Following a national trend, state policy has focused on accountability measures such as high-stakes high school exit exams, standards-based reforms, and graduation curriculum requirements. Yet the effect of these accountability policies on students’ readiness for college is relatively untested. In a multilevel model (students within states), the study asked, “Are accountability school reform policies positively or negatively associated with readiness for college for students from different ethnic and income groups?” Exit exam policies and degree of implementation of state standards were not significantly related to academic readiness as measured by composite SAT scores. Math graduation numeric curriculum requirements were negatively related to SAT score for Whites.
ACT. (2005). Courses count: Preparing students for postsecondary success. Iowa City, IA: ACT Policy Report.
2.
ACT (2007). Rigor at risk: Reaffirming quality in the high school core curriculum. Iowa City, IA: ACT.
3.
Adelman, C. ( 1999). Answers in the tool box: Academic intensity, attendance patterns, and bachelor’s degree attainment. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Research and Improvement.
4.
Altonji, J.G. ( 1995). The effects of high school curriculum on education and labour market outcomes. Journal of Human Resources, 30, 409-438.
5.
Apple, M.W. ( 2000). Official knowledge: Democratic education in a conservative age (2nd ed.). New York: Routledge.
6.
Musoba, G.D. ( 2004). The impact of school reform on college preparation: A multilevel analysis of the relationship between state policy and student achievement (Doctoral dissertation, Indiana University , 2004). Dissertation Abstracts International , 65, 3238.
7.
Balfanz, R., Mac Iver, D.J., & Byrnes, V. ( 2006) The implementation and impact of evidence-based mathematics reforms in high-poverty middle schools: A multi-site, multi-year study. Journal for Research in Mathematics Education, 37(1), 33-64.
8.
Berger, J.B., & Coelen, S.P. ( 2002, November). Bridges and barriers: The impact of high stakes testing on college access. Paper presented at the meeting of the Association for the Study of Higher Education, Sacramento, CA.
9.
Bishop, J. ( 1998). Do curriculum-based external exit exam systems enhance student achievement? (CPRE Research Report SeriesRR-40). Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania, Graduate School of Education .
10.
Brennan, R.T., Kim, J., Wentz-Gross, M., & Siperstein, G.N. (2001). The relative equitability of high stakes testing versus teacher-assigned grades: An analysis of the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). Harvard Educational Review, 71, 173-216.
11.
Burton, N.W., & Ramist, L. ( 2001). Predicting success in college: SAT studies of classes graduating since 1980 (Research Report No. 2001-2). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
12.
Camara, W.J., & Schmidt, A.E. ( 1999). Group differences in standardized testing and social stratification (Report No. 99-5). New York: College Entrance Examination Board.
13.
Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. ( 2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24, 305-331.
14.
Chambers, J.G. ( 1998). Geographic variations in public schools’ costs (NCES Working Paper No. 98-04; Project Officer: William J. Fowler, Jr.). Washington DC : National Center for Education Statistics.
15.
Chaney, B., Burgdorf, K., & Atash, N. ( 1997). Influencing achievement through high school graduation requirements. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 229-244.
16.
St. John, E.P., Musoba, G.D., Chung, C.-G.,. (2003). Academic access to higher education: Evaluating the impact of state education policies. Bloomington: Indiana Education Policy Center.
17.
College Entrance Examination Board. (2004). What does the SAT measure and why does it matter?. College Entrance Examination Board. Retrieved February 22, 2004 , from www.collegeboard.com
18.
Crouse, J., & Trusheim, D. ( 1988). The case against the SAT. Chicago : The University of Chicago Press.
19.
Dee, T.S. ( 2002, June). Standards and student outcomes: Lessons from the "First Wave" of Education Reform. Paper presented at the Taking Account of Accountability: Assessing Politics and Policy, Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University, MA.
20.
Dee, T.S., & Jacob, B.A. ( 2006). Do high school exit exams influence educational attainment or labor market performance? (Working Paper No. 12199). Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12199
21.
Finn, C.E., Jr., (1990). The biggest reform of all. Phi Delta Kappan, 71, 584-592.
22.
Fusarelli, L.D. ( 2004). The political impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on equity and diversity in American education. Educational Policy, 18, 71-94.
23.
Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., Stecher, B.M., Klein, S.P., Robyn, A., & Bugliari, D. ( 2003). Studying large-scale reforms of instructional practices: An example from mathematics and science. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(1), 1-29.
