Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

After the adoption of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), a host of anecdotal evidence suggested that NCLB diminished students’ school engagement—a multidimensional construct that describes students’ active involvement and commitment to school and encompasses students’ thoughts, behaviors, and feelings about school. Using data from repeated cross-sections of the Children of the National Longitudinal Survey of Youth, this study draws on methodological innovations from research linking NCLB to academic outcomes to explore this possibility. Findings are suggestive of an immediate NCLB-based increase in engagement that diminished and ultimately became negative over time. Because engagement predicts both achievement and socio-emotional well-being, researchers and policymakers should work to ensure that the Every Student Succeeds Act facilitates accountability systems that promote engagement.

Keywords

accountability counterfactual interrupted time series No Child Left Behind school engagement

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Anderman

E. M.

(2002). School effects on psychological outcomes during adolescence. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(4), 795–809.

Anderman

L. H.

(2003). Academic and social perceptions as predictors of change in middle school students’ sense of school belonging. The Journal of Experimental Education, 72(1), 5–22.

Appleton

J. J.

Christenson

S. L.

Furlong

M. J.

(2008). Student engagement with school: Critical conceptual and methodological issues of the construct. Psychology in the Schools, 45(5), 369–386.

Archambault

Janosz

Morizot

Pagani

(2009). Adolescent behavioral, affective, and cognitive engagement in school: Relationship to dropout. Journal of School Health, 79(9), 408–415.

(2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36(5), 258–267.

Battistich

Solomon

Kim

Watson

Schaps

(1995). Schools as communities, poverty levels of student populations, and students’ attitudes, motives and performance: A multilevel analysis. American Educational Research Journal, 32(3), 627–658.

Battistich

Solomon

Watson

Schaps

(1997). Caring school communities. Educational Psychologist, 32(3), 137–151.

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305–331.

Chase

P. A.

Hilliard

L. J.

Geldhof

G. J.

Warren

D. J.

Lerner

R. M.

(2014). Academic achievement in the high school years: The changing role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 43(6), 884–896. doi:10.1007/s10964-013-0085-4

10.

Chudowsky

(2008). Many states have taken a “backloaded” approach to No Child Left Behind goal of all students scoring proficient. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

11.

Cochran-Smith

Lytle

(2006). Troubling images of teaching in No Child Left Behind. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 668–697.

12.

Cohen

McCabe

E. M.

Michelli

N. M.

Pickeral

(2009). School climate: Research, policy, practice, and teacher education. Teachers College Record, 111(1), 180–213.

13.

Connell

J. P.

Wellborn

J. G.

(1991). Competence, autonomy, and relatedness: A motivational analysis of self-system processes. In Gunnar

M. R.

Sroufe

L. A.

(Eds.), The Minnesota symposia on child psychology, Vol. 23. Self processes and development (pp. 43–77). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.

14.

Davidson

Reback

Rockoff

J. E.

Schwartz

H. L.

(2013). Fifty ways to leave a child behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementation of NCLB (No. w18988). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.

15.

Deci

E. L.

Ryan

R. M.

(1994). Promoting self-determined education. Scandinavian Journal of Educational Research, 38(1), 3–14. doi:10.1080/0031383940380101

16.

Deci

E. L.

Vallerand

R. J.

Pelletier

L. G.

Ryan

R. M.

(1991). Motivation and education: The self-determination perspective. Educational Psychologist, 26(3&4), 325–346.

17.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

(2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.

18.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

Scwartz

N. L.

(2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252–279.

19.

Diamond

J. B.

(2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80, 285–313.

20.

Downer

J. T.

Rimm-Kaufman

S. E.

Pianta

R. C.

(2007). How do classroom conditions and children’s risk for school problems contribute to children’s behavioral engagement in learning?School Psychology Review, 36, 413–432.

21.

Eccles

J. S.

(1999). The development of children ages 6 to 14. Future of Children, 9(2), 30–44. doi:10.2307/1602703

22.

