Drawing on national and state assessment datasets in reading and math, this study tested “external” versus “internal” standards-based education models. The goal was to understand whether and how student performance standards work in multilayered school systems under No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Under the “external” model, states’ common standards shape teachers’ standards which, in turn, affect student achievement. Under the “internal” model, teacher standards are insulated from state standards but instead influenced by prior student achievement and background characteristics in classrooms. The study employed multilevel analysis and instrumental variable analysis with fixed effects. Findings provided support for the internal as opposed to the external model. The linkage between state standards and teacher standards was tenuous, whereas the linkage between teacher standards and student achievement was solid and reciprocal. Further, students’ gender, race/ethnicity, and socioeconomic status (SES) had direct and/or indirect influences on teacher standards through achievement gaps. Implications for research and policy were discussed.
BeckerW.RosenS. (1992). The learning effect of assessment and evaluation in high school. Economics of Education Review, 11(2), 107-118.
2.
BettsJ. R. (1998). The impact of educational standards on the level and distribution of earnings. American Economic Review, 88(1), 266-275.
3.
BettsJ. R.GroggerJ. (2003). The impact of grading standards on student achievement, educational attainment, and entry-level earnings. Economics of Education Review, 22, 343-352.
4.
BrownA.CliftJ. W. (2010). The unequal effect of adequate yearly progress: Evidence from school visits. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 774-798.
5.
CohenD. K. (1990). A revolution in one classroom: The case of Mrs. Oublier. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 12, 311-329.
6.
ColadarciT. (1986). The accuracy of teacher judgments of student responses to standardized test items. Journal of Educational Psychology, 78, 141-146.
7.
CostrellR. M. (1994). A simple model of educational standards. American Economic Review, 84, 956-971.
8.
CranoW. D.MellonP. M. (1978). Causal influence of teachers’ expectations on children’s academic performance: A cross-lagged panel analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 70 (1), 39-49.
9.
CroninJ.DahlinM.AdkinsD.KingsuryG. G. (2007). The proficiency illusion. Thomas B. Fordham Institute report. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net
10.
CubanL. (1984). How teachers taught. New York: Longman.
11.
ElmoreR. F. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and the regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31, 355-374.
12.
ElmoreR. F. (2005). Agency, reciprocity, and accountability in democratic education. In FuhrmanS.LazersonM. (Eds.), The public schools (pp. 277-301). New York: Oxford University Press.
13.
FergusonR. F. (1998). Teachers’ perceptions and expectations and the black-white test score gap. In JencksC.PhillipsM. (Eds.), The black-white test score gap (pp. 273-317). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
14.
FergusonR. F. (2007). Toward excellence with equity: An emerging vision for closing the achievement gap. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
15.
FiglioD. N.LucasM. E. (2004). Do high grading standards affect student performance?Journal of Public Economics, 88, 1815-1834.
16.
FosterE. M.McClanahanS. (1996). An illustration of the use of instrumental variables: Do neighborhood conditions affect a young person’s chance of finishing high school?Psychological Method, 1, 249-260.
17.
FullerB.GesickiK.KangE.WrightJ. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act working?: The reliability of how states track achievement. University of California, Berkeley PACE Working paper 06-1, Berkeley, CA.
18.
GoldenbergC.GallimoreR.ReeseL.GarnierH. (2001). Cause or Effect? A longitudinal study of immigrant Latino parents’ aspirations and expectations, and their children’s school performance. American Educational Research, 38, 547-582.
19.
GoodT. L. (1987). Two decades of research on teacher expectations: Findings and future directions. Journal of Teacher Education, 38(4), 32-47.
20.
GoodT. L.BrophyJ. E. (1972). Behavioral expression of teacher attitudes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 63, 617-624.
21.
GreenwaldR.HedgesL. V.LaineR. D. (1996). The effect of school resources on student achievement. Review of Educational Research, 66, 361-396.
22.
GrissmerD.FlanaganA.KawataJ.WilliamsonS. (2000). Improving student achievement: What state NAEP test scores tell us. Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
23.
GuskeyT. R. (1982). The effect of change in instructional effectiveness on the relationship of teacher expectations and student achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 75, 345-349.
24.
JussimL.EcclesJ. S. (1992). Teacher expectations II: Construction and reflection of student achievement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 947-961.
25.
KleinS. P.HamiltonL. S.McCaffreyD. F.StecherB. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us?Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
26.
KoretzD.BarronS. I. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (MR-792-PCT/FF). Santa Monica, CA: Rand.
27.
KoretzD.HamiltonL. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational Measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: Praeger.
28.
LeeJ. (2006). Tracking achievement gaps and assessing the impact of NCLB on the gaps: An in-depth look into national and state reading and math outcome trends. Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
29.
LeeJ. (2007). Do national and state assessments converge for educational accountability? A meta-analytic synthesis of multiple measures in Maine and Kentucky. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(2), 1-33.
30.
LeeJ. (2010). Trick or treat: New ecology of education accountability system in the USA. Journal of Education Policy, 25(1), 73-93.
