Accountability, Inequality, and Achievement: The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Multiple Measures of Student Learning

REFERENCES

1. ↵
   Aviv, Rachel. 2014. “Wrong Answer.” The New Yorker, July 13.
2. ↵
   1. Booher-Jennings, Jennifer

   . 2005. “Below the Bubble: ‘Educational Triage’ and the Texas Accountability System.” American Educational Research Journal 42(2): 231–68.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
3. ↵
   1. Carnoy, Martin, and Susanna Loeb

   . 2002. “Does External Accountability Affect Student Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24(4): 305–31.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
4. ↵
   Dee, Thomas, and Brian Jacob. 2009. “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement.” Working Paper 15531. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
5. ↵
   Deming, David, Sarah Cohodes, Jennifer L. Jennings, and Christopher Jencks. 2013. “High-Stakes Testing, Post-Secondary Attainment, and Earnings.” Working Paper 19444. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research (September).
6. ↵
   Elliott, Stuart W., and Michael Hout, eds. 2011. Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education. Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.
7. ↵
   Figlio, David N., and Lawrence Getzler. 2002. “Accountability, Ability, and Disability: Gaming the System.” Working Paper 9307. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
8. ↵
   1. Hallett, Tim

   . 2010. “The Myth Incarnate: Recoupling Processes, Turmoil, and Inhabited Institutions in an Urban Elementary School.” American Sociological Review 75(1): 52–74.

   OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
9. ↵
   Hanushek, Eric A., and Margaret E. Raymond. 2004. “Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance?” Working Paper 10591. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
10. ↵
    Hoey, Lesli, Patricia B. Campbell, and Lesley Perlman. 2001. "Where's the Overlap? Mapping the SAT-9 and TAAS 4th Grade Test Objectives." Unpublished manuscript, Campbell-Kibler Associates.
11. ↵
    Holcombe, Rebecca, Jennifer L. Jennings, and Daniel Koretz. 2013. “Predictable Patterns That Facilitate Score Inflation: A Comparison of the New York and Massachusetts State Tests.” In Charting Reform, Achieving Equity in a Diverse Nation, edited by Gail L. Sunderman. Charlotte, N.C.: Information Age Publishing.
12. ↵
    1. Jacob, Brian A

    . 2005. “Accountability, Incentives, and Behavior: Evidence from School Reform in Chicago.” Journal of Public Economics 895–96: 761–96.

    OpenUrl
13. ↵
    Jacob, Brian A. 2007. “Test-Based Accountability and Student Achievement: An Investigation of Differential Performance on NAEP and State Assessments.” Working Paper 12817. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
14. ↵
    1. Jacob, Brian A., and
    2. Steven Levitt

    . 2003. “Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence of Teacher Cheating.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 118(3): 843–77.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
15. ↵
    1. Jennings, Jennifer L., and
    2. Jonathan M. Bearak

    . 2014. “‘Teaching to the Test’ in the NCLB Era: How Test Predictability Affects Our Understanding of Student Performance.” Educational Researcher 43(8): 381–89.

    OpenUrlCrossRef
16. ↵
    1. Jennings, Jennifer L., and
    2. Heeju Sohn

    . 2014. “Measure for Measure: How Proficiency-Based Accountability Systems Affect Inequality in Academic Achievement.” Sociology of Education 87(2): 125–41.

    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
17. ↵
    Klein, Steven, Laura Hamilton, Daniel McCaffrey, and Brian Stecher. 2000. What Do Test Scores in Texas Tell Us? Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.
18. ↵
    1. Koretz, Daniel M

    . 2005. “Alignment, High Stakes, and the Inflation of Test Scores.” Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education 1042(1): 99–118.

    OpenUrl
19. ↵
    Koretz, Daniel M. 2008. Measuring Up: What Educational Testing Really Tells Us. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press.
20. ↵
    Koretz, Daniel M. 2013. “Adapting the Practice of Measurement to the Demands of Test-Based Accountability.” Working Paper. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.
21. ↵
    Koretz, Daniel M., and Sheila I. Barron. 1998. The Validity of Gains on the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System KIRIS. Santa Monica, Calif.: RAND.
22. ↵
    1. Lauen, Douglas Lee, and
    2. Michael Gaddis

    . 2012. “Shining a Light or Fumbling in the Dark? The Effects of NCLB’s Subgroup-Specific Accountability Pressure on Student Performance.” Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 34(2): 185–208.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
23. ↵
    McAdams, Douglas R. 2000. Fighting to Save Our Urban Schools . . . and Winning! New York: Teachers College Press.
24. ↵
    Neal, Derek. 2013. “The Consequences of Using One Assessment System to Pursue Two Objectives.” Working Paper 19214. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
25. ↵
    1. Neal, Derek, and
    2. Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach

    . 2010. “Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability.” Review of Economics and Statistics 92(2): 263–83.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
26. ↵
    1. Reback, Randall

    . 2008. “Teaching to the Rating: School Accountability and the Distribution of Student Achievement.” Journal of Public Economics 92(5): 1394–1415.

    OpenUrlCrossRefWeb of Science
27. ↵
    Reback, Randall, Jonah Rockoff, and Heather Schwartz. 2011. “Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools Under NCLB.” Working Paper. New York: Barnard College.
28. ↵
    Rouse, Cecilia, Jane Hannaway, Daniel Goldhaber, and David Figlio. 2007. “Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure.” NBER Working Paper 13681. Cambridge, Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research.
29. ↵
    Swanson, Chris. 2006. “High School Graduation Rates in Texas: Independent Research to Understand and Combat the Graduation Crisis” (research report). Bethesda, MD: Editorial Projects in Education, Education Week Research Center (October).
30. ↵
    Wong, Manyee, Thomas D. Cook, and Peter M. Steiner. 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. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University.