Using Maimonides' Rule to Estimate the Effect of Class Size on Student Achievement

By Joshua D. Angrist, Victor Lavy. 1999

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Citations in the corpus

Scaling Up and Evaluation (2003, methodology): “Angrist and Lavy (1999) use this technique, known as regression discontinuity design (Campbell 1969) to evaluate the impact of class size in Israel.”
Performance Pay and Teachers' Effort, Productivity and Grading Ethics (2004, background): “For recent examples, see Angrist and Lavy (1999, 2002a), Hoxby (2000), Lavy (2002), and van der Klaauw (1997).”
ON T HE SPECIFICATION A ND ESTIMATION OF T HE PRODUCTION F UNCTION F OR COGNITIVE ACHIEVEMENT (2003, unknown): “For example, Angrist and Lavy (1999) make use of Maimonides’ rule, a rule that partly determines class sizes in Israel, as an instrumental variable in analysing what they term the ‘casual effect’ of class-size on student achievement.”
Field experiments in labor economics (2010, methodology): “In this way, the Angrist and Lavy (1999) estimates should be viewed as a first step in understanding the importance of class size on student performance.”
Education, equality, and efficiency - An analysis of Swedish school reforms during the 1990s (2004, methodology): “To avoid these problems, Angrist and Lavy (2002) analyze a natural experiment in Israel.”
Can Entrepreneurial Activity be Taught? Quasi-Experimental Evidence from Central America (2011, methodology): “For other prominent examples of this approach, see for example Angrist and Lavy (1999), van der Klaauw (2002), Jacob and Lefgren (2004), or Ludwig and Miller (2007).”
The Credibility Revolution in Empirical Economics: How Better Research Design is Taking the Con Out of Econometrics (2010, unknown): “Angrist and Lavy (1999) illustrate the regression discontinuity research design in a study of the effects of class size on achievement.”
Fairness and Frictions: The Impact of Unequal Raises on Quit Behavior (2018, unknown): “18Our research design is similar to Angrist and Lavy (1999) and Angrist, Battistin and Vuri (2014).”
The Non-Cognitive Returns to Class Size (2008, unknown): “There is also a rapidly growing literature that uses quasi-experimental methods to estimate the Dee and West effects of class-size reduction on student achievement internationally (e.g., Angrist & Lavy, 1999; Case & Deaton, 1999; Woessmann & West, 2006).”
How Does Venture Capital Financing Improve Efficiency in Private Firms? A Look Beneath the Surface (2011, unknown): “Specifically, we use the “fuzzy” RD technique discussed in Angrist and Lavy (1999) and Van der Klaauw (2002).”
Can information alone change behavior? Response to arsenic contamination of groundwater in Bangladesh (2007, background): “16 Angrist and Lavy (1999), Chay and Greenstone (2005), Cook and Campbell (1979).”
Applied Nonparametric Instrumental Variables Estimation (2011, background): “The IV estimate of 1 β in (5.1) is -0.110 with a standard error of 0.040 (Angrist and Lavy 1999, Table V).”
External Validity in Fuzzy Regression Discontinuity Designs (2019, unknown): “Influential applications include Berk and Rauma (1983), Black (1999), Angrist and Lavy (1999), Van Der Klaauw (2002), Jacob and 2Available at www.nd.edu/∼mbertanh.”
School Governance, Teacher Incentives, and Pupil-Teacher Ratios: Experimental Evidence from Kenyan Primary Schools (2012, unknown): “Finally, a variety of pedagogical reforms have been advocated to make teaching better focused on the needs and achievement level of the child, rather than focused on an official 1 For positive effects at the primary school level see Krueger and Whitmore (2002) in the US, Angrist and Lavy (1999) in I”
Regression Discontinuity Designs in Economics (2010, unknown): “Parental Valuation of Elementary Education.””
School Quality and Returns to Education of U.S. Immigrants. (2002, background): “Some studies (Card and Krueger, 1992b, 1996b; Altonji and Dunn, 1996; Angrist and Lavy, 1999; Kreuger, 1999) support Card and Krueger’s (1992a) findings, whereas others (Betts, 1995, 1996a; Grogger, 1996a) find little or no relation between commonly used quality attributes of the educational system”