States that receive federal waivers to the No Child Left Behind Act were required to implement reforms in designated “Focus Schools” that contribute to achievement gaps. We examine the performance effects of such “differentiated accountability” reforms in Louisiana. These Focus School reforms emphasized school-needs assessments and aligned technical assistance. These reforms may have also been uniquely high-powered because they were linked to a letter-based school-rating system. We examine the impact of these reforms in a sharp regression-discontinuity (RD) design. We find that, over each of 3 years, Louisiana’s Focus School reforms had no measurable impact on school performance. We discuss evidence that these findings reflect policy reform fatigue and poor quality of implementation at the state and local level.
BonillaS.DeeT. S. (2017). The effects of school reform under NCLB waivers: Evidence from Focus Schools in Kentucky (NBER working paper). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23462
2.
BormanG. D.HewesG. M.OvermanL. T.BrownS. (2003). Comprehensive school reform and achievement: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational Research, 73, 125–230.
3.
BrentG.DiObildaN. (1993). Effects of curriculum alignment versus direct instruction on urban children. Journal of Educational Research, 86, 333–338.
ChakrabartiR. (2007). Vouchers, public school response, and the role of incentives: Evidence from Florida (Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports No. 306). Retrieved from https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED517702.pdf
6.
ChiangH. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045–1057.
7.
DeeT. S. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus (National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 17990). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w17990
8.
DeeT. S.JacobB. (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446.
9.
DoughertyS. M.WeinerJ. M. (2017). The Rhode to turnaround: The impact of waivers to No Child Left Behind on school performance. Educational Policy, 33, 555–586.
10.
FiglioD.LoebS. (2011). School accountability. In HanushekE. A.MachinS.WoessmannL. (Eds.), Handbooks in economics (Vol. 3, pp. 383-421). Amsterdam, The Netherlands: North-Holland.
11.
FiglioD. N.RouseC. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?Journal of Public Economics, 90, 239–255.
12.
HanushekE. A.RaymondM. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved school performance?Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–329.
13.
HemeltS.JacobB. (2017). Differentiated accountability and education production: Evidence from NCLB waivers (NBER working paper). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w23461
14.
HoA. D. (2008). The problem with “proficiency”: Limitations of statistics and policy under No Child Left Behind. Educational Researcher, 37, 351–360.
15.
ImbensG.KalyanaramanK. (2012). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, 79, 933–959.
16.
KruegerA. B. (1999). Experimental estimates of education production functions. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114, 497–532.
17.
MaddenN. A.SlavinR. E.KarweitN. L.DolanL. J.WasikB. A. (1993). Success for All: Longitudinal effects of a restructuring program for inner-city elementary schools. American Educational Research Journal, 30, 123–148.
18.
McCraryJ. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142, 698–714.
National Research Council. (2011). Incentives and test-based accountability in education (Committee on Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Public Education, M. Hout and S.W. Elliott, Editors. Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education). Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
21.
O’BrienD.WareA. (2002). Implementing research-based reading programs in the Fort Worth independent school district. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 7, 167–197.
22.
Onward Louisiana. (2016, February4). Committee on K-12 Education. Transition Advisory Team. Governor John Bel Edwards.
23.
RockoffJ. E.TurnerL. J. (2008). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality (National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 14564). Retrieved from https://www.nber.org/papers/w14564
24.
RouseC. E.HannawayJ.GoldhaberD.FiglioD. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5, 251–281.
25.
RubinD. B. (1987). Multiple imputation for nonresponse in surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley.
SlavinR. E.MaddenN. A. (2000). Roots & wings: Effects of whole-school reform on student achievement. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 5, 109–136.
WestM. R.PetersonP. E. (2006). The efficacy of choice threats within school accountability systems: Results from legislatively induced experiments. The Economic Journal, 116, C46–C62.
33.
WintersM. A.CowenJ. M. (2012). Grading New York: Accountability and student proficiency in America’s largest school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 313–327.
34.
WongM.CookT. D.SteinerP. 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, 245–279.
35.
WongV. C.SteinerP. M.CookT. D. (2013). Analyzing regression-discontinuity designs with multiple assignment variables: A comparative study of four estimation methods. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 38, 107–141.
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.
