One of the enduring problems in education is the persistence of achievement gaps between White, wealthy, native English-speaking students and their counterparts who are minority, lower-income, or English language learners. This study shows that one intensive technical assistance (TA) intervention—California’s District Assistance and Intervention Teams (DAITs)—implemented in conjunction with a high-stakes accountability policy improves the math and English performance of traditionally underserved students. Using a 6-year panel of student-level data from California, we find that the DAIT intervention significantly reduces achievement gaps between Black, Hispanic, and poor students and their White and wealthier peers. These results indicate that capacity-building TA helps to close achievement gaps in California’s lowest performing districts.
AngristJ. D.KruegerA. (1999). Empirical strategies in labor economics. In AshenfelterO.CardD. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1277–1366). New York, NY: New Holland.
2.
AngristJ. D.PischkeJ. S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist’s companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
3.
AshenfelterO.CardD. (1985). Using the longitudinal structure of earnings to estimate the effect of training programs. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 67, 648–660.
4.
BalfanzR.LegtersN.WestT. C.WeberL. M. (2007). Are NCLB’s measures, incentives, and improvement strategies the right ones for the nation’s low-performing high schools?American Educational Research Journal, 44, 559–593. doi:10.3102/0002831207306768
5.
California County Superintendents Educational Services Association. (2008). Building blocks of integrated academic district support. Unpublished manuscript.
CarnoyM.LoebS. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305–331. doi:10.3102/01623737024004305
8.
Center on Education Policy. (2011). Update with 2009-10 data and five-year trends: How many schools have not made adequate yearly progress?Washington, DC: Author.
9.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045–1057. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2009.06.002
10.
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. 23-40). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
11.
ClotfelterC. T.LaddH. F.VigdorJ. L. (2009). The academic achievement gap in grades 3 to 8. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 91, 398–419.
12.
DeeT. S.JacobB. A. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446. doi:10.1002/pam.20586
13.
ElmoreR. F.FuhrmanS. H. (Eds.). (1994). The governance of curriculum. Alexandria, VA: The Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
14.
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, NY: Routledge.
15.
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.
16.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?Journal of Public Economics, 90, 239–255. doi:10.1016/j.jpubeco.2005.08.005
17.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E.SchlosserA. (2009). Leaving no child behind: Two paths to school accountability. The Urban Institute. Retrieved from http://www.urban.org/publications/1001306.html
18.
FryerR.LevittS. D. (2004). Understanding the Black-White test score gap in the first two years of school. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 86, 447–464.
19.
FryerR.LevittS. D. (2006). The Black-White test score gap through third grade. American Law and Economics Review, 8, 249–281.
GottfriedM. A.StecherB. M.HooverM.CrossA. B. (2011). Federal and state roles and capacity for improving schools. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
22.
HamiltonL. S.BerendsM.StecherB. M. (2005). Teachers’ responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
23.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327. doi:10.1002/pam.20091
24.
HanushekE. A.RivkinS. G. (2009). Harming the best: How schools affect the Black-White achievement gap. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 28, 366–393.
25.
HemeltS. W. (2011). Performance effects of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework. Economics of Education Review, 30, 702–723. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.009
26.
ImbensG. W.WooldridgeJ. M. (2009). Recent developments in the econometrics of program evaluation. Journal of Economic Literature, 47, 5–86.
27.
LaddH. F.LauenD. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426–450.
28.
LauenD. L.GaddisS. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB’s subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 185–208.
29.
LeeJ. (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: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
30.
LeeJ.ReevesT. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 209–231. doi:10.3102/0162373711431604
31.
McCaffreyD. F.SassT. R.LockwoodJ. R.MihalyK. (2009). The intertemporal variability of teacher effect estimates. Education Finance and Policy, 4, 572–606.
32.
The No Child Left Behind Act, PL 107-110, Title I, Sec. 1116(c) (2001).
33.
O’DayJ. A.SmithM. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In FurmanS. (Ed.), Designing cohort educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
34.
OpperV. D.HenryG. T.MashburnA. J. (2008). The district effect: Systemic responses to high stakes accountability policies in six southern states. American Journal of Education, 114, 299–332.
35.
ReardonS. F. (2011). The widening achievement gap between the rich and the poor: New evidence and possible explanations. In MurnaneR. J.DuncanG. (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life opportunities (pp. 91–116). New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
36.
ReardonS. F.GalindoC. (2009). The Hispanic-White achievement gap in math and reading in the elementary grades. American Educational Research Journal, 46, 853–891.
ReardonS. F.RobinsonJ. P. (2007). Patterns and trends in racial/ethnic and socioeconomic academic achievement gaps. In LaddH. A.FiskeE. B. (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 497–516). New York, NY: Routledge.
39.
RebackR. (2010). Schools’ mental health services and young children’s emotions, behavior, and learning. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 698–725. doi:10.1002/pam
RockoffJ. E.TurnerL. (2010). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 119–147.
42.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. N. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure (NBER Working Paper, 13681). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w13681.pdf?new_window=1
43.
SlotnickW. J. (2010). Levers for changes: Pathways for state-to-district assistance in underperforming school districts. Washington, DC: Center for American Progress.
44.
SmithM. S.O’DayJ. A. (1991). Systemic school reform. In FuhrmanS. H.MalenB. (Eds.), The politics of curriculum and testing (pp. 233–267). New York, NY: Falmer Press.
45.
StecherB. M.EpsteinS.HamiltonL. S.MarshJ. A.RobynA. E.McCombsJ. S.. . .NaftelS. (2008). Pain and gain: Implementing No Child Left Behind in three states, 2004-2006. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Corporation.
46.
StrunkK. O.McEachinA.WestoverT. N. (July, 2012). The use and efficacy of capacity-building assistance for low performing districts: The case of California’s district assistance and intervention teams. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Advance online publication.
47.
SundermanG. L.OrfieldG. (2007). Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandate?The Phi Delta Kappan, 89, 137–139.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility request (OMB Number 1810-0581). Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility
50.
WeiX. (2012). Does NCLB improve the achievement of students with disabilities? A regression discontinuity design. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 5, 18–42.
51.
WeinsteinT. (2011, April). Interpreting No Child Left Behind corrective action and technical assistance programs: A review of state policy. Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
52.
WestoverT.StrunkK. O. (2010, October). AB 519 Evaluation Preliminary Progress Report: Year Two. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
53.
WestoverT.StrunkK. O. (2012, June). AB 519 evaluation final report: Year three. Sacramento: California Department of Education.
54.
WongM.CookT. D.SteinerP. 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 (Institute for Policy Research Working Paper Series WP-09-11). Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research.
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.
