The effects of accountability system design on teachers' use of test score data

Teachers College Record

Volumn 114, Issue 11, 2012, Pages

  Jennings, Jennifer ^a  

^a NEW YORK UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84875082287     PISSN: 01614681     EISSN: 14679620     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: None     Document Type: Article

References (66)

1. Baker, G., Gibbons, R., & Murphy, K. J. (1994). Subjective performance measures in optimal incentive contracts. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 109, 1125-1156.
2. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: "Educational triage" and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231-268.
3. Borko, H., & Elliott, R. (1999). Hands-on pedagogy versus hands-off accountability: Tensions between competing commitments for exemplary math teachers in Kentucky. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 394-400.
4. Boudet, K., City, E., & Murnane, R. (Eds.). (2005). Data-wise: A step-by-step guide to using assessment results to improve teaching and learning. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press.
5. Brown, R. S., Wohlstetter, P., & Liu, S. (2008). Developing an indicator system for schools of choice: A balanced scorecard approach. Journal of School Choice, 2, 392-414.
6. Buddin, R. (2010). Los Angeles teacher ratings: FAQ and about. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from http://projects.latimes.com/value-added/faq/
7. Bulkley, K., Fairman, J., Martinez, M. C., & Hicks, J. E. (2004). The district and test preparation. In W. A. Firestone & R. Y. Schorr (Eds.), The ambiguity of test preparation (pp. 113-142). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
8. Campbell, D. T. (1979). Assessing the impact of planned social change. Evaluation and Program Planning, 2, 67-90.
9. Center on Education Policy. (2007). Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org
10. Chester, M. D. (2005). Making valid and consistent inferences about school effectiveness from multiple measures. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 40-52.
11. Coburn, C. E. (2001). Collective sensemaking about reading: How teachers mediate reading policy in their professional communities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23, 145-170.
12. Coburn, C. E. (2005). Shaping teacher sensemaking: School leaders and the enactment of reading policy. Educational Policy, 19, 476-509.
13. Coburn, C. E. (2006). Framing the problem of reading instruction: Using frame analysis to uncover the microprocesses of policy implementation. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 343-379.
14. Corcoran, S. P. (2010). Can teachers be evaluated by their students' test scores? Should they be? Providence, RI: Annenberg Institute, Brown University.
15. Corcoran, S. P., Jennings, J. L., & Beveridge, A. A. (2010). Teacher effectiveness on high and lowstakes tests (Working paper). New York University.
16. Darling-Hammond, L., & Wise, A.E. (1985). Beyond standardization: State standards and school improvement. Elementary School Journal, 85, 315-336.
17. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2009). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement (NBER working paper). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
18. Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where rubber meets the road: Rethinking the connection between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80, 285-313.
19. Ehren, M., & Visscher, A.J. (2006). Towards a theory on the impact of school inspections. British Journal of Educational Studies, 54, 51-72.
20. Finn, C. E., Petrilli, M. J., & Julian, L. (2006). The state of state standards. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.
21. Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2006). Measuring instructional responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
22. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., . . . Barney, H. (2007). Implementing standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Responses of superintendents, principals, and teachers in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
23. Hannaway, J. (2007, November). Unbounding rationality: Politics and policy in a data rich system. Mistisfer lecture, University Council of Education Administration, Alexandria, VA.
24. Holmstrom, B., & Milgrom, P. (1991). Multitask principal-agent analyses: Incentive contracts, asset ownership, and job design. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 7, 24-52.
25. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: Evidence from school reform in Chicago. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761-796.
26. Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. (2010, August). State test predictability and teaching to the test: Evidence from three states. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Atlanta, GA.
27. Jennings, J. L., & Crosta, P. (2010, November). The unaccountables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of APPAM, Boston, MA.
28. Kerr, K. A., Marsh, J. A., Ikemoto, G. S., & Barney, H. (2006). Strategies to promote data use for instructional improvement: Actions, outcomes, and lessons from three urban districts. American Journal of Education, 112, 496-520.
29. Koedel, C., & Betts, J. (2009). Value-added to what? How a ceiling in the testing instrument influences value-added estimation (Working paper). University of Missouri.
