Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 29, Issue 3, 2010, Pages 426-450

  Ladd, Helen F ^a   Lauen, Douglas L ^b  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 78650464438     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20504     Document Type: Article

References (31)

1. Amrien, A. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2002). High-Stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10. Retrieved December 23, 2008, from.
2. Balfanz, R., Legters, N., West, T. C., & Weber, L. 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.
3. Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2008). Achievement trade-offs and No Child Left Behind. Working Paper. Nashville, TN: Peabody College of Vanderbilt University.
4. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
5. Burgess, S., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson, D. (2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools. Working Paper 05/128. The Centre for Market and Public Organisation: University of Bristol, UK.
6. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
7. Cohen, D. K. (1996). Standards-based reform: Policy, practice, and performance. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable (pp. 99-127). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
8. Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). Standards, accountability, and school reform. Teachers College Record, 106, 1047-1085.
9. Figlio, D. (2005). Measuring school performance: Promise and pitfalls. In L. Stiefel (Ed.), Measuring school performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research (pp. 119-136). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
10. Figlio, D. (2006). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90, 837-851.
11. Figlio, D., & Ladd, H. (2008). School accountability and student achievement. In H. Ladd & E. Fiske (Eds.), Handbook of research in education finance and policy (pp. 166-182). New York: Routledge.
12. Hamilton, L., Berends, M., & Stecher, B. (2005). Teachers' responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
13. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. A. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
14. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761.
15. Kane, T. J., & Staiger, D. O. (2002). The promise and pitfalls of using imprecise school accountability measures. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16, 91-114.
16. Krieg, J. M. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 250-281.
17. Ladd, H. F. (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
18. Ladd, H. F. (1999). The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Economics of Education Review, 18, 1-16.
19. Ladd, H. F., & Walsh, R. P. (2002). Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21, 1-17.
20. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29, 4-16.
21. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (in press). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability.Review of Economics and Statistics.
22. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
23. O'Day, J., & Smith, M. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Furman (Ed.), Designing coherent educational policy: Improving the system (pp. 250-312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
24. Orfield, G., & Kornhaber, M. L. (2001). Raising standards or raising barriers? Inequality and high-stakes testing in public education. New York: Century Foundation Press.
25. Peterson, P., & Hess, F. (2006). Keeping an eye on state standards. Education Next, 6, 28-29.
26. Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394-1415.
27. Springer, M. G. (2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27, 556-563.
28. Toch, T., & Harris, D. (2008). Salvaging accountability. Education Week, 28, 36.
29. Todd, P. E., & Wolpin, K. I. (2003). On the specification and estimation of the production function for cognitive achievement. Economic Journal, 113, F3-F33.
30. Valenzuela, A. (2005). Leaving children behind: How "Texas-style" accountability fails Latino youth. Albany: State University of New York Press.
31. Weitz, K., & Rosenbaum, J. (2007). Inside the black box of accountability: How high stakes accountability alters school culture and the classification and treatment of students and teachers. In A. Sadovnik, J. A. O'Day, G. W. Bohrnstedt, and K. M. Borman (Eds.), No Child Left Behind and the reduction of the achievement gap (pp. 97-116). New York: Routledge.