Advertisement

Accountability, Achievement, and Inequality in American Public Schools: A Review of the Literature

  • Joel Mittleman
  • Jennifer L. Jennings
Chapter
Part of the Handbooks of Sociology and Social Research book series (HSSR)

Abstract

In this chapter, we review the existing social science literature on the impacts of accountability systems in American schools. We begin by providing a brief history of accountability systems in American public education. We then review the impacts of these systems in three domains (instructional consequences, student outcome consequences, and policy feedback consequences), focusing on the literature that has been produced since the implementation of No Child Left Behind. We consider the evidence on alternatives and complements to test-based accountability systems that have been proposed, and close by discussing directions for future research.

Keywords

Accountability Evaluation No Child Left Behind Every Student Succeeds Act School quality indicators Advancing the public good 

References

  1. Academic Benchmarks. (2016). Map displaying states’ adoption of CCSS. Academic Benchmark’s Common Core State Standards Adoption Map. http://academicbenchmarks.com/common-core-state-adoption-map/. Accessed 17 Apr 2017.
  2. Allen, R., & Burgess, S. (2012). How should we treat under-performing schools? A regression discontinuity analysis of school inspections in England. CMPO Working Paper Number 12/287, Bristol University.Google Scholar
  3. Barrows, S. (2014). Performance information and retrospective voting: Evidence from a school accountability regime. Harvard Program on Education Policy and Governance Working Paper Series (Working Paper PEPG 15-03).Google Scholar
  4. Beveridge, T. (2009). No Child Left Behind and fine arts classes. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 4–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bokhari, F., & Schneider, H. (2011). School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants. Journal of Health Economics, 30, 355–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Booher-Jennings, J. (2005). Below the bubble: “Educational Triage” and the Texas accountability system. American Educational Research Journal, 42(2), 231–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bryk, A., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  8. Bush, G. (1989, September 28). Joint statement on the education summit with the Nation’s Governors in Charlottesville, Virginia. Online by Gerhard Peters and John T. Woolley, The American Presidency Project. http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=17580. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  9. Center on Education Policy. (2006). From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. http://cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=301. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  10. Center on Education Policy. (2007). NCLB Year 5: Choices, changes, and challenges: Curriculum and instruction in the NCLB era. http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=312. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  11. Chakrabarti, R. (2007). Vouchers, public school response, and the role of incentives: Evidence from Florida. FRB of New York Staff Report, (306).Google Scholar
  12. Chiang, H. (2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93(9), 1045–1057.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clotfelter, C. T., Ladd, H. F., Vigdor, J. L., & Diaz, R. A. (2004). Do school accountability systems make it more difficult for low-performing schools to attract and retain high-quality teachers? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 23(2), 251–271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2016) Standards in your State. http://www.corestandards.org/standards-in-your-state/. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  15. Cordray, D., Pion, G., Brandt, C., Molefe, A., & Toby, M. (2012). The impact of the Measures Of Academic Progress (MAP) program on student reading achievement: Final Report. U.S. Department of Education National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs/regions/midwest/pdf/REL_20134000.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  16. Council of the Great City Schools. (2011). Using data to improve instruction in the great city schools: Documenting current practice. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED536742.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  17. Council of the Great City Schools. (2015). Student testing in America’s great city schools: An inventory and preliminary analysis. http://www.cgcs.org/cms/lib/DC00001581/Centricity/Domain/87/Testing%20Report.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  18. Datnow, A., & Hubbard, L. (2015). Teachers’ use of assessment data to inform instruction: Lessons from the past and prospects for the future. Teachers College Record, 117(4), 1–26.Google Scholar
  19. Davidson, E., Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. L. (2015). Fifty ways to leave a child behind: Idiosyncrasies and discrepancies in states’ implementation of NCLB. Educational Researcher, 44(6), 347–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2009). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement (NBER Working Paper No. 15531). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  21. Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(2), 252–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Deming, D. J., Cohodes, S., Jennings, J., & Jencks, C. (2016). School accountability, postsecondary attainment and earnings. Review of Economics and Statistics, 98(5), 848–862.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Diamond, J. B. (2007). Where the rubber meets the road: Rethinking the relationship between high-stakes testing policy and classroom instruction. Sociology of Education, 80(4), 285–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Diamond, J. B., & Spillane, J. P. (2004). High-stakes accountability in urban elementary schools: Challenging or reproducing inequality? Teachers College Record, 106(6), 1145–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Domina, T., Penner, A. M., & Penner, E. K. (2016). “Membership has its privileges”: Status incentives and categorical inequality in education. Sociological Science, 3, 264–295.