|
The Cost-Effectiveness of 22 Approaches for Raising Student Achievement
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| Stuart Yeh, University of Minnesota, yehxx008@umn.edu
|
| Abstract:
Review of cost-effectiveness studies suggests that rapid assessment is one magnitude (10 times) more cost-effective with regard to student achievement than comprehensive school reform, cross-age tutoring, or computer-assisted instruction; two magnitudes more cost-effective than a longer school day, increases in teacher education, teacher experience or teacher salaries, summer school, more rigorous math classes, value-added teacher assessment, class size reduction, a 10 percent increase in per pupil expenditure, or full-day kindergarten; three magnitudes more cost-effective than Head Start, high-standards exit exams, NBPTS teacher certification, higher teacher licensure test scores, high quality preschool, an additional school year, or voucher programs; and four magnitudes more cost-effective than charter schools. The differences in cost-effectiveness suggest the results are robust even if future research indicates that the effect sizes or costs are mis-estimated by factors of 10 or more.
|
|
Assessing the Cost-Effectiveness of Comprehensive School Reform in Low Achieving Schools
|
| Presenter(s):
|
| John Ross, University of Toronto, jross@oise.utoronto.ca
|
| Abstract:
We evaluated the cost-effectiveness of Struggling Schools, a user generated approach to Comprehensive School Reform (CSR) for 100 low achieving schools serving a disadvantaged student population in a Canadian province. We conducted a quasi-experimental, pre-post matched sample design with school as unit of analysis. The cost-effectiveness of CSR was determined in terms of the annual cost of bringing one student to the provincial achievement standard and in terms of effect per $1000. Key finding: The program had positive achievement effects but the cost was too high: researchers need to provide cost-effectiveness information to CSR developers and users. (2) Selecting from CSR options is more cost-effective than developing a new program. (3) There are unresolved issues in conducting cost-effectiveness studies of CSR, e.g., Should unfunded school costs and CSR development costs be included? To which programs should the cost-effectiveness of particular CSR programs be compared-the status quo, the best, or the typical?
|
| |