Upload
eryk
View
30
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
School Selection, Student Assignment, and Enrollment in a School District with Open Enrollment and Mandatory Choice Policies. Matt Kasman Doctoral Candidate Graduate School of Education May 19th, 2014. [email protected]. Motivation. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
School Selection, Student Assignment, and Enrollment in a School District with Open Enrollment and Mandatory Choice
Policies
Matt KasmanDoctoral Candidate
Graduate School of Education
May 19th, 2014
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Motivation• Positive effects of racially diverse
educational environment (Orfield et al., 2008)– Tolerance for different perspectives– Reduces prejudice– Stronger cooperative and critical-thinking
skills• Benefits for individuals as well as
communities and society
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Motivation• School choice often discussed as a tool to
improve diversity within schools– Provides families with the opportunity to
make choices outside of a framework of traditional neighborhood schools
• Predominantly single-race schools persist in open enrollment school districts– Under what, if any, policy conditions can
open enrollment produce better results?
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Dissertation Outline• 3 Papers that examine the open enrollment
process:1. School selection: when presented with school
options, what choices do families make?2. School enrollment: when assigned to schools,
how do families respond?3. Agent-based model simulations: given behaviors
in previous two papers, how do policy interventions affect diversity?
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Data• School application, assignment and enrollment data
from a highly diverse, large urban school district– Focus on families choosing Kindergarten programs– Focus on families without observable siblings in schools
• Student data• School program data
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Simulations of Open Enrollment• School choice processes well suited for
simulation– Individual decisions lead to system-wide change– Intention is for schools and districts to respond to
changes in demand over time• Agent-based modeling is a good approach
– Heterogeneity in schools and students– Dynamic process– Potential exit of students and schools– Equilibrium state is not focus of simulation
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
1. Initialization: “plausible” cohort of prospective Kindergarten students sampled from actual 2009-2010 through 2012-2013 student data
2. School selection: race-specific participation probabilities; “choosers” submit ranked school selections that are based on findings from Paper 1
3. Student assignment: simplified version of deferred acceptance algorithm used by district
4. Student enrollment: student enrollment based on findings from Paper 2
5. Iteration: schools update characteristics based on enrollment, new cohort of students generated
6. Output: after 10 years, model stops and output by year is saved out
The Agent-based Model
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
School Selection (Paper 1)• Conditional logit models predicting probability of a
school program being selected as a family’s first choice:
• Basic models include school/program characteristics• Additional models include interactions with student
attributes
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Predicting probability of school program selection with program characteristics and race interaction terms
Interaction TermsVARIABLES Base Coefficients Student is
BlackStudent is Hispanic
Student is Asian
Distance to School 0.138*** 1.909*** 1.111 1.029Distance to School (squared) 1.192*** 0.935*** 0.996 1.009Family in School Attendance Area 2.989*** 0.651** 0.736** 0.810+School Achievement (standardized) 2.421*** 0.472*** 0.901 0.718***School Enrollment (log) 11.15*** 0.782 0.441*** 3.364***Language Immersion Program 0.937 0.589*** 2.677*** 1.428***Bilingual Program 3.143*** 1.521 0.926 1.313School % Black 0.980*** 1.041*** 0.991 1.015+School % Hispanic 0.982*** 1.009 1.023*** 1.002School % Asian 0.968*** 1.020*** 1.002 1.043***School % FRPL (lagged) 0.991** 1.000 1.015*** 0.998Observations (# students) 494,525 (5,961)
Coefficients are odds ratios; *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Achievement levels of options by distance
-1.50
-1.25
-1.00
-0.75
-0.50
-0.25
0.00
0.25
0.50
0.75
1.00
1.25
1.50
Sch
ool A
chie
vem
ent (
stan
dard
ized
)
0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 5.0 6.0Distance (Miles)
White Black Asian Hispanic
by Distance to School OptionAverage School Achievement
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Student Assignment• Deferred acceptance student assignment
– “Strategy-proof”• Hierarchical priority:
1. Low test-score zone residence2. School attendance zone residence3. Random lottery number
• Unassigned student placement:1. Attendance zone General Education program2. Closest available General Education program
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Enrollment (Paper 2)• Logit models predicting exit from public schools
subsequent to assignment:
• Models include family characteristics and assignment characteristics (either alone or relative to first choice characteristics)
• Also, similar multinomial logit models predicting exit or reassignment:
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Predicting probability of enrollment response with assignment relative to first choice
