School Accountability

Handbook of the Economics of Education

Volumn 3, Issue , 2011, Pages 383-421

  Figlio, David ^a   Loeb, Susanna ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Achievement; Education; NCLB

Indexed keywords

EID: 79953730274     PISSN: 15740692     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-444-53429-3.00008-9     Document Type: Book

References (101)

1. Amrein-Beardley A., Berliner D. High stakes testing, uncertainty and student learning. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2002, 10(18).
2. Amrein-Beardley A., Berliner D. Re-analysis of NAEP math and reading scores in states with and without high-stakes tests: Responses to Rosenshine. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2003, 11(25).
3. Anderson P.M., Butcher K.F. Reading, writing, and refreshments: Are school finances contributing to children's obesity?. J. Hum. Res. 2006, 41(3):467-494.
4. Anderson P.M., Butcher K.F., Schanzenbach D.W. The effect of school accountability policies on children's health 2009, Working Paper. http://www.bus.lsu.edu/mcmillin/seminars/anderson_accountability.pdf.
5. Andrabi T., Das J., Khwaja A.I. Report cards: The impact of providing school and child test scores on educational markets 2009, Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development, BREAD Working Paper No. 226.
6. Barksdale-Ladd M.A., Thomas K.F. What's at stake in high-stakes testing: Teachers and parents speak out. J. Teach. Educ. 2000, 51(5):384-397.
7. Bass F., Dizon N., Feller B. Schools skirt "No Child Left Behind" rule 2006, Associated Press, April 17.
8. Black S. Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Q. J. Econ. 1999, 114(2):577-599.
9. Bokhari F., Schneider H. School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants 2009, Florida State University, Working paper.
10. Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Wyckoff, J., forthcoming. Who leaves? Teacher attrition and student achievement. Econ. Educ. Rev.
11. Boyd D., Lankford H., Loeb S., Wyckoff J. The impact of assessment and accountability on teacher recruitment and retention: Are there unintended consequences?. Public Financ. Rev. 2008, 36:88-111.
12. Braun H. Reconsidering the impact of high-stakes testing. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2004, 12(1).
13. Burgess S., Propper C., Slater H., Wilson D. Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools 2005, University of Bristol, Working paper.
14. Carnoy M., Loeb S. Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2002, 24(4):305-331.
15. Carnoy M., Loeb S. Revisiting external accountability effects on student outcomes: A cross-state analysis of NAEP reading and math results in the 1990s and early 2000s 2005, The Urban Institute.
16. Carnoy M., Loeb S., Smith T. Do higher scores in Texas make for better high school outcomes? 2001, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, CPRE Research Report no. RR-047.
17. Chakrabarti R. Do public schools facing vouchers behave strategically? 2005, Harvard University, Working paper.
18. Chiang H. How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement 2007, Harvard University, Working paper.
19. Clotfelter C., Ladd H. Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education 1996, 23-64. Brookings Institution Press. H. Ladd (Ed.).
20. Clotfelter C., Ladd H., Vigdor J., Diaz R. Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low performing schools to attract and retain high quality teachers?. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2004, 23(2):251-271.
21. Cronin J., Kingsbury G.G., McCall M.S., Bowe B. The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student achievement and growth, 2005 edition 2005, Northwest Evaluation Association, Northwest Evaluation Association Technical Report.
22. Cullen J., Reback R. Tinkering towards accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. Advances in Applied Microeconomics 2006, 14:1-34. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Improving School Accountability: Check-ups or Choice. T. Gronberg, D. Jansen (Eds.).
23. Dee T., Jacob B. The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement 2009, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 15531.
24. Deere D., Strayer W. Putting schools to the test: School accountability, incentives and behavior 2001, Texas A&M University, Working paper.
25. Downes T., Figlio D. School finance reforms, tax limits, and student performance: Do reforms level-up or dumb down? 1998, Department of Economics Tufts University, Discussion Papers Series 9805.
26. Quality counts annual report 2001 2001, Education Week, Education Week.
27. Elmore R., Abelmann C.H., Fuhrman S.H. The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education 1996, 65-98. Brookings Institution Press. H.F. Ladd (Ed.).
28. Feng L., Figlio D., Sass T. School accountability and teacher mobility 2009, Working paper. http://www.econ.wisc.edu/~scholz/Seminar/Figlio.pdf.
29. Ferrer G. Estado de Situación de los Sistemas Nacionales de Evaluación de Logros de Aprendizaje en América Latina 2006, Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas.
30. Figlio D. Fiscal implications of school accountability initiatives. Tax Pol. Ec. 2003, 17:1-36.
