Few interventions reduce inequality in reading achievement, let alone higher-order thinking skills, among adolescents. We study policy debate—an extracurricular activity focused on improving middle and high schoolers’ critical thinking, argumentation, and policy analysis skills—in Boston schools serving large concentrations of economically disadvantaged students of color. Student fixed effects estimates show debate had positive impacts on English Language Arts (ELA) test scores of 0.13 SD, equivalent to 68% of a full year of average ninth-grade learning. Gains were concentrated on analytical more than rote subskills. We find no harm to math, attendance, or disciplinary records, and evidence of positive effects on high school graduation and postsecondary enrollment. Impacts were largest among students who were lowest achieving prior to joining debate.
AndersonS.MezukB. (2012). Participating in a policy debate program and academic achievement among at-risk adolescents in an urban public school district: 1997-2007. Journal of Adolescence, 35(5), 1225–1235.
2.
BackesB.CowanJ. (2019). Is the pen mightier than the keyboard? The effect of online testing on measured student achievement. Economics of Education Review, 68, 89–103.
3.
BaileyM.DynarskiS. (2011). Inequality in postsecondary education. In DuncanG.MurnaneR. (Eds.), Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 117–132). Russell Sage Foundation.
4.
BakerA. C.LarkerD. F.WangC. C. Y. (2022). How much should we trust staggered difference-in-differences estimates?Journal of Financial Economics, 144, 370–395.
BurgessS.RawalS.TaylorE. (2022). Teachers’ use of class time and student achievement (EdWorkingPaper 22-685). Annenberg Institute, Brown University.
7.
CallawayB.Sant’AnnaP. C. H. (2021). Difference-in-differences with multiple time periods. Journal of Econometrics, 225, 200–230.
8.
CarneiroP.HeckmanJ. (2003). Human capital policy. In HeckmanJ. J.KruegerA. B. (Eds.), Inequality in America: What role for human capital policies? (pp. 77–240). MIT Press.
ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfoeuilleX. (2018). Fuzzy differences-in-differences. The Review of Economic Studies, 85(2), 999–1028.
11.
ChaisemartinC.D’HaultfoeuilleX. (2021). Two-way fixed effects estimators with heterogenous treatment effects. American Economic Review, 110(9), 2964–2996.
12.
ChettyR.FriedmanJ. N.SaezE.TurnerN.YaganD. (2017). Mobility report cards: The role of colleges in intergenerational mobility (NBER Working Paper No. 23618). https://www.nber.org/papers/w23618
13.
ColemanJ. S. (1959). Academic achievement and the structure of competition. Harvard Educational Review, 29, 330–351.
14.
ColemanJ. S. (1961). The adolescent society. Free Press of Glencoe.
15.
CookJ. H.DodgeK.FarkasG.FryerR. G.GuryanJ.LudwigJ.MayerS.PollackH.SteinbergL. (2014). The (surprising) efficacy of academic and behavioral intervention with disadvantaged youth: Results from a randomized experiment in Chicago (NBER Working Paper No. 19862). https://www.nber.org/papers/w19862
16.
CrispinL. M. (2017). Extracurricular participation, “at-risk” status, and the high school dropout decision. Education Finance and Policy, 12(2), 166–196.
17.
CuffeH.WaddellG.BignellW. (2017). Can school sports reduce racial gaps in truancy and achievement?”Economic Inquiry, 55(4), 1966–1985.
18.
DuncanG.MurnaneR. (2011). Introduction: The American dream, then and now. In DuncanG.MurnaneR. (Eds.), Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 3–23). Russell Sage Foundation.
FeisterL. (2013). Early warning confirmed: A research update on third-grade reading. Annie E. Casey Foundation.
21.
FredricksJ.SimpkinsS. (2012). Promoting positive youth development through organized after-school activities. Child Development Perspectives, 6(3), 280–287.
22.
Goodman-BaconA. (2021). Difference-in-differences with variation in treatment timing. Journal of Econometrics, 225(2), 254–277.
23.
