Performance management proposes to use market reforms to enhance the quality of public services provided to vulnerable citizens. However, the ability to accomplish this goal is largely unsubstantiated. In the field of education, the No Child Left Behind Act mandated the development of performance reform guidelines that held educators accountable for disadvantaged students outcomes. This research assesses the quality of states’ NCLB provisions that targeted minority and vulnerable student performance as well as change in outcomes. It reveals that performance reforms holding educators accountable while also enhancing performance is limited by organized employee groups and enhanced by past performance, political affiliation, preexisting voluntary performance reforms.
AinsworthJames. 2002. “Why Does It Take a Village? The Mediation of Neighborhood Effects on Educational Achievement.” Social Forces, (81)1: 117–152.
2.
AllenW.R and JewellJ.. 1995. “African American Education since an American Dilemma: An American Dilemma Revisited.” Daedalus, 124(1): 77–100.
3.
AndrewRhys, CowellRichard and DowneJames. 2008. “Support for active citizenship and public service performance: an empirical analysis of English local authorities.” Policy and Politics, 36, 2, p. 225–243.
4.
AppleM.W.2001. Educating the “Right” Way: Markets, Standards, God, and Inequality. New York: Routledge.
5.
ArchbaldDouglas. 2004. “School Choice, Magnet Schools, and the Liberation Model: An Empirical Study” Sociology of Education, 77(4): 283–310.
6.
BrownC., Lopez-MedinaL. and ReedR.2004. “Choosing Better Schools: A Report on Student Transfers Under the No Child Left Behind Act.” Report of the Citizens' Commission on Civil Rights. Washington, DC: Rock Creek Publishing.
7.
BuckleyJack and SchneiderMark. 2003. “Shopping for Schools: How Do Marginal Consumers Gather Information About Schools?” The Policy Studies Journal, 31 (2): 121–145.
8.
CarnoyM.2005. “Have State Accountability and High Stakes Test Influenced Student Progression Rates in High School?” Educational Measure: Issues and Practice, 24 (4): 19–31.
9.
CarnoyM. and LoebS.2002. “Does External Accountability Affect Student Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (4): 305–331.
10.
CasserlyMichael. 2007. “America's Great City Schools: Moving in the Right Direction.” In No Remedy Left Behind, In No Remedy Left Behind edited by HessFrederick and FinnChesterJr.AEI Press: Washington D.C.
11.
Center on Education Policy.2008. “Many States Have Taken a Backloaded Approach to No Child Left Behind Goal of All Students Scoring Proficient.”Washington, D.C.
12.
ChewKenneth. 1992. “The Demographic Erosion of Political Support for Public Education: A Suburban Case Study.” Sociology of Education, 65(4): 280–292.
13.
CooperCamille. 2005. “School Choice and the Standpoint of African American Mothers: Considering the Power of Positionality.” The Journal of Negro Education, 74(2): 174–189.
14.
DillionErin2008. “In Need of Improvement: Revising NCLB's School Choice Provision.”Education Sector's Ideas at Work, Washington, DCeducationsector.org.
15.
DeeT. S. and JacobB.2011. “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement” Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30 (3): 418–446.
16.
FrankenbergErica and LeeChungmei. 2003. “Charter Schools and Race: A Lost Opportunity for Integrated Education.” Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (32): 1–48.
17.
FruchterNorman. 2007. Urban Schools Public Will. Teacher College Press: New York, NY.
18.
HanushekE. and RaymondM.2003. Lessons about the Design of State Accountability Systems. In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability edited by WestMartin and PetersonPaul, 126–151. Washington, DC: Brookings.
19.
HartmanChester. 2003. “Introduction and Overview: Student Mobility: How Some Children Get Left Behind.” The Journal of Negro Education, 72(1): 1–5.
20.
HessF.2003. Refining or Retreating? High Stakes Accountability in the States. In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability edited by WestMartin and PetersonPaul, 55–79. Washington, DC: Brookings.
21.
HessF. and FinnC.. 2007. No Remedy Left Behind: Lessons from a Half of Decade of NCLB.American Enterprise Institute Press.
22.
HoA. and Ya NiA.2005. “Have Cities Shifted to Outcome-Oriented Performance Reporting? A Content Analysis of City Budgets.” Public Budgeting and Finance, 25 (2): 61–83.
23.
HochschildJennifer. 2003. “Rethinking Accountability Politics” In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice and School Accountability. Edited by PetersonPaul and WestMartin. Washington DC: Brookings Institution Press, p. 107–125.
24.
HornerConstante. 2001. “Beyond Mr. Gradgrind: The Case for Deregulating the Public Sector.” In Introduction to Public Administration: A Book of Readings. Edited by Steven OttJ. and RussellE.W., Addison Wesley Publishers.
25.
HoxbyCaroline. 1996. “How Teachers' Unions Affect Education Production.” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(3): 671–718.
26.
HurstD., TanA.MeekA. and SellersJ.2003. “Overview and Inventory of State Education Reforms: 1999 to 2000.” National Center for Education Statistics, US Department of Education.
27.
KimJimmy and SundermanGail2004. “Does NCLB Provide Good Choices for Students in Low Performing Schools.”Cambridge, MA: The Civil Right's Project, Harvard University. http://www.civilrightsproject.havard.edu.
28.
