Accountability,Assessment,and Performance Issues: We've Come a Long Way … or Have We?

Abelmann C. , & Elmore R. (with J. Even, S. Kenyon, J. Marshall). (1999). When accountability knocks, will anyone answer? CPRE Research Report Series, RR-42. Philadelphia, University of Pennsylvania: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.

Clotfelter C. , & Ladd H.F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In Ladd H. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Feuer M.J. (2002). Accountability, testing, and unintended consequences. Dinner remarks, Brookings-Wharton Conference on Urban Affairs, October 24.

Goldhaber D. , & Hannaway J. (2001). Accountability with a kicker: Observations on Florida vouchers. Paper presented at Annual Meeting of Association for Public Policy and Management (APPAM). Under review, Educational Evaluation and Policy.

Grissmer D. , & Flanagan A. (1998). Lessons from the states: Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel. Available online http://www.negp.gov/reports/grissmer.pdf

Hannaway J. , McKay S. , & Nakib Y. (2002). Reform and resource allocation: National trends and state policies. In Fowler W. (Ed.), Developments in school finance (pp. 57–76). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Hannaway J. , & McKay S. (2001). Taking measure. Education Next, 1(3), 9–12.

Kane T. , & Staiger D. (2002a). Volatility in school test scores: Implications for test-based accountability systems. Brookings Papers on Education Policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Kane T.J. , & Staiger D.O. (forthcoming). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives.

Koretz D. (1988). Arriving in Lake Wobegon: Are standardized tests exaggerating achievement and distorting instruction? American Educator, 12(2), 8–15, 46.

Koretz D. , Barron S. , Mitchell K. , & Stecher B. (1996). The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation, Report Number MR-792-PCT/FF.

Linn R.L. , Baker E.L. , & Betebenner D.W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3–16.

Linn R.L. , Graue M.E. , & Sanders N.M. (1990). Comparing state and district results to national norms: The validity of the claims that “everyone is above average.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 9(3), 5–14.

Linn R.L. , & Haug C. (2002). Stability of school building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29–36.

March J.G. , & Olsen J.P. (1976). Ambiguity and choice in organizations. Bergen, Norway: Universitetsforlaget.

Meyer J.W. , & Rowan B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2): 340–363.

Milgrom P. , & Roberts J. (1992). Economics, organization and management. New York: Prentice-Hall, 1992.

Olson K. , & Raphael J. (2001). Waivers: Flexibility and accountability. A report to Congress on waivers granted under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Goals 2000: Educate America Act, and School-to-Work Opportunities Act. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Quality Counts 2002: Building blocks of success. (2002). Education Week, 21(17). Available on the web: http://www.edweek.org/sreports/qc02/

Putterman L. , & Kroszner R. (Eds.). (1996). The economic nature of the firm. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Raphael J. , & McKay S. (2001). Analysis of the Education Flexibility Partnership Demonstration Program State Reports. Report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.

Swanson C. (forthcoming). Organizational coupling, control, and change: The role of higher-order models of control in educational reform. Forthcoming in L. Hedges & B. Schneider (Eds.), Social organization of schooling. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Weick K.E. (1976). Educational organizations as loosely coupled systems. Administrative Science Quarterly, 21, 1–19.