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Education Week. (2016, January 4). The Every Student Succeeds act: Explained. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/12/07/the-every-student-succeeds-act-explained.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  27. Espeland, W. N., & Stevens, M. L. (1998). Commensuration as a social process. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 313–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Feng, L., Figlio, D. & Sass, T. (2013). School accountability and teacher mobility. Working Paper. http://www2.gsu.edu/~tsass/pdfs/school%20accountability%20and%20teacher%20mobility%2004-12-2013%20TRS%20Clean.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  29. Garber, A. M., & Skinner, J. (2008). Is American health care uniquely inefficient? (NBER Working Paper No. 14257). Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  30. Goldhaber, D. (2009). Lessons from abroad: Exploring cross-country differences in teacher development systems and what they mean for U.S. policy. In D. Goldhaber & J. Hannaway (Eds.), Creating a new teaching profession (pp. 81–114). Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.Google Scholar
  31. Grissom, J. A., Nicholson-Crotty, S., & Harrington, J. R. (2014). Estimating the effects of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 417–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Hamilton, L. S., & Stecher, B. M. (2007). Measuring instructional responses to standards-based accountability. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  33. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., Marsh, J. A., McCombs, J. S., Robyn, A., Russell, J. L., Naftel, S., & Barney, H. (2007). Implementing standards-based accountability under No Child Left Behind: Responses of superintendents, principals, and teachers in three states. Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  34. Hamilton, L. S., Stecher, B. M., & Yuan, K. (2008). Standards-based reform in the United States: History, research, and future directions. RAND Education. http://www.rand.org/pubs/reprints/RP1384.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  35. Hannaway, J., & Hamilton, L. (2008). Performance-based accountability policies: Implications for school and classroom practices. Washington, DC: Urban Institute and RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  36. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). The quality and distribution of teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 133–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Henderson, M. (2010). Does information help families choose schools? Evidence from a regression discontinuity design. Unpublished manuscript. Harvard University, Department of Government and Social Policy, Cambridge, MA.Google Scholar
  38. Ho, A. D., & Haertel, E. H. (2006). Metric-free measures of test score trends and gaps with policy-relevant examples (CSE Report 665). Los Angeles: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST), Center for the Study of Evaluation, University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  39. Hoffer, T. B. (2000). Accountability in education. In M. T. Hallinan (Ed.), Handbook of the sociology of education (pp. 529–543). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  40. Holcombe, R., Jennings, J. L., & Koretz, D. (2013). The roots of score inflation: An examination of opportunities in two states’ tests. In G. Sunderman (Ed.), Charting reform, achieving equity in a diverse nation (pp. 163–189). Greenwich: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  41. Hussain, I. (2015). Subjective performance evaluation in the public sector: Evidence from school inspections. The Journal of Human Resources, 50(1), 189–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ingersoll, R., & Merrill, E. (2011). The status of teaching as a profession. In J. Ballantine & J. Spade (Eds.), School and society: A sociological approach to education (4th ed., pp. 181–189). Thousand Oaks: Pine Forge Press/SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
  43. Jacob, B. A. (2005). Accountability, incentives, and behavior: Evidence from school reform in Chicago. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Jacob, B. (2007). Test-based accountability and student achievement: An investigation of differential performance on NAEP and state assessments (Working Paper 12817). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  45. Jacob, R. T., Stone, S., & Roderick, M. (2004). Ending social promotion: The response of teachers and students. Chicago: Consortium on Chicago School Research. Retrieved March 29, 2011, from http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED483823.pdf
  46. Jacobsen, R., Saultz, A., & Snyder, J. W. (2013). When accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise accountability standards also erode public satisfaction? Educational Policy, 27(2), 360–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Jacobsen, R., Snyder, J. W., & Saultz, A. (2014). Informing or shaping public opinion? The influence of school accountability data format on public perceptions of school quality. American Journal of Education, 121(1), 1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Jennings, J. L., & Bearak, J. M. (2014). “Teaching to the Test” in the NCLB Era: How test predictability affects our understanding of student performance. Educational Researcher, 43(8), 381–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Jennings, J. L., & Sohn, H. (2014). Measure for measure: How proficiency-based accountability systems affect inequality in academic achievement. Sociology of Education, 87(2), 125–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Jennings, J. L., Bearak, J. M., & Koretz, D. M. (2011). Accountability and racial inequality in American education. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the American Sociological Association, Las Vegas, NV.Google Scholar
