The Effects of Reducing Tracking in Upper Secondary School

References

1. 1. Aakvik Arild,
   2. Salvanes Kjell,
   3. Vaage Kjell

   . 2010. “Measuring Heterogeneity in the Returns to Education Using an Educational Reform.” European Economic Review 54(4): 483–500.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. Brunello Giorgio,
   2. Ariga Kenn,
   3. Giannini Massimo

   . 2004. “The Optimal Timing of School Tracking.” IZA Discussion Paper No. 995.
3. 1. Brunello Giorgio,
   2. Checchi Daniele

   . 2007. “Does School Tracking Affect Equality of Opportunity? New International Evidence.” Economic Policy 22(52): 781–861.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
4. 1. Dee Thomas,
   2. Jacob Brian

   . 2006. “Do High School Exit Exams Influence Educational Attainment or Labor Market Performance?” NBER Working Paper No. 12199.
5. 1. Duflo Esther

   . 2001. “Schooling and Labor Market Consequences of School Construction in Indonesia: Evidence from an Unusual Policy Experiment.” American Economic Review 91(4): 795–813.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
6. 1. Duflo Esther,
   2. Dupas Pascaline,
   3. Kremer Michael

   . 2008. “Peer Effects, Teacher Incentives, and the Impact of Tracking: Evidence from a Randomized Evaluation in Kenya.” CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7043.
7. 1. Ekström Erika

   . 2003. Essays on Inequality and Education. Economic Studies 76, Department of Economics, Uppsala University.
8. 1. Galindo-Rueda Fernando,
   2. Vignoles Anna

   . 2005. “The Heterogeneous Effect of Selection in Secondary Schools: Understanding the Changing Role of Ability.” CEE Discussion Paper No. 52.
9. 1. Hanushek Eric,
   2. Wössman Ludger

   . 2006. “Does Educational Tracking Affect Performance and Inequality? Differences-in-Differences Evidence Across Countries.” Economic Journal 116(510): 63–76.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 1. Imbens Guido,
    2. Angrist Joshua

    . 1994. “Identification and Estimation of Local Average Treatment Effects.” Econometrica 62(2): 467–475.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
11. 1. Jackson Clement Kirabo

    . 2010. “Do Students Benefit from Attending Better Schools? Evidence from Rule-Based Student Assignments in Trinidad and Tobago.” The Economic Journal 120(549): 1399–1429.

    OpenUrl
12. 1. Kerckhoff Alan,
    2. Fogelman Ken,
    3. Crook David,
    4. Reeder David

    . 1996. Going Comprehensive in England and Wales. A Study of Uneven Change. London: The Woburn Press.
13. 1. Leschinsky Achim,
    2. Mayer Karl Ulrich

    , eds. 1990. The Comprehensive School Experiment Revisited: Evidence from Western Europe. Frankfurt am Main: Peter Lang.
14. 1. Lillard Dean,
    2. DeCicca Philip

    . 2001. “Higher Standards, More Dropouts? Evidence Within and Across Time.” Economics of Education Review 20(5): 459–473.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. Malamud Ofer,
    2. Pop-Eleches Cristian

    . 2010. “General Education versus Vocational Training: Evidence from an Economy in Transition.” The Review of Economics and Statistics 92(1): 43–60.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. 1. Manning Alan,
    2. Pischke Jörn-Steffen

    . 2006. “Comprehensive versus Selective Schooling in England and Wales: What Do We Know?” IZA Discussion Paper No. 2072.
17. 1. Meghir Costas,
    2. Palme Mårten

    . 2005. “Educational Reform, Ability and Family Background.” American Economic Review 95(1): 414–424.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
18. 1. National Agency for Education

    . 2000. Reformeringen av gymnasieskolan—en sammanfattande analys. Report No. 187. Stockholm.
19. 1. National Board of Education

    . 1988. Gymnasieskolan hösten 1987: förstahandssökande, intagningsplatser, intagna elever, lediga plaster. Stockholm.
20. 1. National Board of Education

    . 1989a. Gymnasieskolan hösten 1988: Förstahandssökande, intagningsplatser, intagna elever, lediga platser. Stockholm.
21. 1. National Board of Education

    . 1989b. Gymnasieskolan hösten 1989: Förstahandssökande, intagningsplatser, intagna elever, lediga platser, avhopp. Stockholm.
22. 1. National Board of Education

    . 1990a. Rapport om försöks- och utvecklingsarbetet i gymnasieskolan 1988/89. Report No. 90:3. Stockholm.
23. 1. National Board of Education

    . 1990b. Gymnasieskolan hösten 1989: Förstahandssökande, intagningsplatser, intagna elever, lediga platser, avbrytare. Stockholm.
24. 1. Nordström Skans Oskar

    . 2004. “Scarring Effects of the First Labor Market Experience: A Sibling Based Analysis.” IFAU Working Paper No. 2004:14.
25. 1. OECD

    . 2004. Learning for Tomorrow’s World: First Results from PISA 2003. Paris.
26. 1. Oosterbeek Hessel,
    2. Webbink Dinand

    . 2007. “Wage Effects of an Extra Year of Basic Vocational Education.” Economics of Education Review 26(4): 408–419

    OpenUrlCrossRef
27. 1. Palme Mikael

    . 1992. “Rekryteringen till gymnasiets 3-åriga yrkesförberedande försökslinjer”, in SOU 1992:25.
28. 1. Pekkarinen Tuomas,
    2. Uusitalo Roope,
    3. Kerr Sari

    . 2009. “School Tracking and Intergenerational Income Mobility: Evidence from the Finnish Comprehensive School Reform.” Journal of Public Economics 93(7–8): 965–973.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
29. 1. Pop-Eleches Cristian,
    2. Urquiola Miguel

    . 2008. “The Consequences of Going to a Better School.” Columbia University. Unpublished.
30. Proposition 1983/84:116. Om gymnasieskola i utveckling.
31. Proposition 1987/88:102. Om utveckling av yrkesutbildningen i gymnasieskolan.
32. SOU 1989:106. Sextusen platser och tiotusen platser för försök i gymnasieskolan—hur, var och varför?
33. 1. Staiger Douglas,
    2. Stock James H.

    1997. “Instrumental Variables Regression with Weak Instruments.” Econometrica 65(3): 557–586.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
34. 1. Waldinger Fabian

    . 2007. “Does Tracking Affect the Importance of Family Background on Students’ Test Scores?” London School of Economics. Unpublished.