IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/b/zbw/zewexp/223254.html
   My bibliography  Save this book

The implication of school admission rules for segregation and educational inequality: Research report

Author

Listed:
  • Aue, Robert
  • Bach, Maximilian
  • Heigle, Julia
  • Klein, Thilo
  • Pfeiffer, Friedhelm
  • Zapp, Kristina

Abstract

In this research project we investigate how the design of school assignment rules affects social segregation and its implications for social inequality. The context of our study is the Hungarian school system, which is characterized by early ability tracking combined with a centralized assignment mechanism based on the student-proposing deferred-acceptance algorithm. The project is split into three interrelated parts. First, we investigate the different factors that affect social segregation through the school assignment process. Second, we analyze how segregation resulting through school assignments affects inequality in student achievement. In a final step, we plan to combine insights from the first two parts in a counterfactual analysis to evaluate different assignment rules.

Suggested Citation

  • Aue, Robert & Bach, Maximilian & Heigle, Julia & Klein, Thilo & Pfeiffer, Friedhelm & Zapp, Kristina, 2020. "The implication of school admission rules for segregation and educational inequality: Research report," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 223254, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:zbw:zewexp:223254
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/223254/1/1727558146.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Gabrielle Fack & Julien Grenet & Yinghua He, 2019. "Beyond Truth-Telling: Preference Estimation with Centralized School Choice and College Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1486-1529, April.
    2. Will Dobbie & Roland G. Fryer, Jr., 2011. "Exam High Schools and Academic Achievement: Evidence from New York City," NBER Working Papers 17286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    3. Atı̇la Abdulkadı̇roğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag Pathak, 2022. "Breaking Ties: Regression Discontinuity Design Meets Market Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 117-151, January.
    4. Caterina Calsamiglia & Guillaume Haeringer & Flip Klijn, 2010. "Constrained School Choice: An Experimental Study," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 100(4), pages 1860-1874, September.
    5. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag A. Pathak, 2017. "Research Design Meets Market Design: Using Centralized Assignment for Impact Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1373-1432, September.
    6. Clark Damon, 2010. "Selective Schools and Academic Achievement," The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy, De Gruyter, vol. 10(1), pages 1-40, February.
    7. Yeon-Koo Che & Olivier Tercieux, 2019. "Efficiency and Stability in Large Matching Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 127(5), pages 2301-2342.
    8. Ariga, Kenn & Brunello, Giorgio, 2007. "Does Secondary School Tracking Affect Performance? Evidence from IALS," IZA Discussion Papers 2643, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    9. Gabrielle Fack & Julien Grenet & Yinghua He, 2019. "Beyond Truth-Telling: Preference Estimation with Centralized School Choice and College Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1486-1529, April.
    10. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Joshua Angrist & Parag Pathak, 2014. "The Elite Illusion: Achievement Effects at Boston and New York Exam Schools," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 82(1), pages 137-196, January.
    11. C. Kirabo Jackson, 2010. "Do Students Benefit from Attending Better Schools? Evidence from Rule-based Student Assignments in Trinidad and Tobago," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 120(549), pages 1399-1429, December.
    12. Elie Tamer, 2003. "Incomplete Simultaneous Discrete Response Model with Multiple Equilibria," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 70(1), pages 147-165.
    13. Aue, Robert & Klein, Thilo & Ortega, Josué, 2020. "What happens when separate and unequal school districts merge?," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-032, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    14. Itai Ashlagi & Yash Kanoria & Jacob D. Leshno, 2017. "Unbalanced Random Matching Markets: The Stark Effect of Competition," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 125(1), pages 69-98.
    15. Castillo, Marco & Dianat, Ahrash, 2016. "Truncation strategies in two-sided matching markets: Theory and experiment," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 98(C), pages 180-196.
    16. Akyol, Pelin & Krishna, Kala, 2017. "Preferences, selection, and value added: A structural approach," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 89-117.
    17. Giorgio Brunello & Daniele Checchi, 2007. "Does school tracking affect equality of opportunity? New international evidence [‘Educational opportunities and the role of institutions’]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 22(52), pages 782-861.
    18. Guido Imbens & Karthik Kalyanaraman, 2012. "Optimal Bandwidth Choice for the Regression Discontinuity Estimator," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 79(3), pages 933-959.
    19. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Nikhil Agarwal & Parag A. Pathak, 2017. "The Welfare Effects of Coordinated Assignment: Evidence from the New York City High School Match," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 107(12), pages 3635-3689, December.
    20. Logan, John Allen & Hoff, Peter D. & Newton, Michael A., 2008. "Two-Sided Estimation of Mate Preferences for Similarities in Age, Education, and Religion," Journal of the American Statistical Association, American Statistical Association, vol. 103, pages 559-569, June.
