CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 105School Choice and PerformanceGlobal Educational Reforms and InequalitiesEducational Assessment and Improvement

Increased instruction hours and the widening gap in student performance

Open access
Huebener, Mathias, Kuger, Susanne, Marcus, Jan·2017·Labour Economics
DOI 10.1016/j.labeco.2017.04.007
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.labeco.2017.04.007

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Huebener, Kuger, and Marcus (2017) find that a German reform extending the school week by two hours improved students' performance in mathematics, science, and reading by slightly more than 0.05 of a standard deviation.

    “For example, Huebener, Kuger, and Marcus (2017) find that a German reform extending the school week by two hours improved students' performance in mathematics, science, and reading by slightly more than 0.05 of a standard deviation.”

    From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Huebener, Kuger, and Marcus (2017)

  • As high performing students benefited more, the German reform also increased inequality.

    “Though, as high performing students benefited more, it also increased inequality.”

    From Educational Inequality* (2022) · cites this paper as Huebener, Kuger, and Marcus (2017)

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Agasisti, T. & Longobardi, S. (2014). Inequality in education: Can Italian disadvan- taged students close the gap? Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics, 52, 8-20.
  2. Allensworth, E., Nomi, T., Montgomery, N., & Lee, V. E. (2009). College prepara- tory curriculum for all: Academic consequences of requiring Algebra and English I for ninth graders in Chicago. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31 (4), 367-391.
  3. Athey, S. & Imbens, G. (2006). Identification and inference in nonlinear difference- in-differences models. Econometrica, 74 (2), 431-497.
  4. Battistin, E. & Meroni, E. C. (2016). Should we increase instruction time in low achieving schools? Evidence from Southern Italy. Economics of Education Review, 55, 39-56.
  5. Baumert, J. (2009). Programme for International Student Assessment 2000 (PISA 2000). Version: 1. IQB -Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bil- dungswesen. Datensatz. Max-Planck-Institut für Bildungsforschung (MPIB), http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB PISA 2000 v1. · DOI
  6. Bellei, C. (2009). Does lengthening the school day increase students' academic achievement? Results from a natural experiment in Chile. Economics of Education Review, 28 (5), 629-640.
  7. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119 (1), 249-275.
  8. Bettinger, E. & Slonim, R. (2007). Patience among children. Journal of Public Economics, 91 (1-2), 343-363.
  9. Cameron, A. C., Gelbach, J. B., & Miller, D. L. (2008). Bootstrap-based improve- ments for inference with clustered errors. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 90 (3), 414-427.
  10. Card, D. & Krueger, A. B. (1992). Does school quality matter? Returns to education and the characteristics of public schools in the United States. Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1), 1-40.
  11. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., & Vigdor, J. L. (2015). The aftermath of accelerating Algebra: Evidence from district policy initiatives. Journal of Human Resources, 50 (1), 159-188.
  12. Cortes, K. E. & Goodman, J. S. (2014). Ability-tracking, instructional time, and better pedagogy: The effect of double-dose algebra on student achievement. Amer- ican Economic Review: Papers & Proceedings, 104 (5), 400-405.
  13. Cortes, K. E., Goodman, J. S., & Nomi, T. (2015). Intensive math instruction and educational attainment: Long-run impacts of double-dose algebra. Journal of Human Resources, 50 (1), 108-158.
  14. Cunha, F. & Heckman, J. (2007). The technology of skill formation. American Economic Review, 97 (2), 31-47.
  15. Dee, T. S. (2007). Teachers and the gender gaps in student achievement. Journal of Human Resources, 42 (3), 528 -554.
  16. Dustmann, C., Puhani, P. A., & Schönberg, U. (2016). The long-term effects of early track choice. The Economic Journal, forthcoming.
  17. Firpo, S., Fortin, N. M., & Lemieux, T. (2009). Unconditional quantile regressions. Econometrica, 77 (3), 953-973.
  18. Grogger, J. (1996). Does school quality explain the recent black/white wage trend? Journal of Labor Economics, 14 (2), 231-53.
  19. Havnes, T. & Mogstad, M. (2015). Is universal child care leveling the playing field? Journal of Public Economics, 127, 100-114.
  20. Herrmann, M. A. & Rockoff, J. E. (2012). Worker absence and productivity: Evi- dence from teaching. Journal of Labor Economics, 30 (4), 749-782.
  21. Huebener, M. & Marcus, J. (2017). Compressing instruction time into fewer years of schooling and the impact on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 58 (June), 1-14.
  22. Jensen, V. (2013). Working longer makes students stronger? The effects of ninth grade classroom hours on ninth grade student performance. Educational Research, 55 (2), 180-194.
  23. Kawaguchi, D. (2016). Fewer school days, more inequality. Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 39, 35-52.