31.
LeeJ.FishR. (2010). International and interstate gaps in value-added math achievement: Multilevel instrumental variable analysis of age effect and grade effect. American Journal of Education, 117, 109-137.
32.
LeeJ.ReevesT. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity and resources: State NAEP 1990-2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209-231.
33.
LeeJ.ShinH.AmoL. (in press). Evaluating the impact of NCLB school interventions in New York state: Does one size fit all?Education Policy Analysis Archives [Online]. Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
34.
LeeJ.WongK. K. (2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41, 797-832.
35.
LeeV. E.BurkamD. T. (2002). Inequality at the starting gate: Social background differences in achievement as children begin school. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
36.
LillardD. R.DeCiccaP. P. (2000). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review, 20, 459-473.
37.
LinnR. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 2(29), 4-16.
38.
LinnR. L.BakerE. L.BetebennerD. W. (2002). Accountability systems: Implications of requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Educational Researcher, 31(6), 3-16.
39.
MckownC.WeinsteinR. S. (2002). Modeling the role of child ethnicity and gender in children’s differential response to teacher expectations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32(1), 159-184.
40.
McKownC.WeinsteinR. S. (2008). Teacher expectations, classroom context, and the achievement gap. Journal of School Psychology, 46(3), 235-261.
41.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In MeyerM. W. (Ed.), Environments and organizations (pp. 78-109). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
42.
MullisIna V.S.MartinM. O.FoyP. (with OlsonJ. F.PreuschoffC.ErberberE.AroraA.GaliaJ.). (2008). TIMSS 2007 international mathematics report: Findings from IEA’s trends in international mathematics and science study at the fourth and eighth grades. Chestnut Hill, MA: TIMSS & PIRLS International Study Center, Boston College.
43.
NajarianM.PollackJ. M.SorongonA. G. (2009). Early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998–1999 (ECLS-K), Psychometric report for the eighth grade (NCES 2009–002). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.
44.
National Center for Education Statistics (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP Scales (NCES 2007–482). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
PalardyG.RumbergerR. (2008). Teacher effectiveness in first grade: The importance of background qualifications, attitudes, and instructional practices for student learning. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 30(2), 111-140.
47.
PollackJ. M.NajarianM.RockD. A.Atkins-BurnettS. (2005). Early childhood longitudinal study, kindergarten class of 1998-99 (ECLS-K). Psychometric report for the fifth grade (Working Paper 2005-2036). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
48.
PorterA.McMakenJ.HwangJ.YangR. (2011). Common core standards: The new U.S. intended curriculum. Educational Researcher, 40(3), 103-116.
49.
RaudenbushS. W.BrykA. S. (2002). Hierarchical Linear Models. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
50.
ReadyD. D.WrightD. L. (2010). Accuracy and inaccuracy in teachers’ perceptions of young children’s cognitive abilities: The role of child background and classroom context. American Educational Research Journal, 48, 335-360.
51.
ReedD. S. (2010). Is there an expectations gap? Educational federalism and the demographic distribution of proficiency cutscores. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 718-743.
52.
ResnickL. (1999). Reflections on the future of NAEP: Instrument for monitoring or for accountability?Los Angeles, CA: Center for the Study of Evaluation (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED429108).
53.
RockD. A.PollackJ. M. (2002). Early childhood longitudinal study-kindergarten class of 1998-1999 (ECLS-K). Psychometric report for kindergarten through first grade (Working Paper 2002-2005). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
54.
RosenthalR.JacobsonL. (1992). Pygmalion in the classroom. New York: Irvington
55.
RowanB.MiskelC. G. (1999). Institutional theory and the study of educational organizations. In MurphyJ.LouisK. S. (Eds.), Handbook of research on educational administration (pp. 359-384). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
56.
SchneiderB.CarnoyB.KilpatrickJ.SchmidtW. H.ShavelsonR. J. (2007). Estimating causal effects: Using experimental and observational designs. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
57.
TenenbaumH. R.RuckM. D. (2007). Are teachers’ expectations different for racial minority than for European American students? A meta-analysis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99(2), 253-273.
58.
Van MatreJ. C.ValentineJ. C.CooperH. (2000). Effect of students’ after-school activities on teachers’ academic expectations. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 25(2), 167-183.
59.
WigganG. (2007). Race, school achievement, and educational inequality: Toward a student-based inquiry perspective. Review of Educational Research, 77, 310-333.
60.
WilsonB. L.CorbettH. D. (1990). Statewide testing and local improvement: An oxymoron? In MurphyJ. (Ed.), The education reform movement of the 1980s: Perspectives and cases (pp. 243-264). Berkeley, CA.: McCutchan.
61.
WongM. G. (1980). Model students? Teacher’s perceptions and expectations of their Asian and White students. Sociology of Education, 53(4), 236-246.
62.
WongM.CookT. D.SteinerP. (2009). No Child Left Behind: An interim evaluation of its effects on learning using two interrupted time series each with its own non-equivalent comparison series. Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research Working Paper. Retrieved from http://www.northwestern.edu