HanushekE.PetersonP.TalpeyL.WoessmannL. (2020). Long-run trends in the U.S. SES-achievement Gap (NBER Working Paper No. 26764). https://www.nber.org/papers/w26764
JacquesE. T.BaschC. H.FeraJ.BaschC. E. (2022). Debate in public versus independent secondary schools in New York City. Journal of Community Health, 47, 745–749.
27.
JochimA. (2016). The politics of the Common Core assessments. Education Next, 16(4), 44–52.
JohnsonD. W.MaruyamaG.JohnsonR.NelsonD.SkonL. (1981). Effects of cooperative, competitive, and individualistic goal structures on achievement: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 89, 47–62.
30.
KidronY.LindsayJ. (2014). The effects of increased learning time on student academic and nonacademic outcomes: Findings from a meta-analytic review. American Institutes for Research.
31.
KoT.MezukB. (2021). Debate participation and academic achievement among high school students in the Houston Independent School District: 2012–2015. Educational Research and Reviews, 16(6), 219–225.
32.
KraftM. (2015). How to make additional time matter: Extending the school day for individualized tutorials. Education Finance and Policy, 10(1), 81–116.
LipscombS. (2007). Secondary school extracurricular involvement and academic achievement: A fixed effect approach. Economics of Education Review, 26(4), 463–472.
35.
LitanR. (2018). A counterintuitive proposal for improving education and healing America: Debate-centered instruction. The Brookings Institution.
36.
MehtaJ.FineS. (2019). In search of deeper learning: The quest to remake the American high school. Harvard University Press.
37.
MezukB. (2009). Urban debate and high school educational outcomes for African American males: The case of the Chicago debate league. The Journal of Negro Education, 78(3), 290–304.
38.
MezukB.BondarenkoI.SmithS.TuckerE. (2011). Impact of participating in a policy debate program on academic achievement. Educational Research and Reviews, 6(9), 622–635.
39.
MitchellG. (1998). Pedagogical possibilities for argumentative agency in academic debate. Argumentation and Advocacy, 35, 41–60.
OreopoulosP.SalvanesK. G. (2011). Priceless: The nonpecuniary benefits of schooling. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 25(1), 159–184.
45.
PedersenS. (2005). Urban adolescents’ out-of-school activity profiles: Associations with youth, family, and school transition characteristics. Applied Developmental Science, 9(2), 107–127.
46.
QuinnJ. (1999). Where need meets opportunity. The Future of Children, 9(2), 96–116.
47.
ReardonS. (2011). The widening academic achievement gap between the rich and the poor. In DuncanG.MurnaneR. (Eds.), Whither opportunity: Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 91–116). Russell Sage Foundation.
48.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (2015). Research, Eval-uation and Assessment, 2014-15 Urban Debate League MPS Evaluation [Unpublished Report].
49.
ShackelfordD. (2019). The BUDL effect: Examining academic engagement outcomes of preadolescent Baltimore Urban Debate League participants. Educational Researcher, 48(3), 145–157.
50.
ShackelfordT. D.ScottR. M.MezukB. (2019). Participating in a high school debate program and college matriculation and completion: Evidence from the Chicago Debate League. Educational Research and Reviews, 14(11), 397–409.
51.
SlavinR. E. (1980). Cooperative learning. Review of Educational Research, 50(2), 315–342.
52.
SlavinR. E. (1983). When does cooperative learning increase student achievement?Psychological Bulletin, 94, 429–445.
53.
StevensonB. (2010). Beyond the classroom: Using Title IX to measure the return to high school sports. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 284–301.
54.
SunL.AbrahamS. (2021). Estimating dynamic treatment effects in event studies with heterogeneous treatment effects. Journal of Econometrics, 225, 175–199.
WestM.LakeR. (2021). How much have students missed academically because of the pandemic? A review of the evidence to date. Center for Reinventing Public Education.
57.
WinklerC.FortnerK. (2014). Boston Debate League results 2008-2012 [Unpublished Internal Report].
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.