    21. Julie Berry Cullen & Brian A Jacob & Steven Levitt, 2006. "The Effect of School Choice on Participants: Evidence from Randomized Lotteries," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 74(5), pages 1191-1230, September.
    22. Thilo Klein & Robert Aue & Josue Ortega, 2020. "School choice with independent versus consolidated districts," Papers 2006.13209, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    23. Andreas Ammermueller, 2013. "Institutional Features of Schooling Systems and Educational Inequality: Cross-Country Evidence From PIRLS and PISA," German Economic Review, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 14(2), pages 190-213, May.
    24. Atila Abdulkadiroglu & Tayfun Sönmez, 2003. "School Choice: A Mechanism Design Approach," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 93(3), pages 729-747, June.
    25. Pierre-André Chiappori & Bernard Salanié, 2016. "The Econometrics of Matching Models," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 54(3), pages 832-861, September.
    26. Haeringer, Guillaume & Klijn, Flip, 2009. "Constrained school choice," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 144(5), pages 1921-1947, September.
    27. 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.
    28. Nikhil Agarwal & William Diamond, 2013. "Identification and Estimation in Two-Sided Matching Markets," Cowles Foundation Discussion Papers 1905, Cowles Foundation for Research in Economics, Yale University, revised Feb 2014.
    29. Chen, Yan & Kesten, Onur, 2019. "Chinese college admissions and school choice reforms: An experimental study," Games and Economic Behavior, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 83-100.
    30. Eduardo M. Azevedo & Jacob D. Leshno, 2016. "A Supply and Demand Framework for Two-Sided Matching Markets," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 124(5), pages 1235-1268.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Thilo Klein & Robert Aue & Josue Ortega, 2020. "School choice with independent versus consolidated districts," Papers 2006.13209, arXiv.org, revised Jul 2024.
    2. Aue, Robert & Klein, Thilo & Ortega, Josué, 2020. "What Happens when Separate and Unequal School Districts Merge?," QBS Working Paper Series 2020/06, Queen's University Belfast, Queen's Business School.
    3. Schwartz, Jacob & Song, Kyungchul, 2024. "The law of large numbers for large stable matchings," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 241(1).
    4. Gabrielle Fack & Julien Grenet & Yinghua He, 2019. "Beyond Truth-Telling: Preference Estimation with Centralized School Choice and College Admissions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 109(4), pages 1486-1529, April.
    5. Ketel, Nadine & Oosterbeek, Hessel & Sovago, Sandor & van der Klaauw, Bas, 2023. "The (Un)Importance of School Assignment," IZA Discussion Papers 16591, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    6. Li, Mengling, 2020. "Ties matter: Improving efficiency in course allocation by allowing ties," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 178(C), pages 354-384.
    7. Atı̇la Abdulkadı̇roğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag Pathak, 2022. "Breaking Ties: Regression Discontinuity Design Meets Market Design," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 90(1), pages 117-151, January.
    8. Tong Wang & Congyi Zhou, 2020. "High school admission reform in China: a welfare analysis," Review of Economic Design, Springer;Society for Economic Design, vol. 24(3), pages 215-269, December.
    9. Ha, Wei & Kang, Le & Song, Yang, 2020. "College matching mechanisms and matching stability: Evidence from a natural experiment in China," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 175(C), pages 206-226.
    10. Nikhil Agarwal & Eric Budish, 2021. "Market Design," NBER Working Papers 29367, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    11. Hayri A. Arslan, 2021. "Preference estimation in centralized college admissions from reported lists," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 61(5), pages 2865-2911, November.
    12. Atila Abdulkadiroğlu & Joshua D. Angrist & Yusuke Narita & Parag A. Pathak, 2017. "Research Design Meets Market Design: Using Centralized Assignment for Impact Evaluation," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 85, pages 1373-1432, September.
    13. 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.
    14. Abdulkadiroglu, Atila & Andersson, Tommy, 2022. "School Choice," Working Papers 2022:4, Lund University, Department of Economics.
    15. Gandil, Mikkel Høst, 2021. "Substitution Effects in College Admissions," Memorandum 3/2021, Oslo University, Department of Economics.
    16. Fanny Landaud & Son Thierry Ly & Éric Maurin, 2020. "Competitive Schools and the Gender Gap in the Choice of Field of Study," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 55(1), pages 278-308.
    17. Diether W Beuermann & C Kirabo Jackson & Laia Navarro-Sola & Francisco Pardo, 2023. "What is a Good School, and Can Parents Tell? Evidence on the Multidimensionality of School Output," The Review of Economic Studies, Review of Economic Studies Ltd, vol. 90(1), pages 65-101.
    18. Adam Kapor & Mohit Karnani & Christopher Neilson, 2024. "Aftermarket Frictions and the Cost of Off-Platform Options in Centralized Assignment Mechanisms," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 132(7), pages 2346-2395.
    19. Marco Ovidi, 2021. "Parents know better: primary school choice and student achievement in London," Working Papers 919, Queen Mary University of London, School of Economics and Finance.
    20. Angrist, Joshua D. & Pathak, Parag A. & Zarate, Roman A., 2023. "Choice and consequence: Assessing mismatch at Chicago exam schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 223(C).

    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:zbw:zewexp:223254. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/zemande.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.