The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management

Volumn 30, Issue 3, 2011, Pages 418-446

  Dee, Thomas S ^a   Jacob, Brian ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 79958230679     PISSN: 02768739     EISSN: 15206688     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/pam.20586     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Angrist, J. D., & Pischke, J. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
2. Associated Press. (2004, September 21). Diocese of Tucson becomes 2nd to file for bankruptcy.
3. Ballou, D., & Springer, M. G. (2008). Achievement trade-offs and No Child Left Behind. Unpublished manuscript.
4. Bandeira de Mello, V., Blankenship, C., & McLaughlin, D. H. (2009). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005-2007. NCES 2010-456. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
5. Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). How much should we trust differences-in-differences estimates? Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119, 249-275.
6. Bloom, H. S. (1999). Estimating program impacts on student achievement using short interrupted time series, New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
7. Bloom, H. S., Ham, S., Melton, L., & O'Brien, J. (2001). Evaluating the accelerated schools approach: A look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation.
8. Braun, H., & Qian, J. (2008). Mapping state standards to the NAEP scale. Report No. ETS RR-08-57. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
9. Bryk, A., Lee V. E., & Holland, P. B. (1993). Catholic schools and the common good. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
10. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305-331.
11. Carroll, M., Pfeiffer, S., Rezendes, M., & Robinson, W. V. (2002, January 6). Church allowed abuse by priest for years, aware of Geoghan record, archdiocese still shuttled him from parish to parish. Boston Globe, p. A1.
12. Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
13. Center on Education Policy. (2008). Has student achievement increased since 2002: State test score trends through 2006-2007. Washington, DC: Author.
14. Dee, T. S., Jacob, B. A., & Schwartz, N. L. (2011). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Unpublished manuscript.
15. Dobbs, M. (2005, May 8). Conn. stands in defiance on enforcing "No Child." Washington Post. Retrieved April 1, 2011, from .
16. Education Week. (1999). Accountability in context. Retrieved April 4, 2011, from .
17. Figlio, D. N., & 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.
18. Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E. (2007). Gauging growth: How to judge No Child Left Behind? Educational Researcher, 36, 268-278.
19. Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. E. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report RR-046. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
20. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2001). The confusing world of educational accountability. National Tax Journal, 54, 365-384.
21. Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297-327.
22. Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2006). No Child Left Behind primer. New York: Peter Lang Publishing.
23. Hess, F. M., & Petrilli, M. J. (2009). Wrong turn on school reform. Policy Review, February/March, pp. 55-68.
24. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: Evidence from school reform in Chicago. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
25. Jacob, B. A. (2008, November). Lecture for the David N. Kershaw Award. Annual Fall Meeting of the Association of Public Policy Analysis, Los Angeles, CA.
26. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843-877.
27. Klein, A., & McNeil, M. (2010, March 17). Administration unveils ESEA reauthorization blueprint. Education Week, 29, 19.
28. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What educational testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29. 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.
30. Ladd, H. F. (2007, November). Holding schools accountable revisited. 2007 Spencer Foundation Lecture in Education Policy and Management, Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management Retrieved November 8, 2009, from .
31. Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426-450.
32. 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. Boston: Civil Rights Project, Harvard University.
33. 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.
34. National Center for Education Statistics. (2007). Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP Scales. NCES 2007-482. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
35. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistic, 92, 263-283.
36. Nichols, S. L., & Berliner, D. C. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
37. Olson, L. (2002, December 1). States strive toward ESEA compliance. Education Week, 22, p. 1, 18-19.
38. Olson, L. (2003, December 10). In ESEA wake, school data flowing forth. Education Week, 23, pp. 1, 16-18.
39. Olson, L. (2004, December 8). Taking root. Education Week, 24, pp. S1, S3, S7.
40. Palmer, S. R., & Coleman, A. L. (2003). The No Child Left Behind Act: Summary of NCLB requirements and deadlines for state action. Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved November 13, 2009, from .
41. Ravitch, D. (2009, June 10). Time to kill "No Child Left Behind." Education Week, 28, 30-36.
42. Rothstein, R., Jacobsen, R., & Wilder, T. (2008). Grading education: Getting accountability right. New York: Teachers College Press.
43. Shadish, W. R., Cook, T. D., & Campbell, D. T. (2002). Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston: Houghton-Mifflin.
44. 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.
45. Stullich, S., Eisner, E., McCrary, J., & Roney, C. (2006). National assessment of Title I interim report to Congress, Vol. 1: Implementation of Title I. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences.
46. U.S. Department of Education. (2006). No Child Left Behind is working. Retrieved July 29, 2009, from .
47. U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Private school participants in federal programs under the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
48. U.S. Department of Education. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
49. Winters, M. A., Trivitt, J. R., & Greene, J. P. (in press). The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida's Elementary Science Exam. Economics of Education Review.
50. Wong, M., Cook, T. D., & Steiner, P. M. (2009). 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. Working Paper Series, WP-09-11. Evanston, IL: Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University.