IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ucr/wpaper/201615.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Low Track: Revisiting the Kenyan Primary School Experiment

Author

Listed:
  • Joseph Cummins

    (Department of Economics, University of California Riverside)

Abstract

I present results from a partial re-analysis of the Kenyan school tracking experiment first described in Duflo et. al (2011). My results suggest that, in a developing country school system with state-employed teachers, tracking can reduce short-run test scores of initially low-ability students with high learning potential. The highest scoring students subjected only to the tracking intervention scored well below comparable students in untracked classrooms at the end of the intervention. In contrast, students assigned to tracking under the experimental alternative teacher intervention experienced gains from tracking that increased across the outcome distribution. These alternative teachers were drawn from local areas, exhibited significantly higher effort levels and faced different incentives to produce learning. I conclude that although Pareto-improvements in test scores from tracking are possible, they are not guaranteed.

Suggested Citation

  • Joseph Cummins, 2016. "Heterogeneous Treatment Effects in the Low Track: Revisiting the Kenyan Primary School Experiment," Working Papers 201615, University of California at Riverside, Department of Economics.
  • Handle: RePEc:ucr:wpaper:201615
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://economics.ucr.edu/repec/ucr/wpaper/201615.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2016
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Marianne P. Bitler & Jonah B. Gelbach & Hilary W. Hoynes, 2006. "What Mean Impacts Miss: Distributional Effects of Welfare Reform Experiments," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 96(4), pages 988-1012, September.
    2. Nazmul Chaudhury & Jeffrey Hammer & Michael Kremer & Karthik Muralidharan & F. Halsey Rogers, 2006. "Missing in Action: Teacher and Health Worker Absence in Developing Countries," Journal of Economic Perspectives, American Economic Association, vol. 20(1), pages 91-116, Winter.
    3. James J. Heckman & Jeffrey Smith & Nancy Clements, 1997. "Making The Most Out Of Programme Evaluations and Social Experiments: Accounting For Heterogeneity in Programme Impacts," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 64(4), pages 487-535.
    4. Duflo, Esther & Dupas, Pascaline & Kremer, Michael, 2015. "School governance, teacher incentives, and pupil–teacher ratios: Experimental evidence from Kenyan primary schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 123(C), pages 92-110.
    5. Parente Paulo M.D.C. & Santos Silva João M.C., 2016. "Quantile Regression with Clustered Data," Journal of Econometric Methods, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 1-15, January.
    6. Esther Duflo & Pascaline Dupas & Michael Kremer, 2011. "Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1739-1774, August.
    7. Laura M. Argys & Daniel I. Rees & Dominic J. Brewer, 1996. "Detracking America's schools: Equity at zero cost?," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 15(4), pages 623-645.
    8. Marianne P. Bitler & Hilary W. Hoynes & Thurston Domina, 2014. "Experimental Evidence on Distributional Effects of Head Start," NBER Working Papers 20434, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Figlio, David N. & Page, Marianne E., 2002. "School Choice and the Distributional Effects of Ability Tracking: Does Separation Increase Inequality?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 51(3), pages 497-514, May.
    10. Michael Kremer & Edward Miguel & Rebecca Thornton, 2009. "Incentives to Learn," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 91(3), pages 437-456, August.
    11. Roland G. Fryer & Steven D. Levitt, 2006. "The Black-White Test Score Gap Through Third Grade," American Law and Economics Review, American Law and Economics Association, vol. 8(2), pages 249-281.
    12. Epple, Dennis & Newlon, Elizabeth & Romano, Richard, 2002. "Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational benefits," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 83(1), pages 1-48, January.
    13. Eide, Eric & Showalter, Mark H., 1998. "The effect of school quality on student performance: A quantile regression approach," Economics Letters, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 345-350, March.
    14. Scott E. Carrell & Bruce I. Sacerdote & James E. West, 2013. "From Natural Variation to Optimal Policy? The Importance of Endogenous Peer Group Formation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 81(3), pages 855-882, May.
    15. Koenker, Roger W & Bassett, Gilbert, Jr, 1978. "Regression Quantiles," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 46(1), pages 33-50, January.
    16. Cristian Pop-Eleches & Miguel Urquiola, 2013. "Going to a Better School: Effects and Behavioral Responses," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 103(4), pages 1289-1324, June.
    17. Betts, Julian R. & Shkolnik, Jamie L., 1999. "The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-15, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Olivier De Groote & Koen Declercq, 2021. "Tracking and specialization of high schools: Heterogeneous effects of school choice," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 36(7), pages 898-916, November.
    2. Brown, Annette N. & Wood, Benjamin Douglas Kuflick, 2018. "Which tests not witch hunts: A diagnostic approach for conducting replication research," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 12, pages 1-26.
    3. Erik O. Kimbrough & Andrew D. McGee & Hitoshi Shigeoka, 2022. "How Do Peers Impact Learning? An Experimental Investigation of Peer-to-Peer Teaching and Ability Tracking," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 57(1), pages 304-339.