  24. Klieme, E. (2013). Programme for International Student Assessment 2009 (PISA 2009). Version: 1. IQB -Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswe- sen. Datensatz. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB PISA 2009 v1. · DOI
  25. Lavecchia, A., Liu, H., & Oreopoulos, P. (2016). Behavioral economics of educa- tion. In E. A. Hanushek, S. Machin, & L. Woessmann (Eds.), Handbook of the Economics of Education (Vol. 5). Chapter 1, (pp. 1-74). Amsterdam.
  26. Lee, J.-W. & Barro, R. J. (2001). Schooling quality in a cross-section of countries. Economica, 68 (272), 465-488.
  27. Machin, S. & McNally, S. (2008). The literacy hour. Journal of Public Economics, 92 (5-6), 1441-1462.
  28. Marcotte, D. E. (2007). Schooling and test scores: A mother-natural experiment. Economics of Education Review, 26 (5), 629-640.
  29. Meroni, E. C. & Abbiati, G. (2016). How do students react to longer instruction time? Evidence from Italy. Education Economics, 24 (6), 592-611.
  30. Meyer, T. & Thomsen, S. L. (2015). Schneller fertig, aber weniger Freizeit? Eine Evaluation der Wirkungen der verkürzten Gymnasialschulzeit auf die außerschulis- chen Aktivitäten der Schülerinnen und Schüler. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 135 (2015), 249-278.
  31. Mueller, S. (2013). Teacher experience and the class size effect -Experimental evidence. Journal of Public Economics, 98, 44-52.
  32. OECD (2015). Education at a glance 2015: OECD indicators. OECD Publishing. OECD (2016a). How is learning time organised in primary and secondary education? Education Indicators in Focus, 38, OECD Publishing, Paris. OECD (2016b). Student learning time: A literature review. OECD Education Working Papers, 127, OECD Publishing, Paris.
  33. Patall, E. A., Cooper, H., & Allen, A. B. (2010). Extending the school day or school year: A systematic review of research (1985-2009). Review of Educational Research, 80, 401-436.
  34. Prenzel, M. (2007). Programme for International Student Assessment 2003 (PISA 2003). Version: 1. IQB -Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen. Datensatz. Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Math- ematik an der Universität Kiel, http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB PISA 2003 v1. · DOI
  35. Prenzel, M. (2010). Programme for International Student Assessment 2006 (PISA 2006). Version: 1. IQB -Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswesen. Datensatz. Leibniz-Institut für die Pädagogik der Naturwissenschaften und Math- ematik an der Universität Kiel, http://doi.org/10.5159/IQB PISA 2006 v1. · DOI
  36. Prenzel, M., Sälzer, C., Klieme, E., Köller, O., Mang, J., Heine, J.-H., Schiepe-Tiska, A., & Müller, K. (2015). Programme for International Student Assessment 2012 (PISA 2012). Version: 2. IQB -Institut zur Qualitätsentwicklung im Bildungswe- sen. Datensatz. Deutsches Institut für Internationale Pädagogische Forschung, http://doi.org/10.5159/.
  37. Rangvid, B. S. (2007). School composition effects in Denmark: Quantile regression evidence from PISA 2000. Empirical Economics, 33 (2), 359-388.
  38. Rivkin, S. G. & Schiman, J. C. (2015). Instruction time, classroom quality, and academic achievement. The Economic Journal, 125 (588), F425-F448.
  39. Rothstein, J. (2010). Teacher quality in educational production: Tracking, decay, and student achievement. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 125 (1), 175-214.
  40. Rubin, D. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York: John Wiley & Sons.
  41. Schmidt, W. H., McKnight, C. C., Houang, R. T., Wang, H., Wiley, D. E., Cogan, L. S., & Wolfe, R. G. (2001). Why schools matter: A cross-national comparison of curriculum and learning. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
  42. Sims, D. P. (2008). Strategic responses to school accountability measures: It's all in the timing. Economics of Education Review, 27 (1), 58-68.
  43. Woessmann, L. (2003). Schooling resources, educational institutions and student performance: The international evidence. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 65 (2), 117-170.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Huebener, M., Kuger, S., & Marcus, J.
Affiliations
  • German Institute for Economic Research (DE)
  • DIPF | Leibniz Institute for Research and Information in Education (DE)
Corresponding author
Huebener, Mathias
ORCID
Venue
Labour Economics
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
47
Pages
15-34
ISSN
0927-5371 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.labeco.2017.04.007
OpenAlex
W2610150668
Cited by
105
References
8
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 15 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 4
FWCI
45.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/ (tdm)
Locations
  • Labour Economics (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
  • Econstor (Econstor) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
Funders
Studienstiftung des Deutschen Volkes
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Demography › Global Educational Reforms and Inequalities
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
educational reform, student performance, PISA, ninth grade, underachieving students, high-achieving students, performance gap, treatment effects, German education reform

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review