Predictable failure of federal sanctions-driven accountability for school improvement-and why we may retain it anyway

Educational Researcher

Volumn 38, Issue 5, 2009, Pages 353-364

  Mintrop, Heinrich ^a   Sunderman, Gail L ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b GEORGE WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Educational policy; Educational reform; Policy

Indexed keywords

EID: 77950909628     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X09339055     Document Type: Article

References (122)

1. Abedi, J. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues. Educational Researcher, 33(1), 4-14.
2. Abrams, L., Pedulla, J., & Madaus, G. (2003). Views from the classroom: Teachers' opinions of statewide testing programs. Theory Into Practice, 42(1), 18-29.
3. Amrein, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18), Retrieved August 22, 2003, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
4. Anagnostopoulos, D. (2003). The new accountability, student failure, and teachers' work in urban high schools. Educational Policy, 17, 291-316.
5. Argyris, C. (1990). Overcoming organizational defenses. New York: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Asimov, N. (2008, September 5). State falling way behind No Child Left Behind. San Francisco Chronicle, p. A-1.
7. Au, W. (2007). High-stakes testing and curricular control: A qualitative metasynthesis. Educational Researcher, 36, 258-267.
8. Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. E. (2004). Locating the dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the nation's dropouts? In G. Orfield (Ed.), Dropouts in America: Confronting the graduation rate crisis (pp. 57-84). Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
9. Balfanz, R., & Legters, N. E. (2008). NCLB and reforming the nation's lowest-performing high schools. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 191-207). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
10. Batt, L., Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Limited English proficiency students: Increased accountability under NCLB. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
11. Blanc, S. (2003, Summer). Principals offer mixed perspectives on first year of takeover: Supports and challenges in the multiple provider model. The Notebook. Retrieved June 7, 2009, from http://www.thenotebook.org/editions/2003/summer/principals.htm
12. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
13. Bracey, G. (2002). The market in theory meets the market in practice: The case of Edison schools. Tempe, AZ: The Education Policy Studies Laboratory at Arizona State University. Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.epicpolicy.org/files/EPSL-0202-107-EPRU.pdf
14. Brady, R. (2003). Can failing schools be fixed? Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
15. The Brown Center. (2003). Charter schools: Achievement, accountability, and the role of expertise. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
16. Buchanan, B. (2006). Turnover at the top: Superintendent vacancies and the urban school. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
17. Bulkley, K., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Taking account of charter schools: What's happened and what's next? New York: Teachers College Press.
18. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
19. Center for Education Policy. (2007). Moving beyond identification: Assisting schools in improvement. Washington, DC: Author.
20. Center for Education Policy. (2008a). A call to restructure restructuring: Lessons from the No Child Left Behind Act in five states. Washington, DC: Author.
21. Center for Education Policy. (2008b). Has student achievement increased since 2002? State test score trends through 2006-07. Washington, DC: Author.
22. Center for Education Policy. (2008c). Managing more than a thousand remodeling projects: School restructuring in California. Washington, DC: Author.
23. Chicago Public Schools. (2007). SES tutoring programs: An evaluation of Year 3 in the Chicago Public Schools. Chicago: Author.
24. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, Belknap Press.
25. Coltrane, B. (2002, November). English language learners and high-stakes tests: An overview of the issues. Retrieved May 13, 2004, from http:// www.cal.org/ericcll/DIGEST
26. Conley, D., & Goldman, P. (2000). Half full, half empty? Educator responses over time to state-level systematic reforms. International Journal of Educational Reform, 9, 249-260.
27. Cooper, C. L., & Robertson, I. (Eds.). (1986). International review of industrial and organizational psychology. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
28. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
29. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106, 1145-1176.
30. Dorn, S. (1998). The political legacy of school accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 6(1), Retrieved June 10, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n1.html
31. Education Commission of the States. (2004, March). State takeovers and reconstitutions. Retrieved March 28, 2006, from http://ecs.org/clearinghouse/51/67/5167.htm
