This study conducted a comparative analysis of Difference-in-Differences (DiD) and event study methodologies to evaluate the impact of a simulated school funding reform on student test scores and attendance rates. Utilizing a hypothetical dataset of 50,000 students across 100 school districts, the research examined the strengths and limitations of each method in isolating the causal effects of the policy intervention. The DiD analysis revealed a statistically significant positive effect of the reform, demonstrating an average increase of 5.23 points in test scores and 2.10 percentage points in attendance rates in treated districts compared to control districts. Placebo tests supported the validity of these findings, indicating that the observed effects were likely attributable to the reform. The event study analysis provided a more dynamic perspective, capturing the temporal evolution of the reform’s impact. Results showed a gradual increase in both test scores and attendance rates following the reform, with effects reaching a plateau after several years, highlighting the importance of considering the timing and magnitude of policy effects. Sensitivity analyses, including variations in control variables, reinforced the robustness of the event study findings. The study found that DiD provided efficient estimates of average treatment effects under conditions of immediate and uniform policy implementation and strong support for the parallel trends assumption. Conversely, the event study excelled in capturing dynamic effects and handling staggered implementation. The research concluded that the selection of evaluation methodology should be context-specific, emphasizing methodological flexibility and the importance of rigorous sensitivity analyses. The findings contribute to the methodological literature by providing empirical evidence on the relative strengths and weaknesses of DiD and event study designs in educational policy evaluation, offering practical guidance for researchers and policymakers. Received: 09.03.2025 Accepted: 14.03.2025 Published on: 30.03.2025