Forty-two states and the District of Columbia have recently received waivers to the school accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). As the prospects for reauthorizing the Act in the near term are dim, these new accountability systems will be law for at least several years. Drawing on a four-part framework from the measurement literature, we describe and critique the approved waiver accountability plans, comparing them to the NCLB accountability rules. We find a mixed bag—some states have made large improvements and others have not. Overall we conclude that states missed opportunities to design more effective school accountability systems that might minimize negative unintended consequences of these policies. The article concludes with suggestions for state and federal policy in light of the available literature.
AcemogluD.KremerM.MianA. (2008). Incentives in markets, firms, and governments. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 24(2), 273–306. doi: 10.1093/jleo/ewm055
2.
American Education Research Association, American Psychological Association, and National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author.
3.
BakerE. L.LinnR. L. (2004). Validity issues for accountability systems. In FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability (pp. 47–72). New York: Teachers College Press.
4.
BalfanzR.LegtersN.WestT. C.WeberL. M. (2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’slow-performing high schools?American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 559–593. doi: 10.3102/0002831207306768
5.
BarlevyG.NealD. (2011). Pay for percentile. American Economic Review, 102(5), 1805–1831.
6.
BetebennerD. W. (2011). A technical overview of the student growth percentile methodology: Student growth percentiles and percentile growth trajectories/projections. The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment. Retrieved from http://www.nj.gov/education/njsmart/performance/SGP_Technical_Overview.pdf
7.
Booher-JenningsJ. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268. doi: 10.3102/00028312042002231
8.
CamilliG. (2006). Test fairness. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 221–256). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
9.
CharbonneauÉVan RyzinG. G. (2011). Performance measures and parental satisfaction with New York City schools. The American Review of Public Administration, 42(1), 54–65. doi: 10.1177/0275074010397333
10.
ChingosM. M. (2012). Strength in numbers: State spending on K-12 assessment systems. Washington, DC: Brown Center on Education Policy, Brookings Institution.
11.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In LaddH. F. (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
12.
CrockerL.AlignaJ. (2006). Introduction to classical and modern test theory. Independence, KY: Wadsworth Publishing Company.
13.
CronbachL. J.MeehlP. E. (1955). Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 281–302.
14.
DavidsonE.RebackR.RockoffJ. E.SchwartzH. L. (2013). Fifty ways to leave a child behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementation of NCLB (NBER Working Paper No. 18988). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
15.
DeeT.JacobB.SchwartzN. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279.
16.
DomaleskiC.PerieM. (2013). Promoting equity in state education accountability systems. Dover, NH: National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment.
17.
EhlertM.KoedelC.ParsonsE.PodgurskyM. (2013). Selecting growth measures for school and teacher evaluations (Department of Economics Working Paper Series, WP 12–10). Columbia: University of Missouri.
18.
FiglioD. N.LaddH. F. (2007). School accountability and student achievement. In LaddH. F.FiskeE. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 166–182). New York: Routledge.
19.
FiglioD. N.LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In HanushekE. A.MachinS. J.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics: Economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 383–421). North-Holland, the Netherlands: Elsevier.
20.
GoldhaberD.HansenM. (2012). Is it just a bad class? Assessing the long-term stability of estimated teacher performance. Economica, 80(319), 589–612.
21.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. A. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.
22.
HeckR. H. (2006). Assessing school achievement progress: Comparing alternative approaches. Educational Administration Quarterly, 42(5), 667–699.
23.
HernándezR. A. (2013). Maintaining a focus on subgroups in an era of Elementary and Secondary Education Act waivers. Washington, DC: Campaign for High School Equity.
24.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy Under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37(6), 351–360. doi: 10.3102/0013189x08323842
25.
HolmstromB.CostaJ. R. (1986). Managerial incentives and capital management. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 101(4), 835–860.
26.
JacobsenR.SnyderJ. W.SaultzA. (2012). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction. Educational Policy, 27(2), 360–389.
27.
KaneT. J.StaigerD. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(4), 91–114.
28.
KremerM.SarychevA. (2000). Why do governments operate schools (Harvard Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
29.
KriegJ. M.StorerP. (2006). How much do students matter? Applying the Oaxaca Decomposition to explain determinants of Adequate Yearly Progress. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(4), 563–581. doi: 10.1093/cep/byl003
30.
LinnR. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.
31.
LinnR. L. (2004). Accountability models. In FuhrmanS. H.ElmoreR. F. (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems for education (pp. 245–273). New York: Teachers College Press.
32.
LinnR. L.HaugC. (2002). Stability of school-building accountability scores and gains. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(1), 29–36.
33.
McCaffreyD. F.SassT.LockwoodJ. R.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 572–606.
34.
McEachinA.PolikoffM. S. (2012). We are the 5%: Which schools would be held accountable under a proposed revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act?Educational Researcher, 41(7), 243–251.
MilgromP. (1988). Employment contracts, influence activities, and efficient organization design. Journal of Political Economy, 96(1), 42–60.
37.
MilgromP.RobertsJ. (1988). An economic approach to influence activities in organizations. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S154-S179.
38.
National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
NealD.SchanzenbachD. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 263–283.
40.
PolikoffM. S.WrabelS. L. (2013). When is 100% not 100%? The use of safe harbor to made Adequate Yearly Progress. Education Finance and Policy, 8(2), 251–270.
41.
PorterA. C.LinnR. L.TrimbleC. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24(4), 32–39.
42.
PrendergastC. (1999). The provision of incentives in firms. Journal of Economic Literature, 37(1), 7–63.
43.
ReardonS. F.RaudenbushS. (2009). Assumptions of value-added models for estimating school effects. Education Finance and Policy, 4(4), 492–519.
44.
RiddleW.KoberN. (2011). State policy differences greatly impact AYP numbers. Wasington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
45.
RothsteinR.JacobsenR.WilderT. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. Washington, DC and New York: Economic Policy Institute and Teachers College Press.
46.
ShapiroC. (1983). Premiums for high quality products as returns to reputations. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 98(4), 659–679.
47.
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.
48.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. A. (1990). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–268). New York: Falmer Press.
49.
SteinJ. C. (1988). Takeover threats and managerial myopia. Journal of Political Economy, 96(1), 61–80.
WeissM. J.MayH. (2012). A policy analysis of the federal growth model pilot program’s measurs of school performance: The Florida case. Education Finance and Policy, 7(1), 44–73.
