1993). Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry , 63(4), 500—508.
5.
Barnett, W.S. (1995) Long-term effects of early childhood programs on cognitive and school outcomes. Long-term Outcomes of Early Childhood Programs , The Future of Children, 5, 25—50.
6.
Berhman, J.R., & Birdsall, N. (1983). The quality of schooling: Quantity alone is misleading . American Economic Review, 73(5), 928—946.
7.
Borman, G.D., & Hewes, G.M. (2002). The long-term effects and cost-effectiveness of Success For All. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24(2), 243—266.
8.
Card, D., & Krueger, A.B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and characteristics of public schools in the US. Journal of Political Economy, 100, 1—40.
9.
Coleman, P. (1986). The good school district: A critical examination of the adequacy of student achievement and per pupil expenditures as measures of school district effectiveness. Journal of Education Finance , 12(1), 71—96.
10.
Creemers, B., & van der Werf, G. (2000). Economic viewpoints in educational effectiveness: Cost-effectiveness analysis of an educational improvement project. School E fectiveness and School Improvement, 11(3), 361—384.
11.
Cronbach, L. (1982). Designing evaluations of educational and social programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass .
12.
Dolan, R.C., & Schmidt, R.M. (1987). Assessing the impact of expenditure on achievement: Some methodological and policy considerations. Economics of Education Review, 6(3), 285—299.
13.
Elliott, M. (1998). School finance and opportunities to learn: Does money well spent enhance students' achievement?Sociology of Education, 71(3), 223—245.
14.
Fielding, A. (1995). Institutional disparities in the cost-effectiveness of GCE “A” level provision: A multilevel approach. Education Economics, 3, 12—36.
15.
Fielding, A. (1998). Perspectives on performance indicators: GCE advanced level and differences between institution types in cost-effectiveness. School E fectiveness and School Improvement, 9, 218—231.
16.
Figlio, D.N. (1999). Functional form and the estimated effects of school resources. Economics of Education Review, 18, 241—252.
17.
Finn, J.D., Gerber, S.B., Achilles, C.M., & Boyd-Zaharias, J. (2001). The enduring effects of small classes. Teachers College Record, 103(2), 145—183.
18.
Fiszbein, A., & Psachropoulos, G. (1993). A cost-benefit analysis of educational investment in Venezuela: 1989 update. Economics of Education Review, 12(4), 293—298.
19.
Flanigan, J.L., Marion, R.A., & Richardson, M.D. (1997). Causal and temporal analyses of increased funding on student achievement. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 30, 222—247.
20.
Fletcher, J.D., Hawley, D.E., & Piele, P.K. (1990). Costs, effects, and utility of microcomputer-assisted instruction in the classroom. American Educational Research Journal, 27(4), 783—806.
21.
Geski, T.G., & Zuelke, D.C. (1982). Cost-effectiveness analysis: A practical tool for educational planning and changing. Planning and Changing , 13(1), 3—10.
22.
Greenwald, R., Hedges, L., & Laine, R. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement . Review of Educational Research, 66(3), 361—396.
23.
Hansen, W.L. (1963). Total and private returns to investment in schooling . Journal of Political Economy, 71, 128—140.
24.
Hanushek, E.A. (1997). Assessing the effects of school resources on student performance: An update. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(2), 141—164.
25.
Harter, E.A. (1999). How educational expenditures relate to student achievement. Insights from Texas elementary schools. Journal of Education Finance, 24(3), 281—302.
Huang, G.G., & Yu, B. (2002). District fiscal policy and student achievement: Evidence form combined NAEP-CCD data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(38), Retrieved on January 11, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n38/
28.
Hummel-Rossi, B., & Ashdown, J. (2002). The state of cost-benefit and cost-effectiveness analyses in education. Review of Educational Research, 72(1), 1—30.
29.
Hy, R.J. (2000). Education is an investment: A case study. Journal of Education Finance, 26(2), 209—218.
30.
Ilon, L. (2004). Cost-effectiveness of government inputs to schooling: technical and policy contexts. Compare, 34(1), 87—101.
31.
Kim, J.S., & Sunderman, G.L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3—13.
32.
Knapp, T.R., & Knapp, L.T. (1990). A benefit-cost analysis of New York State's “Bundy Aid” program. Economics of Education Review, 9, 31—37.