32. The Education Trust. (2004). Measured progress: Achievement rises and gaps narrow, but slowly. Washington, DC: Author.
33. The Education Trust. (2005). Stalled in secondary: A look at student achievement since the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
34. Elmore, R. F. (2004). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice and performance. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
35. Finnigan, K., & Gross, B. (2007). Do accountability policy sanctions influence teacher motivation? Lessons from Chicago's low-performing schools. American Educational Research Journal, 44, 594-629.
36. Firestone, W., Schorr, R., & Monfils, L. (Eds.). (2004). The ambiguity of teaching to the test: Standards, assessment, and educational reform. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
37. Frey, B. S. (1997). On the relationship between intrinsic and extrinsic work motivation. International Journal of Industrial Organization, 15, 427-440.
38. Fullan, M. (2003). Change forces with a vengeance. London: Routledge Farmer.
39. Fuller, B., Gesicki, K., Kang, E., & Wright, J. (2006). Is the No Child Left Behind Act working? The reliability of how states track achievement (Working Paper No. 06-1). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.
40. Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36, 268-278.
41. Garland, L. (2003). Navigating treacherous waters: A state takeover hand-book. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow.
42. Gill, B., Zimmer, R., Christman, J., & Blanc, S. (2007). State takeover, school restructuring, private management, and student achievement in Philadelphia. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
43. Haertel, E. H. (2005). Using a longitudinal student tracking system to improve the design for public school accountability in California. Palo Alto, CA: Author.
44. Haney, W. M. (2000). The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(41). Retrieved August 22, 2006, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n41/
45. Haney, W. M. (2008). Evidence on education under NCLB (and how Florida boosted NAEP scores and reduced the race gap). In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 91-102). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
46. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2004). Does school accountability lead to improved performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
47. Hargreaves, A. (2004). Distinction and disgust: The emotional politics of school failure. International Journal of Leadership in Education, 7(1), 27-41.
48. Heinrich, C. J., Meyer, R. H., & Whitten, G. (2008, March). Supplemental educational services under No Child Left Behind: Who signs up, and what do they gain? Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
49. Heistad, D. (2006). Analysis of 2005 supplemental educational services in Minneapolis Public Schools: An application of matched sample statistical design. Minneapolis, MN: Minneapolis Public Schools, Research, Evaluation and Assessment Department.
50. Herman, J. L. (2004). The effects of testing on instruction. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability (pp. 141-146). New York: Teachers College Press.
51. Hess, G. A. (2003). Reconstitution-three years later: Monitoring the effect of sanctions on Chicago high schools. Education and Urban Society, 35, 300-327.
52. Hill, P., Lake, R., & Celio, M. (2002). Charter schools and accountability in public education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
53. Hoff, D. J. (2007). Provision on tutoring raises renewal issues. Education Week, 27, 1, 19.
54. Kelley, C., & Protsik, J. (1997). Risk and reward: Perspectives on the implementation of Kentucky's school-based performance award program. Educational Administration Quarterly, 33, 474-505.
55. Kieffer, M. J., Lesaux, N. K., & Snow, C. E. (2008). Promises and pit-falls: Implications of NCLB for identifying, assessing, and educating English language learners. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 57-74). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
56. Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2004). Does NCLB provide good choices for students in low performing schools? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
57. Kim, J., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring academic proficiency under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for educational equity. Educational Researcher, 34(8), 3-13.
58. Klein, A. (2007, December 19). Impact is slight for early states using "growth." Education Week, pp. 24-25.
59. Koretz, D. M. (2008). The pending reauthorization of NCLB: An opportunity to rethink the basic strategy. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 9-26). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
60. Koretz, D. M., Barron, S. I., Mitchell, K. J., & Stecher, B. M. (1996). Perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
61. Latham, G., & Pinder, C. (2005). Work motivation theory and research at the dawn of the twenty-first century. Annual Review of Psychology, 56, 485-516.
62. Lawler, E. (1973). Motivation in work organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
63. Lee, J. (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: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