Eccles

J. S.

Midgley

Wigfield

Buchanan

C. M.

Reuman

Flanagan

MacIver

(1993). Development during adolescence: The impact of stage-environment fit on adolescents’ experiences in schools and families. American Psychologist, 48, 90–101. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.48.2.90

23.

Every Student Succeeds Act, S.1177, 114th Congress, 1st Session. (2015).

24.

Finnegan

K. S.

Gross

(2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago’s low performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594–630.

25.

Fredricks

J. A.

Blumenfeld

P. C.

Paris

A. H.

(2004). School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74(1), 59–109. doi:10.3102/00346543074001059

26.

Fredricks

J. A.

Filsecker

Lawson

M. A.

(2016). Student engagement, context, and adjustment: Addressing definitional, measurement, and methodological issues. Learning and Instruction, 43, 1–4.

27.

Fuhrman

S. H.

(1999). The new accountability (CPRE Policy Briefs). Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/policybrief/868_rb27.pdf

28.

Gerson

(2007). NCLB: Bad for teachers, bad for kids. United Teacher, 37(2).

29.

Goddard

R. D.

Sweetland

S. R.

Hoy

W. K.

(2000). Academic emphasis of urban elementary schools and student achievement in reading and mathematics: A multilevel analysis. Educational Administration Quarterly, 36(5), 683–702.

30.

Goertz

M. E.

Duffy

M. C.

(2001). Assessment and accountability across the 50 states (CPRE Policy Briefs). Retrieved from http://www.cpre.org/sites/default/files/policybrief/874_rb33.pdf

31.

Goodenow

(1993). Classroom belonging among early adolescent students: Relationships to motivation and achievement. The Journal of Early Adolescence, 13(1), 21–43.

32.

Griffith

Scharmann

(2008). Initial impacts of No Child Left Behind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science Education, 20(3), 35–48.

33.

Hannaway

Hamilton

(2008). Performance based accountability policies: Implications for school and classroom practices. Washington, DC: Urban Institute and RAND Corporation.

34.

Hanushek

E. A.

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.

35.

Henry

K. L.

Knight

K. E.

Thornberry

T. P.

(2012). School disengagement as a predictor of dropout, delinquency, and problem substance use during adolescence and early adulthood. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 41(2), 156–166. doi:10.1007/s10964-011-9665-3

36.

Hirschfield

P. J.

Gasper

(2011). The relationship between school engagement and delinquency in late childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 40, 3–22. doi:10.1007/s10964-010-9579-5

37.

Holbein

J. B.

Ladd

H. F.

(2017). Accountability pressure: Regression discontinuity estimates of how No Child Left Behind influenced student behavior. Economics of Education Review, 58, 55–67.

38.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: Evidence from school reform in Chicago. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 55–68.

39.

Jones

B. D.

(2007). The unintended outcomes of high-stakes testing. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 23, 65–86. doi:10.1300/J370v23n02_05

40.

Jones

M. G.

Jones

Hargrove

(2003). The unintended consequences of high stakes testing. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.

41.

Kirp

D. L.

(2015). Why the new education law is good for children left behind. The New York Times. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/10/opinion/why-the-new-education-law-is-good-for-children-left-behind.html

42.

Koth

C. W.

Bradshaw

C. P.

Leaf

P. J.

(2008). A multilevel study of predictors of student perceptions of school climate: The effect of classroom level factors. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100(1), 96–104.

43.

Lee

(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: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard University. Retrieved from http://escholarship.org/uc/item/4db9154t.

44.

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). Trajectories of school engagement during adolescence: Implications for grades, depression, delinquency, and substance use. Developmental Psychology, 47(1), 233–247. doi:10.1037/a0021307

45.

Lerner

R. M

. (2013). Interrelations of behavioral, emotional, and cognitive school engagement in high school students. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, 42, 20–32.

46.