33.
Krueger, A.B. (2003). Economic considerations and class size. Economic Journal, 113(485), F34-F63.
34.
Levin, H.M. (1983). Cost analysis. A primer. London : Sage.
35.
Levin, H.M. (2001). Waiting for Godot: Cost-effectiveness analysis in education. New Direction for ProgramEvaluation, 90, 55—68.
36.
Levin, H.M., Glass, G., & Meister, G. (1987). A cost-effectiveness analysis of computer-assisted instruction. Evaluation Review, 11, 50—72.
Lewis, D.R. (1990). Estimating the economic worth of a 5th-year licensure program for teachers. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 12, 25—39.
39.
Lewis, D.R., Bruininks, R.H., & Thurlow, M. (1988). Using benefit-cost analysis in special education . Exceptional Children, 55(3), 203—214.
40.
Lewis, D.R., Stockdill, S.J., & Turner, T.C. (1990). Cost-effectiveness of micro-computers in adult basic reading. Adult Literacy and BasicEducation, 14(2), 176—189.
41.
Lopez-Acevedo, G. (2003). A reassessment of technical education in Mexico. Journal of Career and TechnicalEducation, 19, 59—81.
42.
Monk, D.H., & King, J.A. (1993). Cost analysis as a tool for education reform. In S. L. Jacobson & R. Berne (Eds.), Reforming education: The emerging systemic approach (pp. 131—152). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
43.
Nas, T. (1996). Cost-benefit analysis: Theory and application . Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Nye, B., Hedges, L.V., & Kostantopoulos, L. (2000). The effects of small classes on academic achievement: The results of the Tennessee class size experiment . American Educational Research Journal, 37(1), 123—152.
45.
Patton, M. (1997). Utilization-focused evaluation: The new century text. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Posavac, E., & Carey, R. (2007). Program evaluation: Methods and case studies (7th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
47.
Quinn, B., van Mondfrans, A., & Worthen, B.R. (1984). Cost-effectiveness of two math programs as moderated by pupil SES. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 6(1), 39—52.
48.
Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Boston : Belknap Press of Harvard University.
Schweinhart, L.J. (n.d.). The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 40: Summary, conclusions, and frequently asked questions (Monographs of the High/Scope Educational Research Foundation). Ypsilanti, MI: High Scope Press.
51.
Slavin, R.E. (1987). Best-evidence synthesis: Why less is more. Educational Researcher, 16(4), 15—16.
52.
Slavin, R.E. (2002). Evidence-based education policies: Transforming educational practice and research. Educational Researcher , 31(7), 15—21.
53.
Stecher, B., Bohrnstedt, G., Kirst, M., McRobbie, J., & Williams, T. (2001). Class-size reduction in California: A story of hope, promise, and unintended consequences. Phi Delta Kappan,82(9), 670—674.
54.
Stern, D., Dayton, C., Paik, I.-W., & Weisberg, A. (1989). Benefits and costs of dropout prevention in a high school program combining academic and vocational education: Third-year results from replications of the California Peninsula Academics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11, 405—416.
55.
Toh, M.H., & Wong, C.S. (1999). Rates of return to education in Singapore. Education Economics, 7, 235—252.
56.
Tsang, M.C. (1997). Cost analysis for improved educational policymaking and evaluation. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 19(4), 318—324.
57.
Verstegen, D.A., & King, R.A. (1998). The relationship between school spending and student achievement: A review and analysis of 35 years of production function research . Journal of Education Finance, 24(2), 243—262.
58.
Wenglinsky, H. (1997). How money matters: The effect of school district spending on academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 70(3), 221—237.
59.
What Works Clearinghouse. (n.d.). WWC Study Review Standards Revised September 2006. Retrieved April 19, 2007, from http://www.whatworks.ed.gov/reviewprocess/study_standards_final.pdf .
60.
Wortman, P. (1994). Judging research quality. In H. Cooper & L. Hedges (Eds.), The handbook of research synthesis (pp. 98—109). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
61.
Wortman, P. (1995). An exemplary evaluation of a program that worked: The High/Scope Perry Preschool Project. Evaluation Practice , 16(3), 257—265.
