The Effects of NCLB on School Resources and Practices

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 35, Issue 2, 2013, Pages 252-279

  Dee, Thomas S ^a   Jacob, Brian ^b   Schwartz, Nathaniel L ^c  

^a STANFORD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

^c Tennessee Department of Transportation   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; NCLB; school finance; teacher compensation

Indexed keywords

EID: 84876976627     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: 19351062     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0162373712467080     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. Ballou D.,Springer M. G.Achievement trade-offs and No Child Left Behind. 2008;:.
2. Bandeira de MelloV.BlankenshipC.McLaughlinD.Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005-2007. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://nces.ed.gov/nation sreportcard/pubs/studies/2010456.asp.
3. Bifulco R.The influence of performance-based accountability on the distribution of teacher salary increases.Education Finance and Policy. 2010;5:177-199.
4. Bloom H. S.Estimating program impacts on student achievement using short interrupted time series. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 1999:.
5. Bloom H. S.,Ham S.,Melton L.,O'Brien J.Evaluating the accelerated schools approach a look at early implementation and impacts on student achievement in eight elementary schools. New York, NY: Manpower Demonstration Research Corporation; 2001:.
6. Braun H.,Quian J.Mapping state standards to the NAEP scale. 2008;:.
7. Carnoy M.,Loeb S.Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24 (4): 305-331.
8. From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Diane Stark Rentner, Caitlin Scott, Nancy Kober, Naomi Chudowsky, Victor Chudowsky, Scott Joftus, Dalia Zabala; 2006:.
9. Choices, changes and challenges: Curriculum and Instruction in the NCLB era. From the capital to the classroom: Year 5 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Jennifer McMurrer; 2007:.
10. Instructional time in elementary schools: A closer look at changes for specific subjects. From the capital to the classroom: Year 5 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Jennifer McMurrer; 2008:.
11. Dee T. S.,Jacob B. A.The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student achievement.Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. 2011;30 (3): 418-446.
12. Fredricks J. A.,Blumenfeld P. C.,Paris A. H.School engagement: Potential of the concept, state of the evidence.Review of Educational Research. 2004;74 (1): 59-109.
13. Glanville J. L.,Wildhagen T.The measurement of school engagement.Educational and Psychological Measurement. 2007;67 (6): 1019-1041.
14. Goertz M. E.,Duffy M. E.Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states: 1999-2000. Philadelphia, PA: Consortium for Policy Research in Education; 2001:.
15. Access to arts education: Report to congressional requesters. Washington, DC: Author; 2009:.
16. Hamilton L. S.,Stecher B. M.,Marsh J. A.,McCombs J. S.,Robyn A.,Russell J. L., Barney H.Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 2007:.
17. Hannaway J.,McKay S.,Nakib Y.Developments in school finance 1999-2000. Fowler W., ed. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics; 2002:57-76.
18. HannawayJ.StanislawskiM. (2005). Responding to reform: Florida school expenditures in the 1990s. Unpublished manuscript.
19. 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.
20. Hess F. M.,Petrilli M. J.No child left behind. New York, NY: Peter Lang Publishing; 2006:.
21. Hoff D. J.,Walsh M.Sparring continues over NCLB legal ruling.Education Week. 2008;27 (21): 19.
22. Ingersoll R. M.The problem of underqualified teachers in American secondary schools.Educational Researcher. 1999;28 (2): 26-37.
23. Ingersoll R. M.Who controls teachers' work? Power and accountability in America's schools. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press; 2006:.
24. Jacob B.Accountability, incentives and behavior: Evidence from school reform in Chicago.Journal of Public Economics. 2005;89 (5-6): 761-796.
25. Jacob B.,Levitt S.Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating.Quarterly Journal of Economics. 2003;118 (3): 843-877.
26. Koretz D. M.,Barron S. I.,Mitchell K. J.,Stecher B. M.The perceived effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). Santa Monica, CA: RAND; 1996:.
27. Koretz D.,Hamilton L. S.Educational measurement. 2006). Testing for accountability in K-12. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 531-578). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger.Brennan R. L., ed. Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger; 2006:531-578.
28. Koretz D. M.,Mitchell K. J.,Barron S. I.,Keith S.The perceived effects of the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 1996:.
29. Krieg J. M.Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act.Education Finance and Policy. 2008;3 (2): 250-281.
30. Krueger A. B.Economic considerations and class size.Economic Journal. 2003;113:F34-F63.
31. Ladd H. F.,Zelli A.School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals.Education Administration Quarterly. 2002;38 (4): 494-529.
32. Lee J.,Wong K. K.The impact of accountability on racial and socioeconomic equity: Considering both school resources and achievement outcomes.American Educational Research Journal. 2004;41 (4): 797-832.
33. Liu X.The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: A multilevel analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999-2000.Educational Research and Evaluation. 2007;13 (1): 1-16.
34. Murnane R. J.,Papay J. P.Teachers' views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the principles, concerns about the practices.Journal of Economic Perspectives. 2010;24 (3): 151-166.
35. Murray S. E.,Evans W. N.,Schwab R. M.Education-finance reform and the distribution of education resources.The American Economic Review. 1998;88 (4): 789-812.
36. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office; 2007:.
37. Incentives and test-based accountability in public education. Hout M.Elliott S. W., ed. Washington, DC: National Academies Press, Board on Testing and Assessment, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; 2011:.
38. Neal D.,Schanzenbach D. W.Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability.Review of Economics and Statistics. 2010;92 (2): 263-283.
39. OlsonL. (2002). States strive toward ESEA compliance. Education Week, December1. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2002/12/11/15esea.h22.html.
40. OlsonL. (2003). In ESEA wake, school data flowing forth. Education Week, December10. Retrieved Octpber 30, 2012, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/12/10/15nclb.h23.html.
41. PalmerS. R.ColemanA. 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 www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/Deadlines.pdf.
42. Pedulla J. J.,Abrams L. M.,Madaus G. F.,Russell M. K.,Ramos M. A.,Miao J.Perceived effects of state-mandated testing programs on teaching and learning: Findings from a national survey of teachers. Chestnut Hill, MA: National Board on Education Testing and Public Policy; 2003:.
43. Reback R.,Rockoff J. E.,Schwartz H. L.The effects of No Child Left Behind on school services and student outcomes. 2010;:.
44. Rewardingresultspunishingfailure. (1999). Education Week. Retrieved October 30, 2012, from http://www.edcounts.org/archive/sreports/qc99/.
45. Rouse C. E.,Hannaway J.,Goldhaber D.,Figlio D.Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research; 2007:.
46. Shadish W. R.,Cook T. D.,Campbell D. T.Experimental and quasi-experimental designs for generalized causal inference. Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin; 2002:.
47. Smith M. S.,O'Day J.The politics of curriculum and testing (Politics of Education Association Yearbook, 1990). Fuhrman S. H.Malen B., ed. London, UK: Taylor & Francis; 1991:233-267.
48. 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. Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing, RAND Education; 1998:.
49. Swanson C. B.,Stevenson D. L.Standards-based reform in practice: Evidence on state policy and classroom instruction from the NAEP state assessments.Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. 2002;24 (1): 1-27.
50. Taylor G.,Shepard L.,Kinner F.,Rosenthal J.A survey of teachers' perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing; 2003:.