The adoption of market theory as a guiding principle of education policy increased the need for assessments of school performance that families could use to compare academic benefits of attending one school to another. Prominent among measures used by states are the school proficiency and growth indicators resulting from high-stakes tests. Using a longitudinal dataset of college-bound public high school students in North Carolina (N = 17,565), we test the usefulness of proficiency and growth scores of high schools in predicting students’ performance in college. We find both indicators to be useful and have the strongest associations with outcomes for students taking a mix of honors and non-honors classes. We also find that academic track placement has a stronger association with outcomes than either measure of school performance. Therefore, this study shows that reliance on school quality indicators can be inadequate because they exaggerate differences between schools and ignore differences within schools.
AbdulkadiroğluA.AngristJ.PathakP. (2014). The elite illusion: Achievement effects at Boston and New York exam schools. Econometrica, 82, 137-196.
2.
AbdulkadiroğluA.PathakP. A.SchellenbergJ.WaltersC. R. (2017). Do parents value school effectiveness? (No. w23912). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
3.
BallouD.SpringerM. G. (2017). Has NCLB encouraged educational triage? Accountability and the distribution of achievement gains. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 77-106.
4.
BastJ. L.WalbergH. J. (2004). Can parents choose the best schools for their children?Economics of Education Review, 23, 431-440.
5.
BormanG.DowlingM. (2010). Schools and inequality: A multilevel analysis of Coleman’s equality of educational opportunity data. Teachers College Record, 112, 1201-1246.
6.
BurkeM. A.SassT. R. (2013). Classroom peer effects and student achievement. Journal of Labor Economics, 31, 51-82.
7.
CamilliG. (2006). Test fairness. Educational Measurement, 4, 221-256.
8.
Campbell DonaldT. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67-90.
9.
CarbonaroW. (2005). Tracking, students’ effort, and academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 78, 27-49.
10.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2015). The aftermath of accelerating algebra: Evidence from district policy initiatives. Journal of Human Resources, 50, 159-188.
11.
ColemanJ. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health, Education, and Welfare.
12.
DesimoneL. M.PorterA. C.GaretM. S.YoonK. S.BirmanB. F. (2002). Effects of professional development on teachers’ instruction: Results from a three-year longitudinal study. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 81-112.
13.
DominaT. (2014). The link between middle school mathematics course placement and achievement. Child Development, 85, 1948-1964.
14.
DoughertyS. M. (2018). The effect of career and technical education on human capital accumulation: Causal evidence from Massachusetts. Education Finance and Policy, 13, 119-148.
15.
DoughertyS. M.GoodmanJ. S.HillD. V.LitkeE. G.PageL. C. (2015). Middle school math acceleration and equitable access to eighth-grade algebra: Evidence from the Wake County Public School System. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 37, 80S-101S.
16.
EhlertM.KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM. (2013, May). Selecting growth measures for school and teacher evaluations (Working Paper No. 80). National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research. Retrieved from https://caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/wp-80-updated-v3.pdf
17.
EngbergM. E.WolniakG. C. (2010). Examining the effects of high school contexts on postsecondary enrollment. Research in Higher Education, 51, 132-153.
18.
GianiM. S. (2017). Does vocational still imply tracking? Examining the evolution of career and technical education curricular policy in Texas. Educational Policy. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0895904817745375
19.
GierschJ. (2018). Academic tracking, high-stakes tests, and preparing students for college: How inequality persists within schools. Educational Policy, 32, 907-935.
20.
GierschJ.BottiaM. C.MickelsonR. A.StearnsE. (2016). Exposure to school and classroom racial segregation in Charlotte-Mecklenburg high schools and students’ college achievement. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 24, 1-24.
21.
GuarinoC. M.ReckaseM. D.WooldridgeJ. M. (2015). Can value-added measures of teacher performance be trusted?Education Finance and Policy, 10, 117-156.
22.
HallinanM. T. (1994). Tracking: From theory to practice. Sociology of Education, 67, 79-84.
23.
HanushekE. A. (2011). The economic value of higher teacher quality. Economics of Education Review, 30, 466-479.
24.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
25.
HarackiewiczJ. M.CanningE. A.TibbettsY.GiffenC. J.BlairS. S.RouseD. I.HydeJ. S. (2014). Closing the social class achievement gap for first-generation students in undergraduate biology. Journal of Educational Psychology, 106, 375-389.
26.
HarrisD. N.LarsenM. (2015, January). What schools do families want (and why) (Policy brief). New Orleans, LA: Education Research Alliance for New Orleans.
27.
HeckR. H. (2006). Assessing school achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42, 667-699.
28.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37, 351-360.
29.
HollingsheadL.ChildsR. A. (2011). Reporting the percentage of students above a cut score: The effect of group size. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 36-43.
30.
ImbermanS. A.KuglerA. D.SacerdoteB. I. (2012). Katrina’s children: Evidence on the structure of peer effects from hurricane evacuees. The American Economic Review, 102, 2048-2082.
31.
JenningsJ.SohnH. (2014). Measure for measure: How proficiency-based accountability systems affect inequality in academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 87, 125-141.
32.
KalogridesD.LoebS. (2013). Different teachers, different peers: The magnitude of student sorting within schools. Educational Researcher, 42, 304-316.
33.
KalogridesD.LoebS.BéteilleT. (2013). Systematic sorting: Teacher characteristics and class assignments. Sociology of Education, 86, 103-123.
34.
KimJ. S.SundermanG. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
35.
KolluriS. (2018). Advanced Placement: The dual challenge of equal access and effectiveness. Review of Educational Research, 88, 671-711.
36.
KoretzD. M. (2008). Measuring up. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
37.
KriegJ. M.StorerP. (2006). How much do students matter? Applying the Oaxaca decomposition to explain determinants of adequate yearly progress. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24, 563-581.
38.
LabareeD. F. (1997). Public goods, private goods: The American struggle over educational goals. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 39-81.
39.
LaddH. F.ClotfelterC. T.HolbeinJ. B. (2017). The growing segmentation of the charter school sector in North Carolina. Education Finance and Policy, 12, 536-563.
40.
LaddH. F.LauenD. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426-450.
41.
LaddH. F.WalshR. P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21, 1-17.
42.
LareauA. (2011). Unequal childhoods: Class, race, and family life. Berkeley: University of California Press.
43.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and educational triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38, 127-147.
44.
LavyV.PasermanM. D.SchlosserA. (2012). Inside the black box of ability peer effects: Evidence from variation in the proportion of low achievers in the classroom. The Economic Journal, 122, 208-237.
45.
LinnR. L. (2008). Methodological issues in achieving school accountability. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 40, 699-711.
46.
LucasS. R. (2001). Effectively maintained inequality: Education transitions, track mobility, and social background effects. American Journal of Sociology, 106, 1642-1690.
47.
MarshH. W.SeatonM.TrautweinU.LüdtkeO.HauK. T.O’MaraA. J.CravenR. G. (2008). The big-fish–little-pond-effect stands up to critical scrutiny: Implications for theory, methodology, and future research. Educational Psychology Review, 20, 319-350.
48.
MickelsonR. A. (2015). The cumulative disadvantages of first- and second-generation segregation for middle school achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 52, 657-692.
49.
MurrayK.HoweK. R. (2017). Neglecting democracy in education policy: A-F school report card accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 25(109). doi:10.14507/epaa.25.3017
50.
OakesJ. (2005). Keeping track: How schools structure inequality (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
51.
OakesJ.LiptonM. (1994). Tracking and ability grouping: A structural barrier to access and achievement. In GoodladJ. I.KeatingP. (Eds.), Access to knowledge: The continuing agenda for our nation’s schools (pp. 145-158). New York, NY: College Board Publications.
52.
ParsonsE. (2016). Does attending a low-achieving school affect high-performing student outcomes. Teachers College Record, 118(8), 1-36.
53.
PolikoffM. S.McEachinA. J.WrabelS. L.DuqueM. (2014). The waive of the future? School accountability in the waiver era. Educational Researcher, 43, 45-54.
54.
RiddleW.KoberN. (2011). State policy differences greatly impact AYP numbers. A background paper from the center on education policy. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518992.pdf
55.
RobertsonD.SymonsJ. (2003). Do peer groups matter? Peer group versus schooling effects on academic attainment. Economica, 70(277), 31-53.
Rubie-DaviesC. M. (2006). Teacher expectations and student self-perceptions: Exploring relationships. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 537-552.
58.
SimsD. P. (2013). Can failure succeed? Using racial subgroup rules to analyze the effect of school accountability failure on student performance. Economics of Education Review, 32, 262-274.
59.
SolorzanoD. G.OrnelasA. (2002). A critical race analysis of Advanced Placement classes: A case of educational inequality. Journal of Latinos and Education, 1, 215-229.
60.
StearnsE.MickelsonR.MollerS.BottiaM.C. (2013). Training Tool and Codebook ROOTS of STEM: A dataset on students who attended North Carolina public schools, grades 6 through 16. Unpublished document.
61.
StiefelL.SchwartzA. E.RotenbergA. (2011). What do AEFA members say? Summary of results of an education finance and policy survey. Education, 6, 267-292.
62.
UllucciK.HowardT. (2015). Pathologizing the poor: Implications for preparing teachers to work in high-poverty schools. Urban Education, 50, 170-193.
63.
VuongM.Brown-WeltyS.TraczS. (2010). The effects of self-efficacy on academic success of first-generation college sophomore students. Journal of College Student Development, 51, 50-64.
64.
WatanabeM. (2008). Tracking in the era of high stakes state accountability reform: Case studies of classroom instruction in North Carolina. Teachers College Record, 110, 489-534.
65.
WeiX.HaertelE. (2011). The effect of ignoring classroom-level variance in estimating the generalizability of school mean scores. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30, 13-22.
66.
WeissM. J.MayH. (2012). A policy analysis of the federal growth model pilot program’s measures of school performance: The Florida case. Education, 7, 44-73.
67.
WerblowJ.UrickA.DuesberyL. (2013). On the wrong track: How tracking is associated with dropping out of high school. Equity & Excellence in Education, 46, 270-284.
68.
WohlstetterP.DatnowA.ParkV. (2008). Creating a system for data-driven decision-making: Applying the principal-agent framework. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 19, 239-259.
