Skip to main content

Main menu

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Other Publications
    • UWP

User menu

  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart

Search

  • Advanced search
Journal of Human Resources
  • Other Publications
    • UWP
  • Register
  • Subscribe
  • My alerts
  • Log in
  • My Cart
Journal of Human Resources

Advanced Search

  • Home
  • Content
    • Current
    • Ahead of print
    • Archive
    • Supplementary Material
  • Info for
    • Authors
    • Subscribers
    • Institutions
    • Advertisers
  • About Us
    • About Us
    • Editorial Board
  • Connect
    • Feedback
    • Help
    • Request JHR at your library
  • Alerts
  • Free Issue
  • Special Issue
  • Follow uwp on Twitter
  • Follow JHR on Bluesky
Research ArticleArticles
Open Access

Reducing Parent–School Information Gaps and Improving Education Outcomes

Evidence from High-Frequency Text Messages

View ORCID ProfileSamuel Berlinski, View ORCID ProfileMatias Busso, View ORCID ProfileTaryn Dinkelman and View ORCID ProfileClaudia Martínez A.
Journal of Human Resources, July 2025, 60 (4) 1284-1322; DOI: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.1121-11992R2
Samuel Berlinski
Samuel Berlinski is a Principal Economist at the Research Department of the Inter-American Development Bank and an IZA Research Fellow .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Samuel Berlinski
  • For correspondence: samuelb{at}iadb.org
Matias Busso
Matias Busso is a Principal Economist at the Research Department of the Inter-American Development Bank .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Matias Busso
  • For correspondence: mbusso{at}iadb.org
Taryn Dinkelman
Taryn Dinkelman is the Loughrey Associate Professor of Economics at the University of Notre Dame, a Faculty Research Associate at NBER, BREAD, CEPR, and IZA, and a J-PAL affiliated professor (corresponding author: ).
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Taryn Dinkelman
  • For correspondence: tdinkelm{at}nd.edu
Claudia Martínez A.
Claudia Martínez A. is a Full Professor at the Department of Economics of Pontificia Universidad Católica de Chile, a J-PAL affiliated professor, and Millennium Nucleus on Intergenerational Mobility: From Modelling to Policy (MOVI) [NCS2021072] .
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Claudia Martínez A.
  • For correspondence: clmartineza{at}uc.cl
  • Article
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF
Loading

Article Figures & Data

Figures

  • Tables
  • Additional Files
  • Figure 1
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 1

    Baseline Share of Misinformed Parents

    Notes: The y-axis presents the (lowess-smoothed) share of parents misinformed regarding their child’s grades (solid line) and attendance (dashed line) for different levels of the at-risk index (whose histogram is shown in gray). Estimates are based on parent surveys and administrative data at baseline. See notes for Columns 2 and 4 of Table 5 for details on the construction of misinformation measures and Section IV for the index construction.

  • Figure 2
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 2

    Timeline

    Notes: The figure shows the timeline of the intervention and data collection implemented in 2014 and 2015.

  • Figure 3
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 3

    Predicted Treatment Effect by Baseline At-Risk Index

    Notes: Figure shows linear predictions and 95 percent confidence intervals of the intention-to-treat (ITT) estimates on math grades, attendance rate, and negative behavior. Computed based on coefficients from Columns 1, 3, and 5 of Table 3, Panel B, respectively. The standard error for estimate at each percentile p is constructed as Embedded Image, where Embedded Image is the mean of at-risk index in percentile p.

  • Figure 4
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 4

    Weekly Fade-Out of Attendance Treatment Effects

    Notes: Coefficients are obtained from the daily intention-to-treat estimates of Online Appendix Table 4. Standard errors clustered at the classroom level. Confidence intervals are at the 90 percent level.

  • Figure 5
    • Download figure
    • Open in new tab
    • Download powerpoint
    Figure 5

    Treatment Effects over Time

    Notes: Coefficients are obtained from the respective intention-to-treat estimates of Online Appendix Table 5. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level. Confidence intervals are at the 90 percent level.

