Finance and Economics Discussion Series
Divisions of Research & Statistics and Monetary Affairs
Federal Reserve Board, Washington, D.C.
The Role of Specific Subjects in Education Production Functions:
Evidence from Morning Classes in Chicago Public High Schools
Jesse Bricker, Kalena Cortes, and Chris Rohlfs
2010-33
NOTE: Staff working papers in the Finance and Economics Discussion Series (FEDS) are preliminary
materials circulated to stimulate discussion and critical c omme nt. The analysis and conclusions set forth
are those of the authors and do not indicate concurrence by other members of the research staff or the
Board of Governors. References in publications to the Finance and Economics Discussion Series (other than
acknowledgement) should be cleared with the author(s) to protect the tentative character of these papers.
The Role of Specific Subjects in Education Production Functions:
Evidence from Morning Classes in Chicago Public High Schools
Kalena E. Cortes
*
Syracuse University
kcortes@syr.edu
Jesse Bricker
Federal Reserve Board
jesse.bricker@frb.gov
Chris Rohlfs
Syracuse University
carohlfs@maxwell.syr.edu
This version: October 3, 2009
Abstract
Absences in Chicago Public High Schools are 3-7 days per year higher in first period than at other
times of the day. This study exploits this empirical regularity and the essentially random variation
between students in the ordering of classes over the day to measure how the returns to classroom
learning vary by course subject, and how much attendance in one class spills over into learning in
other subjects. We find that having a class in first period reduces grades in that course and has little
effect on long-term grades or grades in related subjects. We also find moderately-sized negative
effects of having a class in first period on test scores in that subject and in related subjects,
particularly for math classes.
JEL Classifications: I20, I21, J13
*
We are indebted to Sue Sporte, Associate Director for Evaluation and Data Resources, the Consortium on Chicago
School Research (CCSR), University of Chicago, and Peter Godard, Director of Data Management in the Office of
Research, Evaluation and Accountability, Chicago Public Schools, for making the data available for this project. Special
thanks for helpful comments from Dan Black, David E. Card, Michael Greenstone, Jeff D. Kubik, Steve Levitt, Casey
Mulligan, Cecilia E. Rouse, Michael J. Wasylenko, and seminar participants at the Consortium on Chicago School
Research, Syracuse University, and the University of Chicago, and to Elaine Allensworth, John Easton, and Matt
Gladden for their assistance providing data for an earlier version of this study. We are thankful to the Maxwell School
of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University for providing an internal grant in support of this project.
Institutional support from the Center of Policy Research at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs is also
gratefully acknowledged. Research results, conclusions, and all errors are naturally our own.
1
I. Introduction
Initiatives to improve student performance are often targeted in “core” subjects such as
math and science, and these areas are typically less susceptible than other subjects are to budget cuts
(Cravey, 2009; Jordan, 2008; National Math and Science Initiative, 2008; Van Harken, 2003).
Nevertheless, recent evidence suggests that math and science teachers are underpaid relative to their
opportunity costs (Chingos and West, 2009). While incentives are sometimes provided for teachers
in “critical shortage areas” such as math and science, public school teacher salaries are often set
independent of the subject taught (Chicago Public Schools, 2009; Los Angeles Unified School
District, 2009; New York Department of Education, 2009a, 2009b). Allocations of school resources
across course subjects are controversial, and considerable disagreement exists regarding the relative
importance of instruction in technical versus creative skills (Eisner, 2004; Greenspan, 2000; Holt,
1997; Ingersoll and Perda, 2009; Murnane et al., 1991; National Academy of Sciences, 2006;
Rochester, 2002; The Winston Group, 2006).
In this paper, we examine one important aspect of this problem – the degree to which
student achievement is tied to skills learned in particular classes. More specifically, we measure the
marginal effects of classroom attendance in specific subjects on grades and test scores in those
subjects. Additionally, we measure the degree to which attendance in one subject has spillover
effects onto performance in other subjects.
While many studies find that exogenously increasing schooling raises test scores (Cooper et
al., 1996; Hansen, under revision; Hansen, Heckman, and Mullen, 2004; Krashinsky, 2009) and later
wages (see Card, 1999 for a review), surprisingly little is known about the role of different course
subjects in generating those returns. Some recent studies at the college level find that later earnings
were higher for displaced workers who enrolled in technical classes in community college than for
those who enrolled in other subjects (Jacobson, LaLonde, and Sullivan, 2005) and that skipping
2
college classes reduces performance in those classes (Dills and Hernández-Julián, 2008; Dobkin, Gil,
and Marion, under revision). However, much of the policy debate focuses on the relative
importance of different subjects in elementary and secondary education, for which there is little
empirical evidence. One recent and notable exception by Dee and Cohodes (2008) examines how
having a teacher who is trained or certified in a subject affects eighth graders’ performance in that
subject. Using data with two subject-specific tests per student and controlling for student fixed
effects, the authors find that having a math teacher who is state-certified in math increases math test
scores by 0.12 standard deviations and that having a social studies teacher who is state-certified in
social studies increases social studies test scores by 0.08 standard deviations. The authors find
considerably smaller effects for science and English.
The current study contributes to the literature on subject-specific inputs and performance by
examining the effects of exogenous differences in course scheduling in Chicago Public High
Schools. After students select the courses that they will take in a semester, the ordering of classes
over the day is a computerized and essentially random process that is determined based on
scheduling constraints. One common form of absenteeism that is observed in high school is late
arrival. For the typical Chicago Public High School student, attendance is roughly six days per year
lower in first period classes than in other periods of the day. Hence, a student who has mathematics
as a first period class is likely to receive about six fewer days of math instruction per year than an
otherwise identical student who has physical education as a first period class. To the extent that
missing math classes reduces students’ test scores in math, we should expect students who take math
in first period to perform worse than average on standardized tests in math, and we would expect
similar negative effects of having English or social studies first period on reading test scores.
Unfortunately, our identification strategy does not enable us to disentangle the indirect
effects of morning classes on test scores (through the channel of absenteeism) from the direct
3
effects (through the channel of morning grogginess). Nevertheless, we are able to measure the
degree to which having a key subject in first period negatively affects performance in that subject,
and we are able to estimate the importance of spillover effects onto related subjects as they compare
to the own-subject effects. Additionally, if we suppose that the grogginess effect is known to be
negative, then we can identify a lower (negative) bound on the effects of absenteeism.
Our data are taken from Chicago Public Schools administrative files and include the ordering
of classes over the day, teacher-recorded absences, course titles, grades, scores from standardized
tests in math, science, reading, and English, and demographic characteristics for the universe of
Chicago Public High School students from 1993-94 to 2005-06.
We find that the effect of having a class in first period increases absences in that subject by
three to seven days over the year, and it decreases class performance in that subject by 0.09 to 0.17
grade points on a 4-point grading scale. These results are consistently significant and are stable
across specifications and course subjects. The negative effect of first period on course grades may
occur because absences and grogginess cause students to learn less than they otherwise would;
however, much of the relationship is probably attributable to teachers implicitly or explicitly
factoring absences into their grade calculations. Moreover, we find no evidence of cross-subject
effects of having a class in first period on class performance in similar subjects or on performance in
that same subject in the following year. Hence, any skills that students failed to acquire due to
absenteeism and grogginess were specific to that particular class and do not appear to have had
negative spillover effects on related classes.
While imprecisely estimated and generally insignificant, we find some moderately-sized
negative effects of having a class in first period on the growth in test scores in that subject over the
year. We observe negative effects of first period on test score growth for math classes, and we find
negative spillover effects of having math in first period on test score growth in science and reading.