30. Koretz, D. (2008). Measuring up: What standardized testing really tells us. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
31. Koretz, D., Barron, S., Mitchell, K., & Stecher, B. (1996a). The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
32. Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.
33. Koretz, D., Mitchell, K., Barron, S., & Keith, S. (1996b). The perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 409). Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
34. Krieg, J. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of No Child Left Behind. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 250-281.
35. Ladd, H. F. (2007, November). Holding schools accountable. Paper presented at the annual meetings of APPAM, Washington, DC.
36. Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29(3), 426-450.
37. Ladd, H., & Zelli, A. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38, 494-529.
38. Lauen, D. L., & Gaddis, S. M. (2010). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB's subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement gains (Working paper). University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.
39. 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.
40. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND research (No. OP-170). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
41. Massell, D. (2001). The theory and practice of using data to build capacity: State and local strategies and their effects. In S. H. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states (pp. 148-169). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago.
42. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: The educational costs of standardized testing. London, England: Routledge.
43. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability (Working paper). University of Chicago.
44. New Teacher Project. (2010). The real race begins: Lessons from the first round of Race to the Top. New York, NY: Author.
45. Ordonez, L. D., Schweitzer, M. E., Galinsky, A. D., & Bazerman, M. H. (2009). Goals gone wild: The systematic side effects of over prescribing goal setting. Academy of Management Perspectives, 23, 6-16.
46. Papay, J. P. (2010). Different tests, different answers: The stability of teacher value-added estimates across outcome measures. American Education Research Journal, 48, 1-30.
47. Papay, J., & Moore Johnson, S. (2009). Redesigning teacher pay: A system for the next generation of educators. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
48. Pedulla, J. J., Abrams, L. M., Madaus, G. F., Russell, M. K., Ramos, M. A., & Miao, J. (2003). Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy.
49. Porter, A. C., Linn, R. L., & Trimble C. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 32-39.
50. Prabhu, M. T. (2010). Forum calls for better use of data in education. eSchool News, 12(4).
51. Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394-1415.
52. Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. (2010). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB (Working paper). Barnard College.
53. Rothman, R., Slattery, J. B., Vranek, J. L., & Resnick, L.B. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (Working paper). UCLA.
54. Schweitzer, M., Ordonez, L., & Douma, B. (2004). Goal setting as a motivator of unethical behavior. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 422-432.
55. Shepard, L. A. (1988, April). The harm of measurement-driven instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Washington, DC.
56. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. D. (1991). The effects of high stakes testing. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), Annual meetings of the American Education Research Association and the National Council of Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.
57. Sitkin, S., Miller, C., See, K., Lawless, M., & Carton, D. (in press). The paradox of stretch goals: Pursuit of the seemingly impossible in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 36.
58. Smith, M. L., & Rottenberg, C. (1991). Unintended consequences of external testing in elementary schools. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 10, 7-11.
59. Spillane, J. P., Reiser, B. J., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72, 387-431.
60. Springer, M. (2007). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27, 556-563.
61. Stecher, B. (2004). Consequences of large-scale high-stakes testing on school and classroom practice. In L. Hamilton, B. M. Stecher, & S. Klein (Eds.), Making sense of test-based accountability in education (pp. 79-100). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
62. Stecher, B. M., Chun, T. J., Barron, S. I., & Ross, K. E. (2000). The effects of the Washington State education reform on schools and classrooms: Initial findings. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
63. Supovitz, J. A., & Klein, V. (2003). Mapping a course for improved student learning: How innovative schools systematically use student performance data to guide improvement. Philadelphia: Consortium for Policy Research in Education, University of Pennsylvania.
64. Urbina, I. (2010, January 12). As school exit tests prove tough, states ease standards. The New York Times, p. A1.
65. Weick, K. (1995). Sensemaking in organizations. London, England: Sage.
66. Wolf, S. A., & McIver, M.C. (1999). When process becomes policy: The paradox of Kentucky state reform for exemplary teachers of writing. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 401-406.