Tables

  • Figures
  • Additional Files
    • View popup
    Table 1

    Students’ and Parents’ Pre-Treatment Characteristics

    Obs.Treatment Mean (μT)Control Mean (μC)p-Value of Adj. Diff.
    (1)(2)(3)(4)
    Panel A: Administrative Records
    Female1,0660.450.470.57
    Age1,0669.819.790.41
    New student1,0660.080.070.42
    Language grade9765.105.070.85
    Math grade9765.145.190.37
    Final avg. grade9765.575.590.47
    Attendance rate9760.890.890.53
    Passed grade1,0180.950.960.57
    At-risk index (standardized)1,0660.050.000.35
    Missing grades/attendance/pass data1,0660.090.080.41
    Multiple hypotheses Wald test0.72
    Panel B: Parents’ Survey Data
    Standardized scales (μC = 0, σC = 1)
     Study habits704–0.070.000.51
     Academic efficiency730–0.090.000.16
     Family support739–0.120.000.06
     Low family supervision709–0.060.000.72
     Parent school involvement716–0.010.000.66
     Positive reinforcement738–0.060.000.31
     Parent scales index773–0.060.000.21
     Mother completed high school7740.530.490.78
     Missing baseline survey1,0660.260.270.59
     Multiple hypotheses Wald test0.39
    Panel C: Students’ Survey Data
    Standardized scales (μC = 0, σC = 1)
     Study habits909–0.190.000.10
     Academic efficiency915–0.140.000.15
     Family support864–0.150.000.12
     Low family supervision8590.050.000.60
     Parent school involvement858–0.120.000.59
     Positive reinforcement868–0.040.000.90
    Student scales index962–0.170.000.15
    Missing baseline survey1,0660.080.090.84
    Multiple hypotheses Wald test0.11
    • Notes: Column 1 shows the number of observations with nonmissing data, Columns 2 and 3 show the mean value of each baseline characteristic observations.in the treated and control group, respectively. Column 4 reports the p-value on the treatment coefficient in a regression using each baseline characteristic as the dependent variable. All tests adjust for classroom fixed effects, and robust standard errors are clustered at this level. Parent and student scales index are simple scales’ averages that were standardized using the control mean and standard deviation so that standardized scales for the control group have a mean μC = 0 and a standard deviation σC = 1. Observable variables in Panel A correspond to 2013 except for the new student variable that refers to 2014. The rows “Multiple hypotheses Wald test” reports the p-value of a joint test of the null that all the differences in means of the variables reported in each panel (of treated and control students) are zero. We exclude from this test the variable that reports the proportion of missing observations.

    • View popup
    Table 2

    Compliance by Type of Text Message

    AllAttendanceBehaviorGradesGeneral
    (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
    Panel A: Text Messages Sent
    T43.960***29.966***6.715***7.326***–0.047
    [0.704][0.447][0.085][0.130][0.079]
    Panel B: Text Messages Received
    T26.341***17.646***4.506***4.337***–0.148
    [0.777][0.452][0.122][0.127][0.123]
    Observations2,0112,0112,0112,0112,011
    Control mean messages sent5.5200.0000.0000.0005.520
    Control mean messages received3.7410.0000.0000.0003.741
    Proportion text messages received/sent (among treated)0.6450.6230.6340.6320.638
    Proportion of messages across type (sent)0.5490.1230.1310.198
    Proportion of messages across type (received)0.5270.1330.1260.213
    • Notes: “Text messages sent” refers to the cumulative number of text messages sent to student’s parents. “Text messages received” refers to the cumulative number of text messages with a confirmed delivery status. Columns 2–5 report the Tic coefficient of Equation 1 with the annual number of each type of text message as the dependent variable. Column 1 adds all types of text messages. Attendance, grades, and classroom behavior text messages were sent only to the treatment group. General text messages were sent to all treatment and control individuals. All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of baseline math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 3

    Treatment Effects on Grades, Attendance, and Classroom Behavior

    Standardized Math GradeMath Grade >4.0Attendance RateCumulative Attendance
    >85%
    Standardized # Negative Behavior Notes
    (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
    Panel A: Treatment Effects
    T0.088*0.027**0.011**0.047*0.004
    [0.045][0.013][0.005][0.024][0.075]
    Panel B: Heterogeneity
    T0.088*0.026*0.010*0.047*–0.019
    [0.044][0.013][0.005][0.024][0.067]
    T × at-risk0.140*0.0250.014*0.073**–0.203**
    Index[0.071][0.019][0.007][0.028][0.094]
    Observations2,0112,0112,0112,0112,011
    Control mean0.000.9340.8770.7280.00
    • Notes: Panel A shows the intention-to-treat (T) estimates and its corresponding standard error estimated using Equation 1 using OLS. Panel B adds the interaction with the student-level at-risk index. At-risk index is a simple average of standardized baseline attendance, math grades, and negative behavioral notes. All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Models in Panel B additionally include the at-risk index variable as a control. Columns 1 and 5 report results on outcomes that were standardized so that the mean among the control students is zero and the standard deviation is one. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 4

    Spillover Effects

    Standardized Math GradeMath Grade >4.0Attendance RateCumulative Attendance
    >85%
    Standardized # Negative Behavior Notes
    (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)
    T0.0700.0060.0050.0090.113
    [0.054][0.015][0.007][0.034][0.095]
    T × High-share0.0420.052*0.0130.091*–0.258*
    [0.094][0.027][0.011][0.046][0.150]
    Observations2,0112,0112,0112,0112,011
    Control mean0.000.9340.8770.7280.00
    p-value0.150.010.020.000.22
    H0:T + T × H = 0
    • Notes: Each row shows the intention-to-treat estimates and its corresponding standard error estimated using Equation 2 using OLS. T refers to the randomized individual-level treatment (equal to one if parents were sent text messages and zero otherwise). High-share refers to the randomized classroom-level treatment (equal to one for high-share classrooms and zero for low-share classrooms). All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Columns 1 and 5 report results on outcomes that were standardized so that the mean among the control students is zero and the standard deviation is one. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 5

