Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

School districts are traditionally subject to a variety of state regulations on educational inputs. Absent regulations, policymakers fear that districts will make inappropriate decisions. However, it is also possible that regulations hinder schools from optimizing student learning. This article tests the salience of these hypotheses by estimating the impact of the Texas District of Innovation statute, which allows districts to opt out of regulations on inputs like teacher certification and class sizes. Using web-scraped implementation data, I document widespread exemptions and variation in regulatory preferences. However, staggered difference-in-differences analyses demonstrate a limited impact of deregulation within 4 years, suggesting that deregulation alone is a relatively weak lever for spurring innovation and changing the state of education.

Keywords

economics of education educational policy educational reform governance quasi-experimental analysis econometric analysis

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdulkadiroǧlu

Angrist

J. D.

Dynarski

S. M.

Kane

T. J.

Pathak

P. A.

(2011). Accountability and flexibility in public schools: Evidence from Boston’s charters and pilots. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 126(2), 699–748. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjr017

Anglin

K. L.

(2019). Gather-narrow-extract: A framework for studying local policy variation using web-scraping and natural language processing. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 685–706. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1654576

Angrist

J. D.

Dynarski

S. M.

Kane

T. J.

Pathak

P. A.

Walters

C. R.

(2010). Inputs and impacts in charter schools: KIPP lynn. American Economic Review, 100(2), 239–243. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.239

Angrist

J. D.

Pathak

P. A.

Walters

C. R.

(2013). Explaining charter school effectiveness. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 1–27. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.1

Baude

P. L.

Casey

Hanushek

E. A.

Phelan

G. R.

Rivkin

S. G.

(2020). The evolution of charter school quality. Economica, 87(345), 158–189. https://doi.org/10.1111/ecca.12299

Boyd

Grossman

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2006). How changes in entry requirements alter the teacher workforce and affect student achievement. Education Finance and Policy, 1(2), 176–216. https://doi.org/10.1162/edfp.2006.1.2.176

Bruhn

J. M.

Imberman

S. A.

Winters

M. A.

(2020). Regulatory arbitrage in teacher hiring and retention: Evidence from Massachusetts charter schools. National Bureau of Economic Research.

Callaway

Sant’Anna

P. H. C.

(2020). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 200–230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2020.12.001

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024004305

10.

Chabrier

Cohodes

Oreopoulos

(2016). What can we learn from charter school lotteries? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 30(3), 57–84. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.30.3.57

11.

Chingos

M. M.

West

M. R.

(2015). The uneven performance of Arizona’s charter schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37(1S), 120S–134S.

12.

Cohen

D. K.

Spillane

J. P.

Peurach

D. J.

(2017). The dilemmas of educational reform. Educational Researcher, 47(3), 204–212. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X17743488

13.

Cohodes

(2018). Charter schools and the achievement gap [The future of children, policy]. https://futureofchildren.princeton.edu/sites/g/files/toruqf2411/files/resource-links/charter_schools_compiled.pdf

14.

Cohodes

S. R.

Parham

K. S.

(2021). Charter schools’ effectiveness, mechanisms, and competitive influence. https://blueprintlabs.mit.edu/research/charter-schools-effectiveness-mechanisms-and-competitive-influence/

15.

Darling-Hammond

Berry

(2006). Highly qualified teachers for all. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 14–20.

16.

Dee

Jacob

Hoxby

Ladd

H. F.

(2010). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 41, 149–207.

17.

Deephouse

D. L.

Bundy

Tost

L. P.

Suchman

M. C.

(2017). Organizational legitimacy: Six key questions. The SAGE Handbook of Organizational Institutionalism, 4(2), 27–54.

18.

Dobbie

Fryer

R. G.

(2013). Getting beneath the veil of effective schools: Evidence from New York city. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 5(4), 28–60. https://doi.org/10.1257/app.5.4.28

19.

Dobbie

Fryer

R. G.

(2020). Charter schools and labor market outcomes. Journal of Labor Economics, 38(4), 915–957. https://doi.org/10.1086/706534

20.

Education Code Chapter 21 Educators. (n.d.). TEC 21.003. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.21.htm

21.

Education Code Chapter 25 Admission, Transfer and Attendence. (n.d.). TEC 25.112. https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/ED/htm/ED.25.htm

22.

Education Commission of the States. (2005). State class-size reduction measures.

23.

Education Commission of the States. (2017). Teacher license reciprocity: All data points for all states.

24.

Education Commission of the States. (2018). 50 state comparison: Charter school policies.

25.

Education Commission of the States. (2019). 50-state comparison: Minimum number of days or hours per school year.