31. Figlio D. Measuring school performance: Promise and pitfalls. Measuring School Performance and Efficiency: Implications for Practice and Research 2004, 119-136. Eye on Education. L. Stiefel, A.E. Schwartz, R. Rubenstein, J. Zabel (Eds.).
32. Figlio D. Testing, crime and punishment. J. Public Econ. 2006, 90(4-5):837-851.
33. Figlio D., Getzler L. Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system?. Advances in Applied Microeconomics 2007, 14:35-49. Emerald Group Publishing Limited, Improving School Accountability: Check-ups or Choice. T. Gronberg, D. Jansen (Eds.).
34. Figlio D., Kenny L. Individual teacher incentives and student performance. J. Public Econ. 2007, 91(5-6):901-914.
35. Figlio D., Kenny L. Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. J. Public Econ. 2009, 93(9-10):1069-1077.
36. Figlio D., Ladd H. School accountability and student achievement. Handbook of Research on Education Finance and Policy 2007, Routledge. H. Ladd, E. Fiske (Eds.).
37. Figlio D., Lucas M. What's in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. Am. Econ. Rev. 2004, 94(3):591-604.
38. Figlio D., Rouse C.E. Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools?. J. Public Econ. 2006, 90(1-2):239-255.
39. Figlio D., Winicki J. Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. J. Public Econ. 2005, 89(2-3):381-394.
40. Fredericksen N. The Influence of Minimum Competency Tests on Teaching and Learning 1994, Educational Testing Services.
41. Frey B. Motivation and human behaviour. Risk, Trust and Welfare 2000, 31-50. Macmillan. P. Taylor-Gooby (Ed.).
42. Fuchs T., Woessmann L. What accounts for international differences in student performance? A re-examination using PISA data. The Economics and Training of Education 2007, 209-240. Physica-Verlag HD. C. Dustmann, B. Fitzenberger, S. Machin (Eds.).
43. Goldhaber D., Gross B., Player D. Are public schools really losing their "best"?: Assessing the career transitions of teachers and their implication for the quality of the teacher workforce 2007, The Urban Institute, Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Working Paper 12.
44. Hamilton L., Berends M., Stechter B. Teachers' Responses to Standards-Based Accountability 2005, RAND.
45. Haney W. The myth of the Texas miracle in education. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2000, 8(41).
46. Hanushek E.A., Kain J., O'Brien D., Rivkin S.G. The market for teacher quality 2005, National Bureau of Economic Research, Technical report.
47. Hanushek E.A., Raymond M. Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability 2003, 127-151. Brookings Institution. P.E. Peterson, M.R. West (Eds.).
48. Hanushek E.A., Raymond M. Does school accountability lead to improved school performance?. J. Policy Anal. Manag. 2005, 24(2):297-329.
49. Hanushek E.A., Rivkin S.G. Using value-added measures of teacher quality 2010, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, CALDER Brief 9.
50. Heneman H.G. Assessment of the motivational reactions of teachers to a school-based performance award program. J. Pers. Eval. Educ. 1998, 12(1):43-59.
51. Hoffman J.V., Assaf L.C., Paris S.G. High-stakes testing in reading: Today in Texas, tomorrow?. Read. Teach. 2001, 54(5):482-492.
52. Jacob B. Getting tough? The impact of high school graduation exams. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2001, 23(2):99-121.
53. Jacob B.A. Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. J. Public Econ. 2005, 89(5-6):761-796.
54. Jacob B.A., Levitt S.D. Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118(3):843-878.
55. Jin G.Z., Leslie P. The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurants hygiene grade cards. Q. J. Econ. 2003, 118(2):409-451.
56. Johnson S.M., Birkeland S.E. Pursuing a "sense of success": New teachers explain their career decisions. Am. Educ. Res. J. 2002, 40(3):581-617.
57. Jones G., Jones B., Hardin B., Chapman L., Yarbrough T., Davis M. The impact of high-stakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan 1998, 81:199-203.
58. Kane T., Staiger D. Improving school accountability systems 2002, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper, 8156.
59. Klein S., Hamilton L., McCaffrey D., Stecher B. What do test scores in Texas tell us?. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2000, 9(49).
60. Koretz D.M., Barron S. The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) 1998, RAND Corporation, Working paper.
61. Koretz D.M., Hamilton L.S. Teachers' responses to high-stakes testing and the validity of gains: A pilot study 2003, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, CSE Technical Report 610.
62. Krieg J. Are students left behind? The distributional impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act. Educ. Fin. Policy 2008, 3(2):250-281.
63. Ladd H. The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: An evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes. Econ. Educ. Rev. 1999, 18:1-16.
64. Ladd H. School-based educational accountability systems: The promise and the pitfalls. Natl. Tax J. 2001, 54(2):385-400.
65. Ladd H., Walsh R. Implementing value-added measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Econ. Educ. Rev. 2002, 21(1):1-17.
