School accountability and student achievement

Handbook of Research in Education Finance and Policy, Second Edition

Volumn , Issue , 2014, Pages 194-210

  Figlio, David N ^a   Ladd, Helen F ^b  

^a NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85064370648     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.4324/9780203788684     Document Type: Chapter

References (76)

1. Amrein, A., & Berliner, D. (2002). High stakes testing, uncertainty and student learning. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10 (18).
2. Andrabi, T., Das, J., & Khwaja, A. I. (2013). Report cards: The impact of providing school and child test scores on educational markets (BREAD Working Paper 226). Durham, NC: Bureau for Research and Economic Analysis of Development.
3. Bacolod, M., DiNardo, J., & Jacobson, M. (2009). Beyond incentives: Do schools use accountability rewards productively? (NBER Working Paper No. 14775). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
4. Black, S. (1999). Do better schools matter? Parental valuation of elementary education. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 114 (2), 577–599.
5. Bokhari, F., & Scheider, H. (2009). School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants (Working Paper). Tallahassee, FL: Florida State University.
6. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The impact of assessment and accountability on teacher recruitment and retention: Are there unintended consequences? Public Finance Review, 36, 88–111.
7. Braun, H. (2004). Reconsidering the impact of highstakes testing. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12 (1).
8. Burgess, S., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson, D. (2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools (Working Paper). Bristol, UK: University of Bristol.
9. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (4), 305–331.
10. Carnoy, M., & Loeb, S. (2005). Revisiting external accountability effects on student outcomes: A crossstate analysis of NAEP reading and math results in the 1990s and early 2000s. Paper prepared for the Learning from Longitudinal Data in Education Conference, Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
11. Chakrabarti, R. (2005). Do public schools facing vouchers behave strategically? (Working Paper). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
12. Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93 (9–10), 1045–1057.
13. Clotfelter, C., & Ladd, H. (1996). Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. In H. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performancebased reform in education (pp. 23–64). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
14. Craig, S., Imberman, S., & Perdue, A. (2013). Does it pay to get an A? School resource allocations in response to accountability ratings. Journal of Urban Economics, 73 (1).
15. Cronin, J., Kingsbury, G. G., McCall, M. S., & Bowe, B. (2005). The impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student achievement and growth: 2005 Edition (Northwest Evaluation Association Technical Report). Lake Oswego, OR: Northwest Evaluation Association.
16. Cullen, J., & Reback, R. (2006). Tinkering towards accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system. In T. Gronberg & D. Jansen (Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics: Vol 14. Improving school accountability: Check-ups or choice (pp. 1–34). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
17. 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.
18. Deere, D., & Strayer, W. (2001). Putting schools to the test: School accountability, incentives and behavior (Working Paper). College Station, TX: Texas A&M University.
19. Deming, D., Cohodes, S., Jennings, J., & Jencks, C. (2013). School accountability, postsecondary attainment and earnings (NBER Working Paper No. 19444). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
20. Diamond, J., & Spillane, J. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106 (6), 1145–1176.
21. Elmore, R, Abelmann, C. H., & Fuhrman, S. H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65–98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
22. Figlio, D. (2006). Testing, crime and punishment. Journal of Public Economics, 90 (4–5), 837–851.
23. Figlio, D., & Getzler, L. (2007). Accountability, ability and disability: Gaming the system? In T. Gronberg & D. Jansen (Eds.), Advances in applied microeconomics: Vol 14. Improving school accountability: Check-ups or choice (pp. 35–49). Bingley, UK: Emerald Group.
24. Figlio, D., & Kenny, L. (2009). Public sector performance measurement and stakeholder support. Journal of Public Economics, 93 (9–10), 1069–1077.
25. Figlio, D., & Lucas, M. (2004). What’s in a grade? School report cards and the housing market. American Economic Review, 94 (3), 591–604.
26. Figlio, D., & Rouse, C. E. (2006). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90 (1–2), 239–255.
27. Figlio, D., & Winicki, J. (2005). Food for thought: The effects of school accountability plans on school nutrition. Journal of Public Economics, 89 (2–3), 381–394.
28. Frey, B. (2000). Motivation and human behaviour. In P. Taylor-Gooby (Ed.), Risk, trust and welfare (pp. 31–50). Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.
29. Fuller, S., & Ladd, H. F. (2013). School based accountability and the distribution of teacher quality among grades in elementary schools. Education Finance and Policy, 8 (4), 528–559.
30. Hamilton, L., Berends, M., & Stechter, B. (2005). Teachers’ responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
31. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2003). Lessons about the design of state accountability systems. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind?: The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 127–151). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
32. Hanushek, E., & Raymond, M. (2005). Does school accountability lead to improved school performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24 (2), 297–329.
33. Hart, C.M.D., & Figlio, D. N. (2014). School accountability and school choice: Effects on student selection across schools (Working Paper). Northwestern University and University of California-Davis.
34. Hastings, J. S., & Weinstein, J. M. (2008). Information, school choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (4), 1373–1414.
35. Hussain, I. (forthcoming). Subjective performance evaluation in the public sector: Evidence from school inspections. Journal of Human Resources.
36. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89 (5–6), 761–796.
37. Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (3), 843–878.
38. Jin, G. Z., & Leslie, P. (2003). The effect of information on product quality: Evidence from restaurants hygiene grade cards. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118 (2), 409–451.
