Last summer a paper by Abdulkadiroglu, Angrist, and Pathak (yes, now that’s a mouthful) demonstrated the effects of exam schools on test score outcomes. In NYC, exam schools are like Stuyvesant and Bronx Science; they are public, but students need to test into them. In Boston, Boston Latin in the oldest and most well-known exam school. They are all wildly competitive to get into.
What they wanted to know is, are higher scores at exam schools due to the schools being awesome, or are the higher scores due to the schools’ selectivity in admitting students. Are they awesome because they shepherd through already-awesome students, or are they awesome because they are awesome-making factories of awesome?
The authors used a regression-discontinuity method to investigate the effects of schools on test scores. That is, they looked at students who were just above the minimum score required for admission to an exam school, and compared them to students who were just below that score requirement. Since this is a continuous variable, we expect that people on just either side of that line should be quite similar. But since there is a large difference in outcomes for those tests (admission to, or rejection from, exam school), there is a discontinuity of ‘treatment.’
The upshot is that there is virtually no difference between those two groups of students. And if the awesome school had an effect on scores, we should see students who went to the exam schools doing better than those who did not.
So, this means a few things; and it suggests some other things. It demonstrates that for those who are marginally good enough to qualify for an exam school, you would do no better at an exam school than you would at a public school, measured by test scores as a proxy for educational achievement. The authors suggest that other data points to not giant differences between ‘marginal’ exam school students and the rest of the exam school students, but they don’t show this directly. And, the best students at exam schools test higher than the best students at public schools. We just don’t have any evidence that the school is responsible for those scores.
The work, in combination with other anecdotal data suggests that exam schools cater to their best students – to allow the best students to do great at things like the Intel Science and Engineering Fair and other competitions that matter for small numbers at the high end.
I would also strongly suggest that the ‘best’ schools, how do I say this delicately, allow your little one to mix with other type-A elite-seeky students and their families. I’m going to call this a mixed bag at the moment, since I know that in the back of their minds, people are thinking ‘networking!’ But there’s a healthy dose of fuck you in my assessment of the worth of that.
At the end of the day, as Felix Salmon notes, you would be better off spending the money you’d spend in school fees for more books, more trips to museums and interesting places. You could buy a Solar Stirling Engine! Or a high-grade chemistry set! Or a year’s membership to the MoMA!
But I am sorry, but I just can’t bring myself to get worked up about what school baby goes to. Maybe he’ll go to fancy school. Maybe he’ll go to schlumpy public school. But the dirty little truth is that for us, with our resources and educations and emphasis on education, it just doesn’t matter.