Shining a Light or Fumbling in the Dark? The Effects of NCLB’s Subgroup-Specific Accountability on Student Achievement

Abstract

The theory of action behind the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is that “shining a light” on subgroup performance will increase reading and math test scores for minority and disadvantaged students. Using a panel of all students in Grades 3 through 8 in North Carolina from 2000 to 2008 (N = 1.7 million students in 1,800 schools), the authors estimate double- and triple-differenced models with school fixed effects to examine whether subgroup-specific accountability threats increase high-stakes test scores. These sanctions are found to have positive effects for minority and disadvantaged students. Larger positive effects emerge for the lowest achieving schools rather than schools near the margin of passing. Some evidence of adverse effects is also found for low and high achievers in math, but not in reading, a finding attributed to the combination of increases in the rigor of state standards in math and responses to an accountability metric based on test score status rather than growth. The implications of the findings for the design of educational accountability systems are discussed.

Keywords

accountability high-stakes testing No Child Left Behind educational triage race/ethnicity

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Amrien

A. L.

Berliner

D. C.

(2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Available at http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/297

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

Booher-Jennings

(2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.

Brown

A. B.

Clift

J. W.

(2010). The unequal effect of adequate yearly progress: Evidence from school visits. American Educational Research Journal, 47(4), 774–798.

Campbell

D. T.

(1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67–90.

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305–331.

Chiang

(2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9-10), 1045–1057. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.00210.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002

Coburn

C. E.

(2004). Beyond decoupling: Rethinking the relationship between the institutional environment and the classroom. Sociology of Education, 77(3), 211–244.

Cullen

J. B.

Reback

(2006). Tinkering towards accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. In Gronberg

T. J.

Jansen

D. W.

(Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14, pp. 1–34). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

10.

Darling-Hammond

(2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1047–1085.

11.

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.

12.

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(4), 285–313.

13.

Diamond

J. B.

Spillane

(2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.

14.

Figlio

D. N.

Getzer

(2006). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system? In Gronberg

T. J.

Jansen

D. W.

(Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics (Vol. 14, pp. 35–50). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

15.

Figlio

D. N.

Loeb

(2011). School accountability. In Hanushek

E. A.

Machin

Woessmann

(Eds.), Handbook of the economics of education (Vol. 3, pp. 383–421). North-Holland, The Netherlands: Elsevier.

16.

Figlio

D. N.

Rouse

C. E.

(2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90(1-2), 239–255.

17.

Figlio

D. N.

Rouse

C. E.

Schlosser

(2009). Leaving no child behind: Two paths to school accountability (Working paper). Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research, Chicago, IL.

18.

Gardner

D. P.

(1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

19.

Hallett

(2010). The myth incarnate: Recoupling processes, turmoil, and inhabited institutions in an urban elementary school. American Sociological Review, 75(1), 52–74.

20.

Hanushek

E. A.

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297–327.

21.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89(5-6), 761–796. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.00410.1016/j.jpubeco.2004.08.004

22.

Jacob

B. A.

Lefgren

(2004). The impact of teacher training on student achievement—Quasi-experimental evidence from school reform efforts in Chicago. Journal of Human Resources, 39(1), 50–79.

23.

Jacob

B. A.

Levitt

S. D.

(2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(3), 843–877.

24.

Krieg

J. M.

(2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3(2), 250–281.

25.

Ladd

H. F.

Lauen

D. L.

(2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 426–450.

26.

Lee

Wong

K. K.

(2004). The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 41(4), 797–832.

27.

Linn

R. L.

(2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29(2), 4–16.

28.

McNeil

L. M.

(2000). Contradictions of school reform: The educational costs of standardized testing. London, UK: Routledge.

29.

Mehta

(2006). The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001 (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.

30.

Neal

Schanzenbach

D. W.

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

31.

O’Day

J. A.

Smith

M. S.

(1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In Fuhrman

(Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

32.

Pedulla

J. L.

Abrams

Madaus

Russell

Ramos

Miao

(2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Boston, MA: National Board on Education Testing and Public Policy.

33.

Reback

(2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92(5-6), 1394–1415. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.00310.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.05.003

34.

Reback

Rockoff

Schwartz

H. L.

(2011). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB (Working paper). The National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 16745.

35.

Springer

M. G.

(2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27(5), 556–563. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.06.00410.1016/j.econedurev.2007.06.004

36.

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). Northwestern University Institute for Policy Research, Chicago, IL.

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

0.13 MB