39. Jones, G., Jones, B., Hardin, B., Chapman, L., Yarbrough, T., & Davis, M. (1999). The impact of highstakes testing on teachers and students in North Carolina. Phi Delta Kappan, 81, 199–203.
40. Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2002). Improving school accountability systems (NBER Working Paper No. 8156). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
41. Klein, S., Hamilton, L., McCaffrey, D., & Stecher, B. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Education Policy Analysis Archives, 9 (49).
42. Koretz, D., & Barron, S. (1998). The validity of gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS) (Working Paper). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
43. Koretz, D. M., & Hamilton, L. S. (2003). Teachers’ responses to high-stakes testing and the validity of gains: A pilot study (CSE Technical Report 610). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
44. Krieg, J. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3 (2), 250–281.
45. Ladd, H. F. (1996). Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education. Brookings Institution Press.
46. Ladd, H. F. (2007). Holding schools accountable revisited. 2007 Spencer Lecture on Education Policy and Management. Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management.
47. Ladd, H. F. (2010). Education inspectorate systems in New Zealand and the Netherlands. Education Finance and Policy, 5 (3), 378–392.
48. Ladd, H. F. (2012). To what ends and with what effects? Keynote address for Conference on Improving Education through Accountability and Evaluation: Lessons from Around the World, sponsored by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, INVALSI, and the University of Maryland School of Public Policy. Rome, Italy, October 3–5.
49. Ladd, H. F., & Hansen, J. S. (Eds.) (1999). Making Money Matter: Financing America’s Schools. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
50. Ladd, H. F., & Lauen, D. L. (2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29 (3), 426–450.
51. Ladd, H., & Walsh, R. (2002). Implementing valueadded measures of school effectiveness: Getting the incentives right. Economics of Education Review, 21 (1), 1–17.
52. Ladd, H., & Zelli, F. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Education Administration Quarterly, 38 (4), 494–529.
53. Lauen, D., & Gaddis, S. M. (2012). Shining a light or fumbling in the dark? The effects of NCLB’s subgroup-specific accountability on student achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34 (2), 185–208.
54. Lee, J. (2006, April). Is test-driven external accountability effective? A meta-analysis of the evidence from cross-state causal-comparative and correlational studies. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Research Association, San Francisco, CA.
55. Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high stakes school accountability, capacity and resources. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34 (2), 209–231.
56. Linn, R. L. (2000). Assessments and accountability. Educational Researcher, 29 (2), 4–16.
57. Mathios, A. D. (2000). The impact of mandatory disclosure laws on product choices: An analysis of the salad dressing market. Journal of Law & Economics, 43 (2), 651–677.
58. Mizala, A., Romaguera, P., & Urquiola, M. (2007). Socioeconomic status or noise? Tradeoffs in the generation of school quality information. Journal of Development Economics, 84 (1), 61–75.
59. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. (2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Review of Economics and Statistics, 92 (2), 263–283.
60. O’Day, J. A., & Smith, M. S. (1993). Systemic reform and educational opportunity. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), Designing coherent education policy: Improving the system (pp. 250–312). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
61. Ozek, U. (2012). One day too late? Mobile students in an era of accountability (CALDER Working Paper No. 82). Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.
62. Peterson, P., & Hess, F. (2006). Keeping an eye on state standards. Education Next, 6 (3), 28–29.
63. Peterson, P. E., & West, M. R. (2003). NCLB? The politics and practice of school accountability. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
64. Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. (forthcoming). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under NCLB. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy.
65. Richards, C., & Sheu, T. (1992). The South Carolina School Incentive Reward Program: A policy analysis. Economics of Education Review, 11 (1), 71–86.
66. Rockoff, J., & Turner, L. (2010). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(4), 119–147.
67. Romberg, T., Zarinia, E., & Williams, S. (1989). The influence of mandated testing on mathematics instruction: Grade 8 teachers’ perceptions. Madison, WI: National Center for Research in Mathematical Science Education, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
68. Rosenshine, B. (2003). High stakes testing: Another analysis. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 11 (24).
69. Rouse, C., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How lowperforming schools respond to voucher and accountability. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.
70. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. C. (1991, April). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago, IL.
71. Stecher, B., Barron, S., Chun, T., & Ross, K. (2000). The effects of the Washington state education reform on schools and classrooms. Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
72. Stecher, B. M., Barron, S. I., Kaganoff, T., & Goodwin, J. (1998). The effects of standards-based assessment on classroom practices: Results of the 1996–97 RAND survey of Kentucky teachers of mathematics and writing (CSE Technical Report 482). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards and Student Testing.
73. Stiefel, L. A., Schwartz, E., Rubinstein, R., & Zabel, J. (Eds.). (2005). Measuring school performance and efficiency: Implications for practice and research. Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
74. West, M. R., & Peterson, P. E. (2006). The efficacy of choice threats within school accountability systems: Results from legislatively induced experiments. Economic Journal, 116 (510), C46-C62.
75. Wilson, M. B., & Bertenthal, M. W. (Eds.). (2006). Systems for state science assessment. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
76. 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 (Institute for Policy Research, Northwestern University Working Paper Series WP-09–11). Evanston, IL: Northwestern University.