Coefficients are odds ratios; *** p<0.001, ** p<0.01, * p<0.05, + p<0.1
(1) (2)VARIABLES reassigned exited reassigned exited
Black 1.085 0.441*** 1.542*** 0.450***Hispanic 1.228** 0.559*** 1.496*** 0.553***
Asian 0.773*** 0.363*** 0.736*** 0.343***School % Black 1.050*** 1.030***
School % Hispanic 1.028*** 1.018***School % Asian 1.027*** 1.019***
School % Same Race 0.978*** 0.990***
School Enroll (log) 0.210*** 0.250*** 0.182*** 0.300***School % FRPL 1.011*** 1.014*** 1.027*** 1.026***
Distance to School 1.219*** 1.078** 1.239*** 1.083**School Achievement (Standardized) 0.554*** 0.623*** 0.490*** 0.597***
Same Program Type 0.445*** 0.836+ 0.475*** 0.900Constant 0.241*** 0.185*** 0.205*** 0.179***
Observations 11,878 11,878 11,188 11,188
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Simulations (Paper 3)• Simulated scenarios
– Baseline model: similar to current district policies– Full participation: upper bound on effect of interventions
that increase engagement– Full participation, Black and Hispanic students– Better information: replace achievement levels with value-
added as observed measure of quality– “simple” value-added– “more sophisticated” value-added
– Increase capacity: investment in growing popular schools/programs
– Change student assignment: similar to Dur et al. (2013); remove low test-score zone priorities
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Results• Checking validity of simulations
– Compare simulated 2011-2012 cohort to actual cohort
• Enrollment trends in baseline simulation• Compare end-state school compositions across
simulated scenarios
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Sta
nd
ard
ized
Ach
ieve
ment (M
ath
and
EL
A)
Black Hispanic Asian White
Simulated Cohort
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
Sta
nd
ard
ized
Ach
ieve
ment (M
ath
and
EL
A)
Black Hispanic Asian White
Actual Cohort
assignments based on choices submitted by application deadline
by race, for Fall 2011 Kindergarten cohortAverage Achievement in Assigned School
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
0
20
40
60
80
100
% S
am
e R
ace
Black Hispanic Asian White
Simulated Cohort
0
20
40
60
80
100
% S
am
e R
ace
Black Hispanic Asian White
Actual Cohort
assignments based on choices submitted by application deadline
by race, for Fall 2011 Kindergarten cohortPercentage of Same Race Students in Assigned School
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
0
5
10
15
20
25
% b
y ra
ce
Black Hispanic Asian WhiteOverall attrition: 12.2%
Simulated Cohort
0
5
10
15
20
25
% b
y ra
ce
Black Hispanic Asian WhiteOverall attrition: 11.9%
Actual Cohort
students without siblings
by race, for Fall 2011 Kindergarten cohortAttrition from District
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
-1
-.5
0
.5
1
Sta
nda
rdiz
ed A
chie
vem
ent
(Mat
h a
nd
ELA
)
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Year
Black Hispanic Asian White
by race and year, baseline simulationAverage Achievement in Enrolled School
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
0
20
40
60
80
% S
ame
Ra
ce
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10Year
Black Hispanic Asian White
by race and year, baseline simulationMean % Same Race in Enrolled School
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
1.00
0.97
1.04
0.99
0.850.87
1.08
.6
.8
1
1.2
Ga
p S
ize
(Sta
nda
rdiz
ed S
cho
ol A
chie
vem
ent L
evel
s)
BaselineSimulation
FullParticipation
Full Blackand HispanicParticipation
Double Capacityin HighestDemand
Programs
SimpleValue-added
More ComplexValue-added
No Priority forLow Test ScoreZone Residents
year 10 of simulation
between Black/Hispanic and White/Asian students, by simulationGap in Average Achievement in Enrolled Schools
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
22
10
19
8
22
9
24
8
19
12
16
14
23
11
H=.241
H=.226
H=.235 H=.242 H=.235H=.241
H=.255
0
10
20
30
40#
Rac
ially
Isol
ated
Sch
ools
BaselineSimulation
FullParticipation
Full Blackand HispanicParticipation
Double Capacityin HighestDemand
Programs
SimpleValue-added
More ComplexValue-added
No Priority forLow Test ScoreZone Residents
year 10 of simulation
across simulated scenariosComparing Racial Isolation
# Schools > 60% and < 80% # Schools > 80%
22
10
19
8
22
9
24
8
19
12
16
14
23
11
H=.241
H=.226
H=.235 H=.242 H=.235H=.241
H=.255
0
10
20
30
40
# R
acia
lly Is
olat
ed S
choo
ls
BaselineSimulation
FullParticipation
Full Blackand HispanicParticipation
Double Capacityin HighestDemand
Programs
SimpleValue-added
More ComplexValue-added
No Priority forLow Test ScoreZone Residents
year 10 of simulation
across simulated scenariosComparing Racial Isolation
# Schools > 60% and < 80% # Schools > 80%
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
Discussion• Stability in enrollment trends in baseline
simulation– Realistic, given longstanding choice policies in district
• Simulated interventions have effect on enrollment patterns
– Value-added information reduces racial gaps in enrolled school achievement levels
– More participation in choice increases diversity within schools
• Simulations of open enrollment are a tool that can be used to answer many questions
cepa.stanford.eduCENTER FOR EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS at STANFORD UNIVERSITY
School Selection, Student Assignment, and Enrollment in a School District with Open Enrollment and Mandatory Choice
Policies
Matt KasmanDoctoral Candidate
Graduate School of Education
May 19th, 2014