    Treatment Effects on Parental Misinformation

    Attendance MisinformationGrades MisinformationBehavior Misinformation
    AllAllAll GradesAll GradesMisbehaviorMisbehavior
    Absenteeism (Surveys)Absenteeism (Admin.)(Surveys)(Admin.)(Surveys)(Admin.)
    (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
    Panel A: Treatment Effects
    T–0.079**–0.014–0.012–0.027–0.080**–0.083**
    [0.039][0.039][0.045][0.036][0.034][0.038]
    Panel B: Heterogeneity
    T–0.082**–0.011–0.019–0.029–0.072**–0.086**
    [0.040][0.039][0.048][0.037][0.033][0.038]
    T × at-risk index–0.0120.035–0.091–0.0210.081–0.052
    [0.066][0.047][0.061][0.046][0.056][0.056]
    Observationsa9921,1438271,1851,1401,188
    Control mean0.5350.3920.3980.3190.6390.470
    • Notes: Panel A shows intention-to-treat (T) estimates and its corresponding standard error estimated using Equation 1 using OLS. Panel B adds the interaction with the student-level at-risk index. At-risk index is a simple average of standardized baseline attendance, math grades, and negative behavioral notes. All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of baseline math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Models in Panel B additionally include the at-risk index variable as a control. Column outcomes are indicator variables constructed by contrasting responses in parent surveys with those of student surveys or administrative records (shown in parentheses). Column 1 measures parental misinformation on all absenteeism (with and without parent permission in the previous two weeks) contrasting the responses of parents with those from students. Parents are classified as misinformed if they do not answer at least one of the questions or if at least one of the answers (in bracket days) provided by students and parents do not match. Column 2 measures misinformation on all absenteeism (with and without permission) contrasting parent responses with classroom books. The ends of original bracket days in absences with and without permission are added to construct new bracket days. Parents are classified as misinformed if they do not answer at least one of the questions or if classroom books’ records of absences over the previous two weeks do not fall in the range. Column 3 contrasts parent and student responses, and parents are classified as misinformed if they do not answer, or if reported grades’ brackets do not match. Column 4 measures parental misinformation regarding all grades by contrasting parent responses about the student’s last end-of-year grades with school records. Parents are treated as misinformed if they do not answer or if the absolute difference between reported and actual grades is greater than 0.5. Columns 5 and 6 measure misinformation about student misbehavior by contrasting parent answers with student answers and with information from classroom books, respectively. Using a four-value scale, parents and students were asked about the degree of agreement with the student’s misbehavior statements. For Column 5, parents are classified as misinformed if they do not answer at least one of the questions or if the average absolute difference between parent and student answers is larger than the median (0.8). For Column 6 parents are treated as misinformed if they do not answer; if the parent’s average answer is equal to or larger than the median (2), and student did not misbehave according to classroom books; or if the parent’s average answer is less than the median answer and student misbehaved in class according to books. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • ↵a Number of observations vary by column because of survey and item nonresponse.

    • View popup
    Table 6

    Treatment Effects on Other Subjects’ Grades and Misinformation

    LanguageNatural ScienceHistory
    (1)(2)(3)
    Panel A: Standardized Grades
    T0.113*0.098*0.054
    [0.059][0.057][0.044]
    Observations1,9461,9161,916
    Control mean0.000.000.00
    Panel B: Misinformation
    T–0.079**–0.048–0.054
    [0.033][0.044][0.041]
    Observations1,142973972
    Control mean0.4990.5340.493
    • Notes: Panel A and Panel B show intention-to-treat (T) estimates on subjects not targeted by the intervention. Panel A shows the effect on grades and Panel B on parental misinformation regarding those grades. Point estimates and standard error were estimated using Equation 1 using OLS. All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Columns 1–3 of Panel A report results on outcomes that were standardized so that mean among the control students is zero and the standard deviation is one. Columns 1–3 of Panel B measure parental misinformation each subject grade. Parents are treated as misinformed if they do not answer or if the answered grade bracket does not match to the actual grade from administrative data. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in parentheses). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • View popup
    Table 7