24.
Hanushek, E.A., & Raymond, M.E. ( 2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance ? Journal of Policy Analysis & Management , 24, 297-327.
25.
Howley, A., Larson, W., Andrianaivo, S., Rhodes, M., & Howley, M. ( 2007). Standards-based reform of mathematics education in rural high schools. Journal of Research in Rural Education , 22(2). Retrieved August 14, 2008, from http://jrre.psu.edu/articles/22-2.pdf
Jacob, B.A. ( 2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 99-121.
28.
Jencks, C., & Phillips, M. (1998). (Eds.). The black-white test score gap. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution .
29.
Klein, S.P., Hamilton, L.S., McCaffrey, D.F., & Stecher, B.M. ( 2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(49), 17. Retrieved June 19, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epa
30.
Kornhaber, M., Orfield, G., & Kurlaender, M. (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press.
31.
Kreft, I.G.G., de Leeuw, J., & Aiken, L. ( 1995). The effect of different forms of centering in hierarchical linear models. Multivariate Behavioral Research , 30, 1-22.
32.
Lawrence, I.M., Rigol, G.W., Van Essen, T., & Jackson, C.A. ( 2003). A historical perspective on the content of the SAT. New York: College Board.
33.
Lee, V.E., Burkam, D.T., Chow-Hoy, T., Smerdon, B.A., & Goverdt, D. ( 1998). High school curriculum structure: Effects on course-taking and achievement in mathematics for high school graduates (NCES-WP-98-09). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED431629).
34.
McDermott, K.A. ( 2006). Incentives, capacity, and implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts Education Reform. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 16, 45-65.
35.
McNeil, L.M. ( 2000). Creating New Inequalities: Contradictions of Reform . Phi Delta Kappan81(10), 728-734.
36.
Nairn, A., & Associates. (1980). The reign of ETS. Today’s Education, 69, 58G-64G.
37.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 1997a). Access to higher postsecondary education for the 1992 high school graduates (NCES 98-105; By L. Berkner, & L. Chavez). Washington, DC: Musoba.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 1997b). Confronting the odds: Students at risk in the pipeline to higher education (NCES 98-094). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.
39.
National Center for Education Statistics. ( 2002). Digest of education statistics, 2001. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Education Research and Improvement.
40.
National Commission on Excellence in Education. ( 1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform . Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
41.
No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
42.
Orlofsky, G.F., & Olson, L. ( 2001). Quality counts 2001: A better balance. Education Week, 20(17), 8-193.
43.
Pelavin, S.H., & Kane, M.B. ( 1990). Changing the odds: Factors increasing access to college . New York: College Board .
44.
Powell, B., & Steelman, L.C. (1996). Bewitched, bothered, and bewildering: The use and misuse of state SAT and ACT score. Harvard Educational Review, 66(1), 27-59.
45.
Raudenbush, S.W., & Bryk, A.S. ( 2002). Hierarchical linear models: Applications and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
46.
Ravitch, D., & Viteritti, J. (Eds.). (1997). New schools for a new century . New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
47.
Reich, R.B. ( 1991). The Work of Nations: Preparing ourselves for 21st-century capitalism. New York: A. A. Knopf .
48.
Rose, H. ( 2004). Has curriculum closed the test score gap in math ? Topics in Economics and Policy, 4(1), 1-28.
49.
Rothstein, J.M. ( 2002). College performance predictions and the SAT. Berkeley: University of California, Center for Labor Economics.
Schiller, K.S., & Muller, C. ( 2003). Raising the bar and equity? Effects of state high school graduation requirements and accountability policies on students’ mathematics course taking. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25, 299-318.
52.
Schreiber, J.B., & Griffin, B.W. ( 2004). Review of multilevel modeling and multilevel studies in the Journal of Educational Research (1992-2002). Journal of Educational Research, 98, 24-34.
53.
Sebring, P.A. ( 1987). Consequences of differential amounts of high school course work: Will the new graduation requirements help? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 9, 258-273.
54.
Swanson, C.B., & Stevenson, D.L. (2002). Standard-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24(1), 1-27.
55.
Teitelbaum, P. ( 2003). The influence of high school graduation requirement policies in mathematics and science on student course taking patterns and achievement . Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 25(1), 31-57.
56.
Winfield, L.F. ( 1990). School competency testing reforms and student achievement: Exploring a national perspective. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 157-173.