66. Ladd H., Zelli F. School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educ. Admin. Q. 2002, 38(4):494-529.
67. Lavy V. Using performance-based pay to improve the quality of teachers. Future Child 2007, 17(1):87-109.
68. Lee J. in: Is test-driven external accountability effective? A meta-analysis of the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies 2006, April.
69. Linn R.L. Assessments and accountability. Educ. Researcher 2000, 29(2):4-16.
70. Loeb S., Cuhna J. Have assessment-based accountability reforms influenced the career decisions of teachers and principals? 2007, The Urban Institute, The Urban Institute Working Paper.
71. Loeb S., Strunk K. Accountability and local control: Response to incentives with and without authority over resource allocation and generation. Educ. Fin. Policy 2007, 2(1):10-39.
72. Luna C., Turner C.L. The impact of the MCAS: Teachers talk about high-stakes testing. Engl. J. 2001, 91(1):79-87.
73. Mathios A.D. The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. J. Law Econ. 2000, 43(2):651-677.
74. Mizala A., Romaguera P., Urquiola M. Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the generation of school quality information. J. Dev. Econ. 2007, 84(1):61-75.
75. Neal D., Schanzenbach D. Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2010, 92(2):263-283.
76. O'Day J.A., Smith M.S. Systemic reform and educational opportunity. Designing Coherent Education Policy: Improving the System 1993, 250-312. Jossey Bass. S. Fuhrman (Ed.).
77. Peterson P., Hess F. Keeping an eye on state standards. Educ. Next 2006, 6(3):28-29.
78. Reback R. Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. J. Public Econ. 2008, 99(5-6):1394-1415.
79. Richards C., Sheu T. The South Carolina School Incentive Reward Program: A policy analysis. Econ. Educ. Rev. 1992, 11(1):71-86.
80. Rockoff J., Turner L. Short run impacts of accountability on school quality 2008, National Bureau of Economic Research, NBER Working Paper No. 14564.
81. Romberg T., Zarinia E., Williams S. The Influence of Mandated Testing on Mathematics Instruction: Grade 8 Teachers' Perceptions 1989, National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
82. Rosenshine B. High stakes testing: Another analysis. Educ. Policy Anal. Arch. 2003, 11(24).
83. Rothstein R., Jacobson R., Wilder T. Grading Education: Getting Accountability Right 2008, Teachers College Press.
84. Rouse C., Hannaway J., Goldhaber D., Figlio D. Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure 2007, Princeton University and University of Florida, Working paper.
85. Shepard L.A., Dougherty K.C. Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction 1991, April.
86. Sims D. Going down with the ship? The effect of school accountability on the distribution of teacher experience in California 2009, The Urban Institute, Working paper.
87. Smith S.S., Mickelson R.A. All that glitters is not gold: School reform in Charlotte-Mecklenburg. Educ. Eval. Policy Anal. 2000, 22(2).
88. Stecher B., Barron S., Chun T., Ross K. The Effects of the Washington State Education Reform on Schools and Classrooms 2000, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
89. Stecher B.M., Barron S.I., Kaganoff T., Goodwin J. The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing 1998, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing, CSE Technical Report 482.
90. Stiefel L.A., Schwartz E., Rubinstein R., Zabel J. Measuring School Performance and Efficiency: Implications for Practice and Research 2005, Eye on Education.
91. Stullich S., Eisner L., McCrary J., Roney C. National Assessment of Title I: Interim Report 2006, U.S. Department of Education.
92. Vegas E., Petrow J. Raising Student Learning in Latin America: The Challenge for the 21st Century 2008, World Bank.
93. West A., Pennell H. Publishing school examination results in England: Incentives and consequences. Educ. Stud. 2000, 26(4):423-436.
94. Wiggins A., Tymms P. Dysfunctional effects of league tables: A comparison between English and Scottish primary schools. Public Money Manage 2002, 22:43-48.
95. Wilson M.B., Bertenthal M.W. Systems for State Science Assessment 2006, National Academies Press.
96. Woessmann L. Central exit exams and student achievement: International evidence. No Child Left Behind? The Politics and Practice of School Accountability 2003, 292-324. Brookings Institution Press. P. Peterson, M. West (Eds.).
97. Woessmann L. The effect of heterogeneity of central exams: Evidence from TIMSS, TIMSS-Repeat and PISA. Educ. Econ. 2005, 13(2):143-169.
98. Woessmann L. International evidence on school competition, autonomy, and accountability: A review. Peabody J. Educ. 2007, 82(2-3):473-497.
99. Wong M., Cook T.D., Steiner P.M. 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 2009, Northwestern University, Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University Working Paper Series WP-09-11.
100. Yin L. Are school accountability systems contributing to adolescent obesity? 2009, University of Florida, Working paper.
101. Zimmer R., Bettinger E. Beyond the rhetoric: Surveying the evidence of vouchers and tax credits. Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy 2008, 447-466. Taylor and Francis, Inc. H.F. Ladd, E.B. Fiske (Eds.).