Did States Use Implementation Discretion to Reduce the Stringency of NCLB? Evidence From a Database of State Regulations

Educational Researcher

Volumn 47, Issue 1, 2018, Pages 9-33

  Wong, Vivian C ^a   Wing, Coady ^b   Martin, David ^a   Krishnamachari, Anandita ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF VIRGINIA   (United States)

^b INDIANA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

accountability; descriptive analysis; education policy; education reform; NAEP; policy analysis; regression analyses

Indexed keywords

EID: 85041375014     PISSN: 0013189X     EISSN: 1935102X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X17743230     Document Type: Article

References (25)

1. Bandeira de Mello V., Blankenship C., McLaughlin D. H., (2009). Mapping state proficiency standards onto NAEP scales: 2005–2007 (NCES 2010-456). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC.
2. Barnard Columbia NCLB Data Project. (2014). Data overview. Retrieved from http://www8.gsb.columbia.edu/nclb/overview
3. Burnette D., (2016). Senator Lamar Alexander tells governors to hold their ground on ESSA. Education Week. Retrieved from http://blogs.edweek.org/edweek/state_edwatch/2016/02/lamar_alexander.html
4. Carey K., (2007). The Pangloss index: How states game the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Education Sector.
5. Chingos M. M., (2012). Strength in numbers: State spending on K–12 assessment systems. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
6. Colorado Department of Education. (n.d.). The abcs of AYP. Retrieved from https://www.cde.state.co.us/fedprograms/dper/aypfaq
7. Currie J., Gruber J., (1996). Health insurance eligibility, utilization of medical care, and child health. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111(2), 431–466. doi:10.2307/2946684
8. Davidson E., Reback R., Rockoff J. E., Schwartz H. L., (2013). Fifty ways to leave a child behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementations of NCLB (NBER Working Paper 18988). Cambridge, MA: NBER.
9. Dee T., Jacob B., (2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418–446.
10. Gruber J., Saez E., (2002). The elasticity of taxable income: evidence and implications. Journal of Public Economics, 84(1), 1–32. doi:10.1016/S0047-2727(01)00085-8
11. Hamilton L. S., Stecher B. M., Marsh J. A., McCombs J. S., Robyn A., Russell J. L., Barney H. (2007). Standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Experiences of teachers and administrators in three states. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation.
12. Hanushek E. A., Raymond M. E., (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.
13. Hoffer T. B., Hedberg E. C., Brown K. L., Halverson M. L., Reid-Brossard P., Ho A. D., Furgol K., (2011). Final report on the evaluation of the growth model pilot project. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
14. McLaughlin D. H., Bandeira de Mello V., Blankenship C., Chaney K., Esra P., Hikawa H... Wolman M. (2008a). Comparison between NAEP and state mathematics assessment results: 2003 (NCES 2008-475). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
15. McLaughlin D. H., Bandeira de Mello V., Blankenship C., Chaney K., Esra P., Hikawa H... Wolman M. (2008b). Comparison between NAEP and state reading assessment results: 2003 (NCES 2008-474). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
16. NAEP state mapping—State mapping. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/studies/statemapping/
17. Reardon S. F., Kalogrides A., Ho A. D., (2016). Linking U.S. school district test score distributions to a common scale, 2009–2013 (CEPA Working Paper No. 16–09). Stanford, CA: Stanford Center for Education Policy Analysis.
18. Request to amend accountability plan—Hawaii—NCLB policy letters to states. (2005). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/letters/achi4.html
19. Riddle K., (2011). State policy differences greatly impact ayp numbers. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
20. Rogasa D., (2003). The NCLB “99% confidence” scam: Utah-style calculations. Retrieved from http://statweb.stanford.edu/~rag/nclb/utahNCLB.pdf
21. Srikantaiah D., (2009). How state and federal accountability policies have influenced curriculum and instruction in three states: Common findings from Rhode Island, Illinois, and Washington. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy.
22. State accountability plans under the consolidated state application process. (2014). Retrieved from https://ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html
23. Taylor J., Stecher B., O’Day J., Naftel S., Le Floch K. C., (2010). State and local impelmentation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Volume IX—Accountability under NCLB: Final report. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
24. Tennessee—request to amend accountability plans—NCLB policy letters to states. (2006). Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/letters/actn6.htm
25. Wong M., Cook T. D., Steiner P. M., (2015). Adding design elements to improve time series designs: No Child Left Behind as an example of causal pattern-matching. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 8, 245–279.