    4. Roller, Marcus & Steinberg, Daniel, 2020. "The distributional effects of early school stratification - non-parametric evidence from Germany," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 125(C).
    5. Lazaretti, Lauana Rossetto & França, Marco Túlio Aniceto, 2023. "Does admission type matter? An analysis of the performance of federal high school students in Brazil," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 897-912.
    6. Delprato, Marcos & Akyeampong, Kwame, 2019. "The effect of working on students’ learning in Latin America: Evidence from the learning survey TERCE," International Journal of Educational Development, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 1-1.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Ahn, Taehyun & Goh, Young-Geun, 2021. "The long-term influences of ability mixing on soft skills," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 191(C), pages 367-386.
    2. Christopher Belfield & Imran Rasul, 2020. "Cognitive and Non‐Cognitive Impacts of High‐Ability Peers in Early Years," Fiscal Studies, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 41(1), pages 65-100, March.
    3. Betts, Julian R., 2011. "The Economics of Tracking in Education," Handbook of the Economics of Education, in: Erik Hanushek & Stephen Machin & Ludger Woessmann (ed.), Handbook of the Economics of Education, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 7, pages 341-381, Elsevier.
    4. de Gendre, Alexandra & Salamanca, Nicolás, 2020. "On the Mechanisms of Ability Peer Effects," IZA Discussion Papers 13938, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    5. Sabrin Beg & Waqas Halim & Adrienne M. Lucas & Umar Saif, 2022. "Engaging Teachers with Technology Increased Achievement, Bypassing Teachers Did Not," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 14(2), pages 61-90, May.
    6. Bertoni, Marco & Nisticò, Roberto, 2023. "Ordinal rank and the structure of ability peer effects," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 217(C).
    7. Pedro Carneiro & Sokbae Lee & Daniel Wilhelm, 2020. "Optimal data collection for randomized control trials [Microcredit impacts: Evidence from a randomized microcredit program placement experiment by Compartamos Banco]," The Econometrics Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 23(1), pages 1-31.
    8. Mary A. Burke & Tim R. Sass, 2013. "Classroom Peer Effects and Student Achievement," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 31(1), pages 51-82.
    9. Balestra, Simone & Backes-Gellner, Uschi, 2017. "Heterogeneous returns to education over the wage distribution: Who profits the most?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 89-105.
    10. Djebbari, Habiba & Smith, Jeffrey, 2008. "Heterogeneous impacts in PROGRESA," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 145(1-2), pages 64-80, July.
    11. Miller, Luke C. & Mittleman, Joel, 2012. "High Schools That Work and college preparedness: Measuring the model's impact on mathematics and science pipeline progression," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 31(6), pages 1116-1135.
    12. Nina Guyon & Eric Maurin & Sandra McNally, 2012. "The Effect of Tracking Students by Ability into Different Schools: A Natural Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 47(3), pages 684-721.
    13. Hartley, Robert Paul & Lamarche, Carlos, 2018. "Behavioral responses and welfare reform: Evidence from a randomized experiment," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(C), pages 135-151.
    14. Luis Beccaria & Pablo Alfredo Gluzmann, 2013. "Medición de los Ingresos y la Pobreza Oficial en América Latina y el Caribe," CEDLAS, Working Papers 0148, CEDLAS, Universidad Nacional de La Plata.
    15. Ahmet Alkan & Sinan Sarpça & Sinan Sarpca, 2023. "Effects of High-Achieving Peers: Findings from a National High School Assignment System," CESifo Working Paper Series 10794, CESifo.
    16. Heather Antecol & Ozkan Eren & Serkan Ozbeklik, 2016. "Peer Effects in Disadvantaged Primary Schools: Evidence from a Randomized Experiment," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(1), pages 95-132.
    17. Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Wössmann, 2006. "Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality? Differences- in-Differences Evidence Across Countries," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 116(510), pages 63-76, March.
    18. David Card & Laura Giuliano, 2016. "Can Tracking Raise the Test Scores of High-Ability Minority Students?," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(10), pages 2783-2816, October.
    19. Gamper-Rabindran, Shanti & Khan, Shakeeb & Timmins, Christopher, 2010. "The impact of piped water provision on infant mortality in Brazil: A quantile panel data approach," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 92(2), pages 188-200, July.
    20. Miguel Urquiola, 2015. "Progress and challenges in achieving an evidence-based education policy in Latin America and the Caribbean," Latin American Economic Review, Springer;Centro de Investigaciòn y Docencia Económica (CIDE), vol. 24(1), pages 1-30, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ability tracking; human capital; economic development;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • I21 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Education - - - Analysis of Education
    • J45 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Particular Labor Markets - - - Public Sector Labor Markets
    • O15 - Economic Development, Innovation, Technological Change, and Growth - - Economic Development - - - Economic Development: Human Resources; Human Development; Income Distribution; Migration

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ucr:wpaper:201615. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kelvin Mac (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/deucrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.