Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2002, Pages 305-331

  Carnoy, Martin ^a   Loeb, Susanna ^a  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Capacity building; External accountability; High school survival rates; High stakes; Inclusion exclusion; Retention rates; Standards based reforms; State assessment; Student performance; Test scores

Indexed keywords

EID: 0038446689     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737024004305     Document Type: Review

References (29)

1. Amrein, A. & Berliner, D. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18). Retrieved February 10, 2003 from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18.
2. Berry, F. S., & Berry, W. D. (1990). State lottery adoptions as policy innovations: An event history analysis. American Political Science Review 84, 395-415.
3. Bishop, J. (1998). The effect of curriculum-based external exit systems on student achievement. Journal of Economic Education, 29(2), 171-82.
4. Bishop, J. F. M., Bishop, M., & Moriarity, J. (2001). The role of end-of-course exams and minimal competency exams in standards-based reforms. In D. Ravitch (Ed.), Brooking Papers in Educational Policy 2001, (pp. 267-345). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
5. Bond, H. M. (1939). Negro education in Alabama: A study in cotton and steel. Washington, DC: The Associated Publishers Inc.
6. Carnoy, M., Loeb, S., & Smith, T. (2001). Do higher state test scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? CPRE Research Report No. RR-047. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
7. Carnoy, M. et al. (in press) The new accountability: high schools and high stakes testing. New York: Routledge.
8. Cohen, D. K., & Ball, D. L. (1999). Instruction, capacity and improvement. CPRE Research Report No. RR-043. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
9. Darling-Hammond, L. (1997). The quality of teachers matters most. The Journal of Staff Development 18(1).
10. Dee, T. S. (2002). Standards and student outcomes: Lessons from the "first wave" of education reforms. Working paper PEPG 02-08. Swarthmore College.
11. Elmore, R. (1995). Teaching, learning, and school organization: Principles of practice and the regularities of schooling. Educational Administration Quarterly, 31(3), 355-374.
12. Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in 50 states: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report No. RR-046. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
13. Grissmer, D., & Flanagan, A. (1998). Exploring rapid achievement gains in North Carolina and Texas. Washington, DC: National Education Goals Panel.
14. Haney, W. 2000. Report for testimony in GI forum v. Texas Education Agency. Boston, MA: Boston College, School of Education.
15. Jacobs, B. A. (2001). Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. EEPA 23 (2): 99-122.
16. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? RAND Issue Paper. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
17. Lillard, D. R., & DeCicca, P. P. (2001). Higher standards, more dropouts? Evidence within and across time. Economics of Education Review 20, 459-473.
18. McLaughlin, D. (2001). Exclusions and accommodations affect state NAEP gain statistics: Mathematics, 1996 to 2000. Palo Alto, CA: American Institutes for Research.
19. Mintrom, M. (2000). Policy entrepreneurs and school choice. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
20. National Center for Educational Statistics. (2001). The nation's report card: State mathematics 2000 report. Report No. 2001519. Washington, DC: Author.
21. O'Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). School reform and equal opportunity: An introduction to the education symposium, Stanford Law and Policy Review 4, 15-20.
22. Rhoten, D., Carnoy, M., Elmore, R., & Chabran, M. (2003). The conditions and characteristics of assessment and accountability: The case of four states. In M. Carnoy et al. (Eds.), High schools and the new accountability: A schools-eye view of standards-based reforms. Manuscript submitted for publication. New York: Routledge.
23. Rumberger, R. (1995). Dropping out of middle school: A multilevel analysis of students and schools. American Educational Research Journal, 52(3), 583-625.
24. Serrano v. Priest, California State Supreme Court (1971).
25. Smith, M. S., O'Day, J. A., & Cohen, D. K. (1990). National curriculum, American style: What might it look like? American Educator 14(4), 10-17, 40-43.
26. Talbert, J. E., McLaughlin, M., & Rowan, B. (1993). Understanding context effects on secondary school teaching. Teachers College Record, 95(1), 45-68.
27. Tyack, D. (1974). The one best system: A history of American urban education. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
28. Walker, L. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American states. American Political Science Review 63, 880-899.
29. Wells, A. S., & Crain, R. L. (1992). Do parents choose school quality or school status? A sociological theory of free market education. In P. W. Cookson (Ed.), The choice controversy (pp. 65-81). Newbury Park, CA: Corwin Press.