  51. Jerald, C. D. (2012). Education sector reports: On Her Majesty’s school inspection service. Washington, DC: Education Sector.Google Scholar
  52. King, M. D., Jennings, J. L., & Fletcher, J. (2014). Medical adaptation to academic pressure: Schooling, stimulant use, and socioeconomic status. American Sociological Review, 79(6), 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Klein, S. P., Hamilton, L. S., McCaffrey, D. F., & Stecher, B. M. (2000). What do test scores in Texas tell us? Santa Monica: RAND (Issue Paper IP-202). http://www.rand.org/publications/IP/IP202/. Accessed 4 June 2013.
  54. Kogan, V., Lavertu, S., & Peskowitz, Z. (2015). Performance federalism and local democracy: Theory and evidence from school tax referenda. American Journal of Political Science, 60(2), 418–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Konstantopoulos, S., Miller, S., & van der Ploeg, A. (2013). The impact of Indiana’s system of interim assessments on mathematics and reading achievement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35(4), 481–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Konstantopoulos, S., Miller, S., van der Ploeg, A., & Li, W. (2016). Effects of interim assessments on student achievement: Evidence from a large-scale experiment. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 9(S1), 188–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Koretz, D., & Beguin, A. (2010). Self-monitoring assessments for educational accountability systems. Measurement, 8(2–3), 92–109.Google Scholar
  58. Koretz, D., Jennings, J. L., Ng, H. L., Yu, C., Braslow, D., & Langi, M. (2016). Auditing for score inflation using self-monitoring assessments: Findings from three pilot studies. Educational Assessment, 21(4), 231–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Krieg, J. (2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of No Child Left Behind. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 250–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Ladd, H. F., & Zelli, A. (2002). School-based accountability in North Carolina: The responses of school principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 38(4), 494–529.  https://doi.org/10.1177/001316102237670.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lauen, D. L. (2007). Contextual explanations of school choice. Sociology of Education, 80(3), 179–209.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lauen, D. L., & 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Lauen, D., & Gaddis, M. (2016). Accountability pressure, academic standards, and educational triage. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 38(1), 127–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Lazarín, M. (2014). Testing overload in America’s schools. Center for American Progress. https://www.americanprogress.org/issues/education/report/2014/10/16/99073/testing-overload-in-americas-schools/. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  66. Li, D. (2015). School accountability and principal mobility: How No Child Left Behind affects the allocation of school leaders (Harvard Business School Working Paper, No. 16-052). http://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Pages/item.aspx?num=50034. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  67. Lipset, S. M., & Schneider, W. (1983). The confidence gap: Business, labor and government in the public mind. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  68. Loeb, S., & Cunha, J. (2007). Have assessment-based accountability reforms influenced the career decisions of teachers? A report commissioned by the U.S. Congress as part of Title I, Part E, Section 1503 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. https://cepa.stanford.edu/sites/default/files/Cunha_Accountability_Labor_Decisions.pdf Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  69. Luginbuhl, R., Webbink, D., & Wolf, I. D. (2009). Do inspections improve primary school performance? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(3), 221–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Marsh, J. A., Pane, J. F., & Hamilton, L. S. (2006). Making sense of data-driven decision making in education: Evidence from recent RAND Research (OP-170). Santa Monica: RAND Corporation.Google Scholar
  71. McDonnell, L. M. (2005). No Child Left Behind and the federal role in education: Evolution or revolution? Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 19–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. McNeil, L. M. (2000). Contradictions of school reform: Educational costs of standardized testing. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  73. Means, B., Padilla, C., & Gallagher, L. (2010). Use of education data at the local level: From accountability to instructional improvement. U.S. Department of Education. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/tech/use-of-education-data/use-of-education-data.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  74. Mehta, J. (2013). How paradigms create politics: The transformation of American educational policy, 1980–2001. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 285–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Meyer, J. W., & Rowan, B. (1978). The structure of educational organizations. In M. W. Meyer (Ed.), Environments and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  77. Murnane, R. J., & Papay, J. P. (2010). Teachers’ views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the principles, concerns about the practices. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 151–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Neal, D., & Schanzenbach, D. W. (2007). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability (NBER Working Paper No. 13293).Google Scholar
