Performance effects of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework

Economics of Education Review

Volumn 30, Issue 4, 2011, Pages 702-723

  Hemelt, Steven W ^a  

^a Hospital for Special Surgery   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; NCLB; Sanctions; Student performance

Indexed keywords

ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE; ACCOUNTABILITY; EDUCATION POLICY; PANEL DATA; PERFORMANCE ASSESSMENT; POLICY ANALYSIS; PRIMARY EDUCATION; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SECONDARY EDUCATION; STUDENT;

MARYLAND; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79956371592     PISSN: 02727757     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.009     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. Carnoy M., Loeb S. Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 2002, 24(4):305-331.
2. Chakrabarti, R. (2003). Impact of voucher design on public school performance: Evidence from Florida and Milwaukee voucher programs. National Center on School Choice, Access: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/schoolchoice/search/publication.php%3Fid=27.
3. Chiang H. How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics 2009, 93(9-10):1045-1057.
4. Dillon, S. (2010a, February 2). Administration outlines proposed changes to 'No Child' law. The New York Times, Education.
5. Dillon, S. (2010b, March 13). Obama calls for major change in education law. The New York Times, Education.
6. Dillon, S. (2010c, March 15). Array of hurdles awaits new education agenda. The New York Times, Education.
7. Figlio D.N., Ladd H.F. School accountability and student achievement. Handbook of research in education finance and policy 2008, 166-182. Routledge, New York, NY. H.F. Ladd, E.B. Fiske (Eds.).
8. Greene, J. P., & Winters, M. A. (2003). When schools compete: The effects of vouchers on Florida public school achievement. Manhattan Institute Working Paper, No. 2, August 2003. Access: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/ewp_02.htm.
9. Hanushek E.A., Raymond M.E. Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2005, 24(2):297-327.
10. Hastings, J.S. & Weinstein J.M. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Estimating the impact on choices and student outcomes. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 13009.
11. Henig J.R. Political economy of supplemental services. No remedy left behind: Lessons from a half-decade of NCLB 2007, 66-95. AEI Press, Washington, DC. F.M. Hess, C.E. Finn (Eds.).
12. Hoxby, C. M. (2005). Yearly progress: Unlocking the secrets of NCLB. Education Next, Summer, 47-51.
13. Imbens G.W., Lemieux T. Regression discontinuity designs: A guide to practice. Journal of Econometrics 2008, 142(2):615-635.
14. Jacob B.A. Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics 2005, 89(5-6):761-796.
15. Karpicke, J. D., & Blunt, J. R. (2011). Retrieval practice produces more learning than elaborative studying with concept mapping. Science, Access: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21252317%3Fdopt=Abstract.
16. Kilchan C., Seltzer M., Herman J., Kyo Y. Children left behind in AYP and non-AYP schools: Using student progress and the distribution of student gains to validate AYP. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2007, 26(3):21-32.
17. Klein, A. (2010, March 26). ESEA renewal blueprint faces legislative hurdles. Education Week, 29(27), 1, 22-23.
18. Koretz D. Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us 2008, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
19. Kowal J., Hassel B.C. Remedies in action: Four " restructured" schools. No remedy left behind: Lessons from a half-decade of NCLB 2007, 267-289. AEI Press, Washington, DC. F.M. Hess, C.E. Finn (Eds.).
20. Ladd H.F., Lauen D.L. Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 2010, 29(3):426-450.
21. Lee, D. S., & Lemieux, T. (2009). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 14723.
22. Maryland State Department of Education. (2008). Consolidated state application accountability workbook. Access: http://www.marylandpublicschools.org/MSDE/programs/esea/.
23. Maryland State Department of Education. (2008). Maryland proposal for differentiated accountability pilot: Executive summary. Access: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/dapstates.html.
24. Medler A. Colorado: The misapplication of federal power. No remedy left behind: Lessons from a half-decade of NCLB 2007, 179-201. AEI Press, Washington, DC. F.M. Hess, C.E. Finn (Eds.).
25. Mills J.I. A legislative overview of No Child Left Behind. New Directions for Evaluation 2008, 117:9-20.
26. Nichols A. Causal inference with observational data. Stata Journal 2007, 7(4):507-541.
27. Nichols, A. (2007b). rd: Stata module for regression discontinuity estimation. Access: http://ideas.repec.org/c/boc/bocode/s456888.html.
28. No Child Left Behind Act. (2001). Public Law 107-110, 107th Congress, 1st session (January 8, 2002).
29. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2008). Few states set world-class standards: In fact, most render the notion of proficiency meaningless. Education Next, Summer, 70-73.
30. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2006). Is your child's school effective?: Don't rely on NCLB to tell you. Education Next, Fall, 76-80.
31. Plank D.N., Dunbar C. Michigan: Over the first hurdle. No remedy left behind: lessons from a half-decades of NCLB 2007, 202-222. AEI Press, Washington, DC. F.M. Hess, C.E. Finn (Eds.).
32. Porter A.C., Linn R.L., Trimble C.S. The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice 2005, 24(4):32-39.
33. Reback R. Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics 2008, 92:1394-1415.
34. Rockoff, J. E., & Turner, L. J. (2008). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 14564.
35. Rouse, C. E., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. NBER Working Paper Series, No. 13681.
36. Springer M.G. The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review 2008, 27:556-563.
37. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. (2009). An exploratory analysis of adequate yearly progress, identification for improvement, and student achievement in two states and three cities. (Technical Report). Washington, D.C.: Gill, B., et al. Access: http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/rd-ayp/report.pdf.
38. West M.R., Peterson P.E. The efficacy of choice threats within school accountability systems: Results from legislatively induced experiments. The Economic Journal 2006, 116(510):C46-C62.
39. Winters M.A., Trivitt J.R., Greene J.P. The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida's elementary science exam. Economics of Education Review 2010, 29(1):138-146.
40. Zimmer, R., et al. (2007). State and local implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: Volume I-Title I school choice, supplemental educational services, and student achievement (RAND, RP-1265). Access: http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1265/.