No Child Left Behind (NCLB) requires that two accountability strategies—raising standards and public pressure through publicizing performance data—be implemented simultaneously. However, when coupled, they may produce an inappropriate consequence for public opinion. The public may misunderstand the drop in achievement that occurs when the bar is raised and become dissatisfied with school performance. To examine this potential negative consequence, the authors analyze data from New York City. The authors find parent satisfaction declined when school performance grades dropped after the implementation of higher standards. This article contributes to our understanding of how the public responds to school accountability data. Because public support for sustained and successful reforms is key, understanding how accountability policies may erode support is critical.
BerelsonB. R.LazarsfeldP. F.McPheeW. N. (1954). Voting: A study of opinion formation in a presidential campaign. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
2.
BerkmanM. B.PlutzerE. (2005). Ten thousand democracies. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
3.
BeteilleT.LoebS. (2009). Teacher quality and teacher labor markets. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 596-636). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BlackS. E.MachinS. (2011). Housing valuations of school performance. In HanushekE.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbook of economic of education (pp. 485-516). San Diego, CA: North-Holland.
5.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
6.
BrykA. S. (1993). A view from elementary schools: Reform in Chicago. Consortium on Chicago school research. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
7.
BushawW. J.LopezS. J. (2011). Betting on teachers: The 43rd annual phi delta kappa/gallup poll of the public’s attitudes toward the public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 93(1), 8-26.
8.
CaldasS. J. (1993). Reexamination of input and process factor effects on public school achievement. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 206-214.
9.
CampbellA. L. (2003). How policies make citizens. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
11.
CharbonneauÉ.Van RyzinG. G. (2011). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. American Review of Public Administration, 42, 54-65. doi:10.1177/0275074010397333
12.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045-1057.
13.
ClotfelterC.LaddH.VigdorJ. (2006). Teacher-student matching and the assessment of teacher effectiveness (NBER Working Paper No. 11936). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14.
CohenD. K.MoffittS. L. (2009). The ordeal of equality. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15.
ColemanJ. S.CampbellE. Q.HobsonC. J.McParlandJ.MoodA. M.WeinfeldF.YorkR. L. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
16.
ColemanJ. S.HofferT.KilgoreS. B. (1982). High school achievement: Public, Catholic, and private schools compared. New York, NY: Basic Books.
17.
ConverseP. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In ApterD. (Ed.), Ideology and discontent (pp. 206-221). New York, NY: Free Press.
18.
CookT. E. (1979). Legislature vs. legislator: A note on the paradox of Congressional support. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4(1), 43-52.
19.
DeeT. S.JacobB. A. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418-446.
20.
Delli CarpiniM.KeeterS. (1996). What Americans know about politics and why it matters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
DonahueA.MillerJ. (2006). Experience, attitudes and willingness to pay for public safety. The American Review of Public Administration, 36, 395-418.
FiglioD. N.KennyL. W. (2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1069-1077.
24.
FiglioD. N.LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In HanushekE. A.MachinS. J.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 383-421). Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
25.
FiglioD. N.LucasE. (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. The American Economic Review, 94, 591-604.
26.
FinnR. (2007, November16). Shaping the system that grades city schools. The New York Times, p. 4.
27.
FirestoneW. A.MayrowetzD.FairmanJ. (1998). Performance-based assessment and instructional change: The effects of testing in Maine and Maryland. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 20, 95-113.
28.
FoormanB. R. (2009). Research on teaching and learning. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. N. (Eds.), Handbook on education policy research (pp. 705-710). New York, NY: Routledge.
29.
GlaserM. A.HildrethB. (1999). Service delivery satisfaction and willingness to pay taxes: Citizen recognition of local government performance. Public Productivity & Management Review, 23(1), 48-67.
30.
GormleyW. T.Jr.WeimerD. L. (1999). Organizational report cards. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31.
HanushekE.KainJ.RivkinS.BranchG. (2007). Charter school quality and parental decision making with school choice. Journal of Public Economics, 91, 823-848.
32.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
33.
HarrisD. N.SassT. R. (2011). Teacher training, teacher quality and student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95, 798-812.
34.
HastingsJ. S.Van WeeldenR.WeinsteinJ. (2007). Preferences, information, and parental choice behavior in public school choice (NBER Working Paper No. 12995). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
35.
HausmanC.GoldringE. (2000). Parent involvement, influence, and satisfaction in magnet schools: Do reasons for choice matter?The Urban Review, 32, 105-121.
36.
HessF. M. (1999). Spinning wheels: The politics of urban school reform. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Press.
37.
HolmeJ. J. (2002). Buying homes, buying schools: School choice and the social construction of school quality. Harvard Educational Review, 72, 177-205.
38.
HolzerM.ZhangM. (2004). Trust, performance, and the pressures for productivity in the public sector. In HolderM.LeeS.-H. (Eds.), The public productivity handbook (2nd ed., pp. 215-229). New York, NY: Marcel Dekker.
39.
JacobB. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
40.
JacobB. A.LevittS. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843-877.
41.
JacobsenR. (2009). The voice of the people in education. In SykesG.SchneiderB.PlankD. (Eds.), Handbook of education policy research (pp. 307-316). New York, NY: Routledge.
42.