64. Lee, J. (2007). The testing gap: Scientific trials of test-driven school accountability systems for excellence and equity. Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
65. Lee, J. (2008). Is test-driven external accountability effective? Synthesizing the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Review of Educational Research, 78, 608-644.
66. Lee, J., & 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, 797-832.
67. Leithwood, K., Steinbach, R., & Jantzi, D. (2002). School leadership and teachers' motivation to implement accountability policies. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 94-119.
68. Linn, R. L. (2005). Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(33), Retrieved June 29, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n33/.
69. Linn, R. L. (2008). Toward a more effective definition of adequate yearly progress. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 27-42). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
70. Loeb, H., Knapp, M., & Elfers, A. (2008). Teachers' response to standards-based reform: Probing reform assumptions in Washington State. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 16(9), Retrieved January 19, 2009, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v16n9/
71. Lortie, D. C. (1977). Schoolteacher: A sociological study. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
72. Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-mandated accountability in high schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 27, 177-204.
73. Malen, B., Croninger, R., Muncey, D., & Redmond-Jones, D. (2002). Reconstituting schools: "Testing" the "theory of action." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 113-132.
74. Marion, S. T., White, C., Carlson, D., Erpenbach, W. J., Rabinowitz, A., & Sheinker, J. (2002). Making valid and reliable decisions in determining adequate yearly progress. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
75. Mathis, W. J. (2009). NCLB's ultimate restructuring alternatives: Do they improve the quality of education? East Lansing, MI: The Great Lakes Center for Education Research & Practice.
76. McCaffrey, D. F., Lockwood, J. R., Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Evaluating value-added models for teacher accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
77. McDermott, K. A. (2004). Incentives, capacity, and implementation: Evidence from Massachusetts education reform. Journal of Administration Research and Theory, 16, 45-65.
78. McNeil, L. (2000). Contradictions of school reform. New York: Routledge.
79. Meyer, M., & Zucker, L. (1989). Permanently failing organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
80. Mintrop, H. (2004). Schools on probation: How accountability works (and doesn't work). New York: Teachers College.
81. Mintrop, H. (2008). Low-performing schools' programs and state capacity requirements: Meeting the NCLB educational goals. In G. L. Sunderman (Ed.), Holding NCLB accountable: Achieving accountability, equity, and school reform (pp. 137-151). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
82. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2005). Corrective action in low performing schools: Lessons for NCLB implementation from first-generation accountability systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 13(48). Retrieved December 3, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v13n48/
83. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2007). The practical relevance of accountability systems for school improvement: A descriptive analysis of California schools. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29, 319-352.
84. Mintrop, H., & Trujillo, T. (2008). High-stakes accountability and teacher learning community-How do they go together? Paper presented at the annual conference of the University Council for Educational Administration, Orlando, FL.
85. Moore-Johnson, S. (2007). Finders and keepers: Helping new teachers survive and thrive in our schools. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
86. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
87. Neild, R. C., & Spiridakis, K. (2002). Preliminary results: Philadelphia new teacher survey. Philadelphia, PA: Research for Action.
88. Neild, R. C., Useem, B., Travers, E., & Lesnick, J. (2003). Once and for all: Placing a highly qualified teacher in every Philadelphia classroom. Philadelphia: Research for Action. New York State Education Department, Office of New York City School
89. Improvement and Community Services. (2003). 2002-03 Registration Review Initiative: A summary of the Registration Review report findings. New York: Author.
90. Novak, J. F. B. (2003, December). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores but different students bring federal sanctions. Berkeley: Policy Analysis for California Education.
91. Owens, A., & Sunderman, G. L. (2006). School accountability under NCLB: Aid or obstacle for measuring racial equity? Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
92. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2006). Keeping an eye on state standards. Education Next, 6(3), 28-29.
93. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2008). Few states set world-class standards: In fact, most render the notion of proficiency meaningless. Education Next, 8(3), 70-73.
94. Posner, R. A., & Rasmusen, E. B. (1999). Creating and enforcing norms, with special reference to sanctions. International Review of Law and Economics, 19, 369-382.
95. Potter, A., Ross, S. M., Paek, J., McKay, D., Ashton, J., & Sanders, W. L. (2007). Supplemental educational services in the state of Tennessee: 2005-06 (2004-2005 student achievement results). Memphis, TN: Center for Research in Education Policy, University of Memphis.
96. Raymond, M. E., & Hanushek, E. A. (2003). High-stakes research: Accountability works after all. Education Next, 3(3), 48-55.
97. Reeves, D. (2000). Accountability in action. Denver, CO: Advanced Learning Press.
98. Rickles, J. H., Barnhart, M. K., & Gualpa, A. S. (2008). Supplemental educational services participation and impact on student achievement: The case of one urban district over five years. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New York.
99. Saltman, K. J. (2005). The Edison Schools. New York: Routledge.
100. Scheerens, J., & Bosker, R. (1997). The foundations of educational effectiveness. Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
101. Sennett, R. (2006). Culture of new capitalism. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
102. Shamir, B. (1990). Calculations, values, and identities: The sources of collectivistic work motivation. Human Relations, 43, 313-332.
103. Shamir, B. (1991). Meaning, self and motivation in organizations. Organization Studies, 12, 405-424.
104. Skrla, L., & Scheurich, J. (2004). Displacing deficit thinking in school district leadership. In L. Skrla & J. Scheurich (Eds.), Educational equity and accountability (pp. 109-132). New York: Routledge Farmer.
105. Spillane, J., Diamond, J., Burch, P., Hallett, T., Jita, L., & Zoltners, J. (2002). Managing in the middle: School leaders and the enactment of accountability policy. Educational Policy, 16, 731-762.
106. Staw, B. M., Lance, E., & Dutton, J. (1981). Threat-rigidity effects in organizational behavior: A multilevel analysis. Administrative Science Quarterly, 26, 501-524.
107. Sunderman, G. L. (2001). Accountability mandates and the implementation of Title I schoolwide programs: A comparison of three urban districts. Educational Administration Quarterly, 37, 503-532.
108. Sunderman, G. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
109. Sunderman, G. L., Kim, J. S., & Orfield, G. (2005). NCLB meets school realities: Lessons from the field. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
110. Sunderman, G. L., & Orfield, G. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind and state administrative response. Harvard Educational Review, 76(4), 526-556.
111. Sunderman, G. L., Tracey, C. A., Kim, J., & Orfield, G. (2004). Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and No Child Left Behind. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
112. Travers, E. (2003a). Characteristics of schools under diverse providers, 2002-2003. Philadelphia: Research for Action.
113. Travers, E. (2003b). Philadelphia school reform: Historical roots and reflections on the 2002-2003 school year under state takeover: A talk initially presented at the Friends Association of Higher Education and Friends Council on Education Conference at Swarthmore College and Pendle Hill. Penn GSE Perspectives on Urban Education, 2(1). Retrieved November 2, 2005, from http://www.urbanedjournal.org/commentaries/c0007.pdf
114. U.S. Department of Education. (2008, April 3). Peer review guidance for the NCLB differentiated accountability pilot applications. Retrieved July 2, 2008, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/daguidance.doc
115. U.S. Department of Education. (2009, January 8). Secretary Spellings approves additional growth model pilots for 2008-2009 school year. Retrieved May 4, 2009, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2009/01/01082009a.html
116. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2007). No Child Left Behind Act: Education should clarify guidance and address potential compliance issues for schools in corrective action and restructuring status. Washington, DC: Author.
117. Useem, E. (2005). Learning from Philadelphia's school reform: What do the research findings show so far? Philadelphia: Research for Action.
118. Valenzuela, A. (2005). Leaving children behind: How "Texas-style" accountability fails Latino youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
119. Weiss, M. J. (2008a). The "growth model" pilot isn't what you think it is. Education Week, 27(42), 28-29.
120. Weiss, M. J. (2008b). Using a yardstick to measure a meter: Growth, projection, and value-added models in the context of school accountability. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia.
121. Ziebarth, T. (2002). State takeovers and reconstitutions (Rev. ed.). Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States.
122. Zimmer, R., Gill, B., Razquin, P., Booker, K., & Lockwood, J. R. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I-Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement. Washington, DC: RAND.