26.

Elmore

R. F.

Fuhrman

(1995). Opportunity to learn and the state role in education. https://ncela.ed.gov/files/rcd/BE022357/Opportunity_to_Learn.pdf

27.

Fesler

Dee

Baker

Evans

(2019). Text as data methods for education research. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 12(4), 707–727. https://doi.org/10.1080/19345747.2019.1634168

28.

Figlio

Loeb

(2011). School accountability. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin & L. Woessman (Eds.) Handbook of the economics of education (3rd ed., pp. 343–421). Elsevier. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9

29.

Fryer

R. G.

(2014). Injecting charter school best practices into traditional public schools: Evidence from field experiments. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 162(2), 1355–1407. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qju011

30.

Fuhrman

S. H.

Elmore

R. F.

(1995). Ruling out rules: The evolution of deregulation in state education policy. Consortium for Policy Research in Education, 708(2), 1–34.

31.

Fuller

Marsh

J. A.

Stecher

B. M.

Timar

(2011). Deregulating school aid in California: How 10 districts responded to fiscal flexibility, 2009–2010 [Research report number 2]. RAND Corporation.

32.

Goodman-Bacon

(2021). Difference-in-difference with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2021.03.014

33.

Hammerstein

König

Dreisörner

Frey

(2021). Effects of COVID-19-related school closures on student achievement-a systematic review. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, Article 4020.

34.

Hanushek

E. A.

(1986). The economics of schooling: Production and efficiency in public schools. Journal of Economic Literature, 24(3), 1141–1177. https://doi.org/10.2307/2725865

35.

Hanushek

E. A.

(1996). Outcomes, costs, and incentives in schools. In Hanushek

E. A.

Jorgenson

D. W.

(Eds.), Improving America’s schools: The role of incentives (pp. 29–52). National Academic Press.

36.

Hanushek

E. A.

(2003). The failure of input-based schooling policies. The Economic Journal, 113, F64–F98.

37.

Honnibal

(2017). SpaCy: Industrial-strength natural language processing in Python. https://spacy.io/

38.

Jennings

J. L.

Deming

Jencks

Lopuch

Schueler

B. E.

(2015). Do differences in school quality matter more than we thought? New evidence on educational opportunity in the twenty-first century. Sociology of Education, 88(1), 56–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0038040714562006

39.

Kane

Rockoff

Staiger

(2008). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York city. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615–631. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.05.005

40.

King

Ozler

(1998). What’s decentralization got to do with learning: The case of Nicaragua’s school autonomy reform [Research paper]. World Bank.

41.

Kuhfeld

Soland

Tarasawa

Johnson

Ruzek

Liu

(2020). Projecting the potential impact of COVID-19 school closures on academic achievement. Educational Researcher, 49(8), 549–565.

42.

Landers

R. N.

Brusso

R. C.

Cavanaugh

K. J.

Collmus

A. B.

(2016). A primer on theory-driven web scraping: Automatic extraction of big data from the internet for use in psychological research. Psychological Methods, 21(4), 475–492. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000081

43.

Lankford

Loeb

Wyckoff

(2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A descriptive analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 37–62. https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737024001037

44.

Lubienski

(2003). Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443. https://doi.org/10.3102/00028312040002395

45.

Moe

T. M.

(2003). Politics, control and the future of school accountability. In Peterson

P. E.

West

M. R.

(Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 80–106). Brookings Institution Press.

46.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2019). Public charter school enrollment. U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.

47.

Preston

Goldring

Berends

Cannata

(2012). School innovation in district context: Comparing traditional public schools and charter schools. Economics of Education Review, 31(2), 318–330. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.07.016

48.

Texas American Federation of Teachers. (2021, April 1). HFT members and allies defeat district of innovation plan. https://www.texasaft.org/membership/local/houstonsupport/hft-members-and-allies-defeat-district-of-innovation-plan/

49.

Texas Classroom Teachers Association. (2017). Districts of innovation: The reality. Texas Classroom Teachers Association. https://tcta.org/node/14394-districts_of_innovation_the_reality

50.

Texas Education Agency. (2022, August 4). Every Student Succeeds Act. Texas Education Agency. https://tea.texas.gov/about-tea/laws-and-rules/essa/every-student-succeeds-act

51.

Wöbmann

Lüdemann

Schütz

West

M. R.

(2007). School accountability, autonomy, choice, and the level of student achievement. https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/content/paper/246402531617

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.

0.00 MB

0.92 MB

The Role of State Education Regulation: Evidence From the Texas Districts of Innovation Statute

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material