Who Benefits from a Smaller Honors Track?

References

1. 1. A. Abdulkadiroğlu,
   2. J. Angrist, and
   3. P. Pathak

   . The elite illusion: Achievement effects at boston and new york exam schools. Econometrica, 82(1):137–196, 2014.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
2. 1. T. Ahn and
   2. J. Vigdor

   . The impact of no child left behind’s accountability sanctions on school performance: Regression discontinuity evidence from north carolina. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2014.
3. 1. J. G. Altonji and
   2. R. K. Mansfield

   . Estimating group effects using averages of observables to control for sorting on unobservables: School and neighborhood effects. American Economic Review, 108(10):2902–46, 2018.

   OpenUrl
4. 1. J. D. Angrist and
   2. V. Lavy

   . Using maimonides’ rule to estimate the effect of class size on scholastic achievement. The Quarterly journal of economics, 114(2):533–575, 1999.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
5. 1. K. Antonovics,
   2. S. E. Black,
   3. J. B. Cullen, and
   4. A. Y. Meiselman

   . Patterns, determinants, and consequences of ability tracking: Evidence from texas public schools. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2022.
6. 1. D. Archbald and
   2. J. Keleher

   . Measuring conditions and consequences of tracking in the high school curriculum. American Secondary Education, pages 26–42, 2008.
7. 1. L. M. Argys,
   2. D. I. Rees, and
   3. D. J. Brewer

   . Detracking america’s schools: Equity at zero cost? Journal of Policy analysis and Management, pages 623–645, 1996.
8. 1. J. R. Betts

   . The economics of tracking in education. In Handbook of the Economics of Education, volume 3, pages 341–381. Elsevier, 2011.

   OpenUrl
9. 1. J. R. Betts and
   2. J. L. Shkolnik

   . The effects of ability grouping on student achievement and resource allocation in secondary schools. Economics of Education Review, 19(1):1–15, 2000.

   OpenUrlCrossRef
10. 1. G. F. Branch,
    2. E. A. Hanushek, and
    3. S. G. Rivkin

    . Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals. Technical report, National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
11. 1. S. A. Bui,
    2. S. G. Craig, and
    3. S. A. Imberman

    . Is gifted education a bright idea? assessing the impact of gifted and talented programs on students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3):30–62, 2014.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
12. 1. D. Card and
    2. L. Giuliano

    . Can tracking raise the test scores of high-ability minority students? American Economic Review, 106(10):2783–2816, 2016.

    OpenUrl
13. 1. D. Card and
    2. J. Rothstein

    . Racial segregation and the black–white test score gap. Journal of Public Economics, 91(11-12):2158–2184, 2007.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
14. 1. S. E. Carrell,
    2. B. I. Sacerdote, and
    3. J. E. West

    . From natural variation to optimal policy? the importance of endogenous peer group formation. Econometrica, 81(3):855–882, 2013.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. 1. S. R. Cohodes

    . The long-run impacts of specialized programming for high-achieving students. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 12(1):127–66, 2020.

    OpenUrl
16. 1. J. B. Cook and
    2. R. K. Mansfield

    . Task-specific experience and task-specific talent: Decomposing the productivity of high school teachers. Journal of Public Economics, 140:51–72, 2016.

    OpenUrl
17. 1. W. Dobbie and
    2. R. G. Fryer Jr.

    The impact of attending a school with high-achieving peers: Evidence from the new york city exam schools. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 6(3):58–75, 2014.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
18. 1. E. Duflo,
    2. P. Dupas, and
    3. M. Kremer

    . Peer effects, teacher incentives, and the impact of tracking: Evidence from a randomized evaluation in kenya. American Economic Review, 101(5):1739–74, 2011.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
19. 1. D. Epple,
    2. E. Newlon, and
    3. R. Romano

    . Ability tracking, school competition, and the distribution of educational benefits. Journal of Public Economics, 83(1):1–48, 2002.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
20. 1. D. N. Figlio and
    2. M. E. Page

    . School choice and the distributional effects of ability tracking: does separation increase inequality? Journal of Urban Economics, 51(3):497–514, 2002.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
21. 1. J. Fortin

    . California tries to close the gap in math, but sets off a backlash. The New York Times, 2021. URL https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/04/us/california-math-curriculum-guidelines.html.
22. 1. J. C. Fruehwirth

    . Identifying peer achievement spillovers: Implications for desegregation and the achievement gap. Quantitative Economics, 4(1):85–124, 2013.

    OpenUrl
23. 1. C. Fu and
    2. N. Mehta

    . Ability tracking, school and parental effort, and student achievement: A structural model and estimation. Journal of Labor Economics, 36(4):923–979, 2018.

    OpenUrl
24. 1. T. B. Hoffer

    . Middle school ability grouping and student achievement in science and mathematics. Educational evaluation and policy analysis, 14(3):205–227, 1992.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
25. 1. S. A. Imberman,
    2. A. D. Kugler, and
    3. B. I. Sacerdote

    . Katrina’s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane evacuees. American Economic Review, 102(5):2048–82, 2012.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
26. 1. L. Lefgren

    . Educational peer effects and the chicago public schools. Journal of Urban Economics, 56(2): 169–191, 2004.
27. 1. M. C. Long,
    2. D. Conger, and
    3. P. Iatarola

    . Effects of high school course-taking on secondary and postsecondary success. American Educational Research Journal, 49(2):285–322, 2012.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
28. 1. T. Loveless

    . The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Brookings Institution Press, 2011.
29. 1. R. K. Mansfield

    . Teacher quality and student inequality. Journal of Labor Economics, 33(3):751–788, 2015.

    OpenUrl
30. 1. J. Mathews

    . Virginia allies with, then backs away from, controversial math antitracking movement. The Washington Post, 2021. URL https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/education/fairfax-county-schools-math-classes-tracking/2021/04/29/197aa29c-a7a2-11eb-8d25-7b30e74923ea_story.html.
31. 1. N. Mehta,
    2. R. Stinebrickner, and
    3. T. Stinebrickner

    . Time-use and academic peer effects in college. Economic Inquiry, 57(1):162–171, 2019. doi: 10.1111/ecin.12730. URL https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ecin.12730.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
32. 1. Z. Pei,
    2. J.-S. Pischke, and
    3. H. Schwandt

    . Poorly measured confounders are more useful on the left than on the right. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 37(2):205–216, 2019.

    OpenUrl
33. 1. J.-S. Pischke and
    2. A. Manning

    . Comprehensive versus selective schooling in england in wales: What do we know? Working Paper 12176, National Bureau of Economic Research, April 2006. URL http://www.nber.org/papers/w12176.
34. 1. J. A. Smith and
    2. P. E. Todd

    . Reconciling conflicting evidence on the performance of propensity-score matching methods. American Economic Review, 91(2):112–118, 2001.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
35. 1. G. Solon,
    2. S. J. Haider, and
    3. J. M. Wooldridge

    . What are we weighting for? Journal of Human resources, 50 (2):301–316, 2015.

    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
36. 1. J. H. Stock and
    2. M. Yogo

    . Testing for weak instruments in linear iv regression, 2002. US News and World Report. Best states 2019. Technical report, 2019.
37. 1. J. L

    . Vigdor et al. Teacher salary bonuses in north carolina. In Conference paper, National Center on Performance Incentives.-0.026, 2008.
38. 1. R. Zimmer

    . A new twist in the educational tracking debate. Economics of Education Review, 22(3):307–315, 2003.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
39. 1. J. D. Zinth

    . End-of-course exams. Education Commission of the States (NJ3), 2012.