Zhang

Liu

Arbeit

M. R.

Schwartz

S. J.

Bowers

E. P.

Lerner

R. M.

(2011). The role of school engagement in preventing adolescent delinquency and substance use: A survival analysis. Journal of Adolescence, 34(6), 1181–1192. doi:10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.07.003

47.

(2003). Sense of belonging to school: Can schools make a difference?The Journal of Educational Research, 96(6), 340–349.

48.

Markowitz

A. J.

(2017a). Associations between emotional engagement with school and problem behavior and psychological functioning across adolescence. AERA Open. doi:10.1177/2332858417712717

49.

Markowitz

A. J.

(2017b). Associations between school connection and depressive symptoms from adolescence through early-adulthood: Moderation by early adversity. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 27, 298–311.

50.

McMurrer

(2007). NCLY year 5: Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

51.

McNeely

(2005). Connection to school. In Moore

K. A.

Lippman

L. H.

(Eds.), What do children need to flourish? (pp. 289–303). New York, NY: Springer.

52.

McNeely

Falci

(2004). School connectedness and the transition into and out of health risk behavior among adolescents: A comparison of social belonging and teacher support. Journal of School Health, 74(7), 284–292.

53.

McNeely

C. A.

Nonnemaker

J. M.

Blum

R. W.

(2002). Promoting school connectedness: Evidence from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health. Journal of School Health, 72, 138–146.

54.

Meier

Wood

(Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

55.

Murray

(2009). Parent and teacher relationships as predictors of school engagement and functioning among low income urban youth. Journal of Early Adolescence, 29(3), 376–404.

56.

National Longitudinal Surveys. (2017). National Longitudinal Survey of Youth 1979. Children and young adults. Retrieved from https://www.nlsinfo.org/content/cohorts/nlsy79-children

57.

Neal

Schanzenbach

D. W.

(2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92(2), 263–283.

58.

Nichols

S. L.

Berliner

D. C.

(2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America’s schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.

59.

Osterman

K. F.

(2000). Students’ need for belonging in the school community. Review of Educational Research, 70(3), 323–367.

60.

Payne

A. A.

(2008). A multilevel analysis of the relationships among communal school organization, student bonding, and delinquency. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45(4), 429–455.

61.

Pederson

P. V.

(2007). What is measured is treasured: The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on nonassessed subjects. The Clearing House, 80(6), 287–291.

62.

Plank

S. B.

Condliffe

B. F.

(2013). Pressures of the season: An examination of classroom quality and high-stakes accountability. American Educational Research Journal, 50(5), 1152–1182.

63.

Ravitch

(2010). Dictating to the schools. Virginia Journal of Education. Retrieved from http://www.veanea.org/home/907.htm

64.

Reback

Rockoff

Schwartz

H. L.

(2014). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB. American Economic Journal, 6(3), 207–241.

65.

Reschly

A. L.

Christenson

S. L.

(2012). Jingle, jangle, and conceptual haziness: Evolution and future directions of the engagement construct. In Christenson

S. L.

Reschly

A. L.

Wylie

(Eds.), Handbook of research on student engagement (pp. 3–20). New York, NY: Springer.

66.

Resnick

M. D.

Bearman

P. S.

Blum

R. W.

Bauman

K. E.

Harris

K. M.

Jones

… Udry

J. R

. (1997). Protecting adolescents from harm: Findings from the National Longitudinal Study on Adolescent Health. Journal of the American Medical Association, 278(10), 823–832.

67.

Roorda

D. L.

Koomen

H. M.

Spilt

J. L.

Oort

F. J.

(2011). The influence of affective teacher-student relationships on students’ school engagement and achievement a meta-analytic approach. Review of Educational Research, 81(4), 493–529.

68.

Ryan

R. M.

Deci

E. L.

(2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement. In Wenzel

K. R.

Wigfield

(Eds.), Educational psychology handbook series. Handbook of motivation at school (pp. 171–195). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.

69.