JohnsonSusan Moore and KardosSusan. 2000. “Reform bargaining and its promise for school improvement.” In Conflicting Missions? Teachers Unions and Education Reform, edited by LovelessTom, Brooking, p. 7–46.
29.
LeonardNancy, BeauvaisLaura, and SchollRichard. 2003. “Work Motivation: The Incorporation of Self-Concept-Based Processes.” In Classic Readings in Organization Behavior, 3rd Edition. Edited by Steven OttJ., ParkesSandra, and SimpsonRichard. Wadworth Publishing, University of Utah.
30.
LightPaul. 2006. “The Tides of Reform Revisited: Patterns in Making Government Work, 1945–2002.” Public Administration Review, 66 (1): 6–19.
31.
LittleJudith and BartlettLora. 2010. “The Teacher Workforce and Problems of Educational Equity.” Review of Research in Education, 34: 285–328.
32.
LubienskiSarah. 2002. “A Closer Look at Black-White Mathematics Gaps: Intersections of Race and SES in NAEP Achievement and Instructional Practice Data.” The Journal of Negro Education71(4): 269–287.
33.
LubienskiC.2003. Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on theimpact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal, 40(2), 395–443.
34.
McConnellTR.1971. “Accountability and Autonomy.” Journal of Higher Education, 42, 446–463.
35.
McGuinnPatrick. 2012. “Stimulating Reform: Race to Top, Competitive Grants and the Obama Education Agenda.” Educational Policy, 26(1), 136–159.
36.
MoeTerry. 2003. “Politics, Control, and the Future of School Accountability.” in No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability edited by WestMartin and PetersonPaul, Brooking Institute Press, Washington, D.C.
37.
MoeT.2011. Special Interest: Teachers Unions and America's Public Schools. The Brookings Institution Press.
38.
NicholsS., GlassG. and BerlinerD.2005. High Stakes Testing and Student Achievement: Problems for the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Policy Research Unit, Education Policy Studies Laboratory, Arizona State University.
39.
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115, Stat. 1425 (2002).
40.
OrrA.J.2000. Racial Differences in Academic Achievement: The Effects of Wealth. South Bend, IN: Notre Dame Press.
41.
PanD., RudoZ.H., SchneiderC.L., and Smith-HansenC.L.. 2003. Examination of resource allocation in education: Connecting spending to student performance. Austin, TX: Southwest Educational Development Laboratory.
42.
PatrickBarbara. 2012. “Fiscal Federalism, Performance Policies, and Education Reforms: Are States Using Performance Policies to Improve Workforce Quality?” Politics and Policy, 40:2 (592–627).
43.
PatrickBarbara and Edward FrenchP.. 2011. “Assessing New Public Management's Focus on Performance Measurement in the Public Sector: A Look at No Child Left Behind,” Public Performance and Management Review, 35:2 (340–369).
44.
PetersB. G.2002. Administrative Reform and Public Personnel Management In Public Personnel Management Current Concerns, Future Challenges, 3rd ed. Ed. by BanCarolyn and RiccucciNorma, New York, NY: Longman Press.
45.
PetersonPaul E., HowellWilliam G. and GreeneJay P.. 1999. “Evaluation of the Cleveland Voucher Program after Two Years,”Harvard University, Program on Education Policy and Governance, PEPG No. 99–02.
46.
PlattG. and ParsonsT.1973. The American University. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
47.
PorterA. and ChesterM.2002. Building a High Quality Assessment and Accountability Program: The Philadelphia Example. Brookings Papers on Education Policy 2002. The Brookings Institute, Washington, D.C.
48.
PorterA., LinnR. and TrimbleC.S.2005. “The Effects of State Decisions About NCLB Adequately Yearly Progress Targets.” Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24 (4): 32–39.
49.
RosenholtzSusan. 1985. “Education Reform Strategies: Will They Increase Teacher Commitment?” American Journal of Education, 95: 534–562.
50.
RusawCarol. 2003. “An Assessment of the Scientific Paradigm in No Child Left Behind: A Systems Look at a Limited Reform Model.” Public Performance and Management Review, 31(1): 85–100.
51.
RudalevigeA.2003. No Child Left Behind: Forging a Congressional Compromise. In No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability, edited by WestMartin and PetersonPaul, 23–54. Washington, DC: Brookings.
52.
SaporitoSalvatore. 2003. Private Choices and Public Consequences: Magnet School Choice and Segregation by Race and Poverty.” Social Problems, 50(2): 181–203.
53.
SmithR.1999. Performance Measurement for Government Ethics Programs: The Missing Link? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston Marriott Copley Place, Boston, MA.
StiefelL., SchwartzA.E. and ChellmanC.C.2007. “So Many Children Left Behind: Segregation and the Impact of Subgroup Reporting in No Child Left Behind on the Racial Test Score Gap.” Educational Policy, 21 (3): 527–550.
Van RyzinGregg. 2007. “Pieces of a Puzzle: Linking Government Performance, Citizen Satisfaction, and Trust.” Public Performance and Management Review, 30 (4): 521–535.
58.
WilsonJulius. 1996. When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor. Knopf.
59.
WongKenneth. 2008. “Federalism Revised: The Promise and Challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act.” Public Administration Review, Supplement Special Issue Dec. 2008: S175–85.
