When Do Informational Interventions Work? Experimental Evidence From New York City High School Choice

IF 2.4 1区 教育学 Q1 EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH
Sarah R. Cohodes, Sean P. Corcoran, Jennifer L. Jennings, Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj
{"title":"When Do Informational Interventions Work? Experimental Evidence From New York City High School Choice","authors":"Sarah R. Cohodes, Sean P. Corcoran, Jennifer L. Jennings, Carolyn Sattin-Bajaj","doi":"10.3102/01623737231203293","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Despite evidence that informational interventions can influence K–12 school choices, we know little about the mechanisms through which they work and the factors that produce heterogeneity in student responses. Through a school-level randomized controlled trial conducted in 473 New York City middle schools serving 115,000 eighth graders, we evaluated three counselor-delivered informational interventions that were designed to help students avoid low-graduation high schools, but differed in their level of individual customization and mode of delivery (paper or online). Every intervention reduced likelihood of application to and enrollment in low-graduation-rate schools (those below the city median of 75%). Simplified paper interventions had the largest impacts and produced lower heterogeneity in effects across subgroups than customizable digital formats. A key mechanism by which interventions worked was through new information replacing students’ default first-choice schools that had low graduation rates and guaranteed admission. We conclude that informational interventions to support school choice can be effectively implemented at scale via school counselors, but that intervention design can lead to differences in who engages, with consequences for inequality.","PeriodicalId":48079,"journal":{"name":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","volume":"30 11","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-11-06","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737231203293","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"教育学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Despite evidence that informational interventions can influence K–12 school choices, we know little about the mechanisms through which they work and the factors that produce heterogeneity in student responses. Through a school-level randomized controlled trial conducted in 473 New York City middle schools serving 115,000 eighth graders, we evaluated three counselor-delivered informational interventions that were designed to help students avoid low-graduation high schools, but differed in their level of individual customization and mode of delivery (paper or online). Every intervention reduced likelihood of application to and enrollment in low-graduation-rate schools (those below the city median of 75%). Simplified paper interventions had the largest impacts and produced lower heterogeneity in effects across subgroups than customizable digital formats. A key mechanism by which interventions worked was through new information replacing students’ default first-choice schools that had low graduation rates and guaranteed admission. We conclude that informational interventions to support school choice can be effectively implemented at scale via school counselors, but that intervention design can lead to differences in who engages, with consequences for inequality.
信息干预何时起作用?来自纽约市高中选择的实验证据
尽管有证据表明信息干预可以影响K-12学校的选择,但我们对其工作机制以及产生学生反应异质性的因素知之甚少。通过在纽约市473所中学进行的一项学校水平的随机对照试验,为115,000名八年级学生提供服务,我们评估了三种辅导员提供的信息干预措施,这些干预措施旨在帮助学生避免低毕业率的高中,但在个人定制水平和交付模式(纸质或在线)方面存在差异。每一项干预措施都降低了低毕业率学校(低于城市中位数75%的学校)的申请和入学率。与可定制的数字格式相比,简化的纸质干预措施具有最大的影响,并且在亚组之间产生的效果异质性较低。干预措施发挥作用的一个关键机制是,通过新的信息取代学生默认的第一选择学校,这些学校毕业率低,而且保证被录取。我们得出的结论是,支持择校的信息干预可以通过学校辅导员有效地大规模实施,但干预设计可能导致谁参与的差异,从而导致不平等的后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis EDUCATION & EDUCATIONAL RESEARCH-
CiteScore
6.60
自引率
5.90%
发文量
36
期刊介绍: Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (EEPA) publishes manuscripts of theoretical or practical interest to those engaged in educational evaluation or policy analysis, including economic, demographic, financial, and political analyses of education policies, and significant meta-analyses or syntheses that address issues of current concern. The journal seeks high-quality research on how reforms and interventions affect educational outcomes; research on how multiple educational policy and reform initiatives support or conflict with each other; and research that informs pending changes in educational policy at the federal, state, and local levels, demonstrating an effect on early childhood through early adulthood.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信