    Treatment Effects on Parental Behavior at Home

    Study HabitsAcademic EfficiencyFamily SupportLow Family SupervisionParent School InvolvementPositive Reinforcement
    (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)
    Panel A: Standardized Parent Scales
    T–0.0860.088–0.0070.0190.026–0.057
    [0.079][0.064][0.082][0.064][0.063][0.080]
    Observationsa1,0421,0901,1081,0961,1161,098
    Panel B: Standardized Student Scales
    T0.049–0.0050.112*–0.0730.117**0.015
    [0.059][0.059][0.061][0.049][0.055][0.057]
    Observationsa1,7261,7281,6861,6931,7001,692
    • Notes: Panel A and Panel B shows intention-to-treat (T) estimates on parent and student standardized scales (means are zero and standard deviations are one for the control group for all scales), respectively, and its corresponding standard error estimated using Equation 1 using OLS. Outcomes are scales built with answers to surveys (see Online Appendix Tables F.2 and F.3 for details). All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate and outcome scales as control variables, and classroom (randomization strata) and year and fixed effects. If baseline values of baseline math grade/attendance or baseline outcomes were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level mean and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

    • ↵a Number of observations vary by column because of survey and item nonresponse; see Online Appendix VII for details.

    • View popup
    Table 8

    Parental Willingness to Pay

    (1)(2)
    Medium price–0.151***–0.085
    [0.043][0.062]
    High price–0.238***–0.256***
    [0.039][0.059]
    T × Low price0.030
    [0.063]
    T × Medium price–0.095
    [0.059]
    T × High price0.070
    [0.069]
    Constant0.706***0.721***
    [0.264][0.263]
    Observations1,1241,124
    • Notes: Outcome is an indicator variable for whether the parent reports being willing to pay for continued text message service (four text messages per month from the school) after the end of the year. Column 1 reports estimates of being assigned a particular randomized price (1,500 CLP, 1,000 CLP, or 500 CLP, the omitted category). Column 2 shows intention-to-treat estimates by interacting these randomized prices with the randomized treatment (equal to one if parents were sent text messages and zero otherwise). All models include the baseline math grade, attendance rate as control variables, classroom (randomization strata), and year fixed effects. If baseline values of baseline math grade/attendance were missing, we imputed them using the classroom-level means and added an indicator variable for these imputed observations. Standard errors are clustered at the classroom level (shown in brackets). Significance: *p < 0.1, **p < 0.05, ***p < 0.01.

Additional Files

  • Figures
  • Tables
  • Free alternate access to The Journal of Human Resources supplementary materials is available at https://uwpress.wisc.edu/journals/journals/jhr-supplementary.html

    • 1121-11992R2_supp.pdf
PreviousNext
Back to top

In this issue

Journal of Human Resources: 60 (4)
Journal of Human Resources
Vol. 60, Issue 4
1 Jul 2025
  • Table of Contents
  • Table of Contents (PDF)
  • Index by author
  • Front Matter (PDF)
Print
Download PDF
Article Alerts
Sign In to Email Alerts with your Email Address
Email Article

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word on Journal of Human Resources.

NOTE: We only request your email address so that the person you are recommending the page to knows that you wanted them to see it, and that it is not junk mail. We do not capture any email address.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Reducing Parent–School Information Gaps and Improving Education Outcomes
(Your Name) has sent you a message from Journal of Human Resources
(Your Name) thought you would like to see the Journal of Human Resources web site.
Citation Tools
Reducing Parent–School Information Gaps and Improving Education Outcomes
Samuel Berlinski, Matias Busso, Taryn Dinkelman, Claudia Martínez A.
Journal of Human Resources Jul 2025, 60 (4) 1284-1322; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.1121-11992R2

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Reducing Parent–School Information Gaps and Improving Education Outcomes
Samuel Berlinski, Matias Busso, Taryn Dinkelman, Claudia Martínez A.
Journal of Human Resources Jul 2025, 60 (4) 1284-1322; DOI: 10.3368/jhr.1121-11992R2
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One
Bookmark this article

Jump to section

  • Article
    • Abstract
    • I. Introduction
    • II. Setting
    • III. Experimental Design
    • IV. Data
    • V. Estimation and Experimental Validity
    • VI. Results
    • VII. Did the Text Messages Intervention Improve Parent–School Info Gaps and Change Parenting Behaviors?
    • VIII. Cost-Effectiveness, Willingness to Pay, and Potential to Scale
    • IX. Conclusions
    • Acknowledgments
    • Footnotes
    • References
  • Figures & Data
  • Supplemental
  • Info & Metrics
  • References
  • PDF

Related Articles

  • Google Scholar

Cited By...

  • No citing articles found.
  • Google Scholar

More in this TOC Section

  • The Effects of Exposure to a Large-Scale Recession on Higher Education and Early Labor Market Outcomes
  • Intergenerational Mobility Trends and the Changing Role of Female Labor
  • World War II Blues
Show more Articles

Similar Articles

Keywords

  • I25
  • D8
  • N36
UW Press logo

© 2025 Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System

Powered by HighWire