Saad

(2012). No Child Left Behind rated more negatively than positively. Retrieved from http://www.gallup.com/poll/156800/no-child-left-behind-rated-negatively-positively.aspx

70.

Solomon

Watson

Battistich

Schaps

Delucchi

(1996). Creating classrooms that students experience as communities. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(6), 719–748.

71.

Stiefel

Schwartz

A. E.

Chellman

C. 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.

72.

Thompson

D. R.

Iachan

Overpeck

Ross

J. G.

Gross

L. A.

(2006). School connectedness in the Health Behavior in School-Aged Children Study: The role of student, school, and school neighborhood characteristics. Journal of School Health, 76(7), 379–386.

73.

Upadyaya

Salmela-Aro

(2013). Development of school engagement in association with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts. European Psychologist, 18(2), 136–147. doi:10.1027/1016-9040/a000143

74.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume III, accountability under NCLB: Interim report. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/nclb-accountability/nclb-accountability.pdf

75.

Usher

(2012). AYP results for 2010–11. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.

76.

Walker

(2015). With passage of Every Student Succeeds Act, life after NCLB begins. NEA Today. Retrieved from http://neatoday.org/2015/12/09/every-student-succeeds-act/

77.

Wang

M. T.

Degol

(2014). Staying engaged: Knowledge and research needs in student engagement. Child Development Perspectives, 8(3), 137–143. doi:10.1111/cdep.12073

78.

Wang

M. T.

Eccles

J. S.

(2011). Adolescent behavioral, emotional, and cognitive engagement trajectories in school and their differential relations to educational success. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 22(1), 31–39. doi:10.1111/j.1532-7795.2011.00753.x

79.

Wang

M. T.

Fredricks

J. A.

(2014). The reciprocal links between school engagement, youth problem behaviors, and school dropout during adolescence. Child Development, 85(2), 722–737. doi:10.1111/cdev.12138

80.

Wang

M. T.

Fredricks

J. A.

Hofkens

Linn

J. S.

(2017). Conceptualization and assessment of adolescent’s engagement and disengagement in school. A multidimensional school engagement scale. European Journal of Psychological Assessment. Advance online publication. doi:10.1027/1015-5759/a000431

81.

Wang

Holcombe

(2010). Adolescents’ perceptions of school environment, engagement, and academic achievement in middle school. American Educational Research Journal, 47(3), 633–662.

82.

Wang

M. T.

Peck

S. C.

(2013). Adolescent educational success and mental health vary across school engagement profiles. Developmental Psychology, 49(7), 1266–176. doi:10.1037/a0030028

83.

Weingarten

(2015). Every Student Succeeds Act opens new chapter for education. Retrieved from http://www.aft.org/press-release/aft-every-student-succeeds-act-opens-new-chapter-education

84.

Whitney

C. R.

Candelaria

C. A.

(2017). The effect of No Child Left Behind on children’s socioemotional outcomes. AERA Open. doi:10.1177/2332858417726324

85.

Wigfield

Eccles

J. S.

Schiefele

Roeser

R. W.

Davis-Kean

(2006). Development of achievement motivation. In Eisenberg

Damon

Lerner

(Eds.), Handbook of child psychology, vol. 3, social, emotional, and personality development (6th ed., pp. 933–1002). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

86.

Wong

Cook

T. D.

Steiner

P. M.

(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 (Working Paper 09-11). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.

87.

Wong

Cook

T. D.

Steiner

P. M.

(2015). Adding design elements to improve time series designs: No Child Left Behind as an example of causal pattern-matching. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8(2), 245–279.

88.

Woolley

M. E.

Bowen

G .L.

(2007). In the context of risk: Supportive adults and the school engagement of middle school students. Family Relations, 56(1), 92–104.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.40 MB

Changes in School Engagement as a Function of No Child Left Behind: A Comparative Interrupted Time Series Analysis

Abstract

Keywords

Get full access to this article

References

Supplementary Material