JacobsenR.SaultzA. (2013). Do good grades matter? Public accountability data and perceptions of school quality. In AnagnostopoulosD.RutledgeS.JacobsenR. (Eds.), The infrastructure of accountability: Data use and the transformation of American education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
43.
KaneT.RockoffJ.StaigerD. (2006). What does certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City (NBER Working Paper No. 12155). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
44.
KennedyM. (2005). Inside teaching: How classroom life undermines reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
45.
LaddH. F.ZelliA. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 494-529.
46.
LinnR. (2008). Educational accountability systems. In RyanK.ShepardL. (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 3-24). New York, NY: Routledge.
LockeE.LathamG. (2002). Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: A 35-year odyssey. American Psychologist, 57, 705-717.
49.
LockeE.LathamG. (2006). New directions in goal-setting theory. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 15, 265-268.
50.
LouisK. S.FebeyK.SchroederR. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers’ interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
51.
LyonsW. E.LoweryD. (1986). The organization and political space and citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities: An integrative model. The Journal of Politics, 48, 321-346.
52.
MannaP. (2007). School’s in: Federalism and the national education agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
53.
McCathernD. A.Jr. (2004). The relationship between prek-5 and k-5 elementary school size and student achievement of grade 5 students on the MAT7 in South Carolina for the school years 1996-97 and 1997-98. Doctoral dissertation, University of South Carolina, Columbia.
54.
McDermottK. A. (2011). High-stakes reform. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
55.
McDonnellL. M. (2000). Defining democratic purposes. In McDonnellL. M.TimpaneP. M.BenjaminR. (Eds.), Rediscovering the democratic purposes of education (pp. 1-20). Lawrence: University of Kansas Press.
56.
McDonnellL. M. (2008). The politics of educational accountability: Can the clock be turned back? In RyanK.ShepardL. (Eds.), The future of test-based educational accountability (pp. 47-67). New York, NY: Routledge.
57.
McDonnellL. M. (2009). Repositioning politics in education’s circle of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 38, 417-427.
58.
MedinaJ.GebeloffR. (2008, November13). Most high schools improved their grades this year. The New York Times, p. 29.
59.
MedinaJ.GebeloffR. (2008, November16). Letter grades look simple, but realities are complex. The New York Times, p. 39.
60.
MettlerS.SossJ. (2004). The consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics. Perspectives on Politics, 2, 55-73.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1460 (2002).
67.
ParkerG. R.DavidsonR. H. (1979). Why do Americans love their congressmen so much more than their congress?Legislative Studies Quarterly, 4(1), 53-61.
68.
PattersonK. D.MaglebyD. B. (1992). The polls—poll trends: Public support for congress. Public Opinion Quarterly, 56, 539-551.
69.
PerryJ.MeschD.PaarlbergL. (2006). Motivating employees in a new governance era: The performance paradigm revisited. Public Administration Review, 66, 505-514.
70.
PetersonP.E. (1995). The price of federalism. New York: Twentieth Century Fund Book.
71.
PlankD. N.BoydW. L. (1994). Antipolitics, education, and institutional choice: The flight from democracy. American Educational Research Journal, 31, 263-281.
72.
RavitchD. (2010). The death and life of the great American school system. New York, NY: Perseus Books.
73.
ReedD. S. (2001). On equal terms; The constitutional politics of educational opportunity. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
74.
ReeseW.J. (2005). America’s public schools: From the common school to “no child left behind.”Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press.
75.
RothsteinR. (2004). Class and schools: Using social, economic, and educational reform to close the black-white achievement gap. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
76.
RothsteinR.JacobsenR.WilderT. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Washington, DC/New York, NY: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.
77.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure (NBER Working Paper No. 13681). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
78.
SchneiderM.TeskeP.MarschallM.RochC. (1998). Shopping for schools: In the land of the blind, the one-eyed parent may be enough. American Journal of Political Science, 42, 769-793.
79.
SimonsenB.RobbinsM. D. (2003). Reasonableness, satisfaction, and willingness to pay property taxes. Urban Affairs Review, 38, 831-854.
80.
SpencerK. (2012, September2). School choice is no cure-all, Harlem finds. The New York Times.
81.
StevensonK. R. (1996). Elementary school capacity: What size is the right size?CEFP Journal, 33(4), 10-14.
82.
TyackD. B.CubanL. (1995). Tinkering toward utopia: A century of public school reform. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
83.
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2011). Digest of Education Statistics, 2010 (Table 188). Washington, DC: Author.
84.
Van RyzinG. G. (2007, September). Can citizens accurately judge public performance? Evidence from New York City, with implications for developing international bureaumetrics. Paper presented at the European Group of Public Administration Annual Conference, Madrid, Spain.
85.
Van RyzinG. G.MuzzioD.ImmerwahrS.GulickL.MartinezE. (2004). Drivers and consequences of citizen satisfaction: An application of the American Consumer Satisfaction Index model to New York City. Public Administration Review, 64, 331-341.
86.
WeissJ. (1993). Policy design for democracy: A look at public information campaigns. In IngramH.SmithR. R. (Eds.), Public policy for democracy (99-118). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
87.
WichowskyA.MoynihanD. (2008). Measuring how administration shapes citizenship: A policy feedback perspective on performance management. Public Administration Review, 68, 908-920.
88.
WongK. (2008). Federalism revised: The promise and challenge of the No Child Left Behind Act. Public Administration Review, 68, 175-185.