  79. Oakes, J. (1985). Keeping track. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  80. OECD. (2011). How are schools held accountable? In Education at a Glance 2011: Highlights. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  81. OECD. (2014). Indicator D3: How much are teachers paid? In Education at a Glance 2014: OECD Indicators. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  82. OECD. (2015). Country note: United States of America: Key findings from the teaching and learning international survey (TALIS). Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  83. Olson, L. (2005, November 30). Benchmark assessments offer regular checkups on student achievement. Education Week. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/11/30/13benchmark.h25.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  84. Papay, J. P., Murnane, R. J., & Willett, J. B. (2011). How performance information affects human-capital investment decisions: The impact of test-score labels on educational outcomes (No. w17120). National Bureau of Economic Research.Google Scholar
  85. 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. Boston: Lynch School of Education, Boston College.Google Scholar
  86. Polikoff, M. S., McEachin, A. J., Wrabel, S. L., & Duque, M. (2014). The waive of the future? School accountability in the waiver era. Educational Researcher, 43(1), 45–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. Reback, R. (2008). Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 92, 1394–1415.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. L. (2014). Under pressure: Job security, resource allocation, and productivity in schools under No Child Left Behind. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 6(3), 207–241.Google Scholar
  89. Rhodes, J. H. (2015). Learning citizenship? How state education reforms affect parents’ political attitudes and behavior. Political Behavior, 37(1), 181–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rich, P. M., & Jennings, J. L. (2015). Choice, information, and constrained options: School transfers in a stratified educational system. American Sociological Review, 80(5), 1069–1098.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rockoff, J., & Turner, L. J. (2010). Short-run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2(4), 119–147.Google Scholar
  92. Rosenthal, L. (2004). Do school inspections improve school quality? Ofsted inspections and school examination results in the U.K. Economics of Education Review, 23(2), 143–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Rosenthal, R., & Jacobson, L. (1968). Pygmalion in the classroom: Teacher expectation and pupils’ intellectual development. Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  94. Rouse, E. R., Hannaway, J., Goldhaber, D., & Figlio, D. (2013). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 5(2), 251–281.Google Scholar
  95. Shen, X. (2008). Do unintended effects of high-stakes testing hit disadvantaged schools harder? Doctoral dissertation, Stanford University.Google Scholar
  96. Shepard, L. A. (1988, April). Should instruction be measurement driven? A debate. In Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans.Google Scholar
  97. Shepard, L. A., & Dougherty, K. (1991). Effects of high-stakes testing on instruction. In R. L. Linn (Ed.), The effects of high stakes testing. Annual meetings of the American Education Research Association and the National Council of Measurement in Education. Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  98. Sims, D. P. (2009). Going down with the ship? The effect of school accountability on the distribution of teacher experience in California (Urban Institute Working Paper). http://www.urban.org/research/publication/going-down-ship-effect-school-accountability-distribution-teacher-experience-california. Accessed 2 March 2016.
  99. Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Holmes, G. C., Madden, N. A., & Chamberlain, A. (2013). Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. American Educational Research Journal, 50(2), 371–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Springer, M. G. (2008). The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains. Economics of Education Review, 27(5), 556–563.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Starr, P. (1983). The social transformation of American medicine: The rise of a sovereign profession and the making of a vast industry. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  102. Stecher, B. M. Vernez, G., & Steinberg, P. (2010). Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind: Facts and recommendations. RAND Education. http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/MG977.html. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Steinberg, M. P., & Donaldson, M. L. (2016). The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB Era. Education Finance and Policy, 11(3), 340–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Sun, M., Saultz, A., & Ye, Y. (2014). Federal policy and the teacher labor market: Exploring the effects of NCLB on teacher turnover. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Education Finance and Policy, San Antonio, TX.Google Scholar
  105. Taylor, G., Shepard, L., Kinner, F., & Rosenthal, J. (2002). A survey of teachers’ perspectives on high-stakes testing in Colorado: What gets taught, what gets lost (CSE Technical Report 588). Los Angeles: University of California. Retrieved September 20, 2010, from http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED475139.pdf
  106. The National Commission on Excellence in Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. An open letter to the American people. A report to the Nation and the Secretary of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED226006.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  107. U.S. Department of Education. (2002). Fact sheet on title I, Part A. https://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/disadv/title1-factsheet.pdf. Accessed 2 Mar 2016.
  108. Winters, M. A., & Cowen, J. M. (2012). Grading New York accountability and student proficiency in America’s largest school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(3), 313–327.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 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 (Working Paper 09–11), 18.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Princeton UniversityPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations