Fig 1.
Retention rates per school and grade.
Source: Authors’ calculation based on administrative information of the C-600 school census from the National Bureau of Statistics DANE.
Fig 2.
Retention rates per treatment status.
This figure shows average school retention rates by treatment status. The dotted line displays statistics for treated schools, while the continuous line shows statistics for control schools. Treated schools are defined as those with above-median retention rate change between the AUP and FRP periods. Statistics are computed using the full sample of schools.
Fig 3.
Distributions of school retention rates by treatment status.
This figure shows the distribution of the average retention rate by (a) treated and (b) control schools, and by periods of analysis. Dotted lines display distributions during the AUP period, while continuous lines display distributions for the FRP period. The vertical dotted line marks the 5% retention cap. Distributions are computed using the full sample of schools.
Table 1.
Summary statistics of schools during the AUP regime (2007-2010).
Table 2.
Effect of FRP regime on SABER11 test scores: TWFE estimates.
Fig 4.
Effects of the FRP regime on average school test scores by academic subject.
This figure displays TWFE point estimates on the effects of the FRP regime on SABER11 test scores by STEM and non-STEM academic subjects. Effects are measured in standard deviation units. Caps represent 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 5.
Effects of the FRP regime on average school test scores: Event-study estimates.
This figure displays event-study point estimates on the effects of the FRP regime on SABER11 aggregate test scores (a) and performance percentiles gains (b). Effects are measured in standard deviation units. Caps represent 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 6.
Effects of the FRP regime on average school test scores by subject: Event-study estimates.
This figure displays event-study point estimates on the effects of the FRP regime on SABER11 math (a) and language (b) test scores. Effects are measured in standard deviation units. Caps represent 95% confidence intervals.
Table 3.
Effects of the FRP regime in Retained and Non-Retained Students.
Fig 7.
Heterogeneous effects of the FRP regime by school attributes.
This figure displays TWFE point estimates on the effects of the FRP regime on aggregate SABER11 test scores (all subjects). Effects are measured in standard deviation units. Caps represent 95% confidence intervals.
Fig 8.
Heterogeneous effects of the FRP regime by student characteristics.
This figure displays TWFE point estimates on the effects of the FRP regime on aggregate SABER11 test scores (all subjects). Effects are measured in standard deviation units. Caps represent 95% confidence intervals.
Table 4.
Effects of the FRP regime along the AUP’s test scores distribution.
Table 5.
Effects of the FRP policy regime on school promotion, dropouts, and transfers.
Table 6.
Effect of FRP regime on test scores: controlling for school dropouts and transfers.