Test-Based Accountability and the Effectiveness of School Finance Reforms

2021 ◽  
Vol 111 ◽  
pp. 455-459
Author(s):  
Christian Buerger ◽  
Seung Hyeong Lee ◽  
John D. Singleton
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Student Outcomes ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
School Resources ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
Accountability Systems ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
New Evidence

A recent literature provides new evidence that school resources are important for student outcomes. This paper examines whether school accountability systems that incentivize performance (such as No Child Left Behind) raise the efficiency with which additional resources get spent. We leverage the timing of school finance reforms to compare funding impacts on student test scores between states that had accountability in place at the time of the reform and states that did not. The results show that finance-reform-induced increases in student performance are driven by those states where the reform was accompanied by the presence of test-based accountability.

scholarly journals Conflicting demands of No Child Left Behind and state systems: Mixed messages about school performance.

2005 ◽  
Vol 13 ◽  
pp. 33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Robert L. Linn
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Adequate Yearly Progress ◽  
Accountability Systems ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
State Accountability ◽  
Accountability System ◽  
Conflicting Demands ◽  
Mixed Messages ◽  
Definition Of

An ever-increasing reliance on student performance on tests holds schools and educators accountable both to state accountability systems and also to the accountability requirements of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. While each state has constructed its own definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) requirements within the confines of NCLB, substantial differences between the accountability requirements of many state systems and NCLB still have resulted in mixed messages regarding the performance of schools. Several features of NCLB accountability and state accountability systems contribute to the identification of a school as meeting goals according to NCLB but failing to do so according to the state accountability system, or vise versa. These include the multiple hurdles of NCLB, the comparison of performance against a fixed target rather than changes in achievement, and the definition of performance goals. The result of these features is a set of AYP measures that is inconsistent both with existing state accountability systems and also with state NAEP performance. Using existing achievement to set the cut-score measured by AYP and using the highest-performing schools to set the year-to-year improvement standards would improve the NCLB accountability system.

Career and Technical Education in Light of the No Child Left Behind Legislation

2009 ◽  
pp. 495-507 ◽  
Author(s):  
Edward C. Fletcher Jr. ◽  
Chris Zirkle
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Career And Technical Education ◽  
Recent Literature ◽  
Technical Education ◽  
Educational Legislation ◽  
Content Areas ◽  
Career And Technical ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Education Improvement ◽  
Academic Content

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 is considered to be the most comprehensive and highly scrutinized piece of educational legislation that has been enacted in history. With its focus on core academic content areas, the CTE community has desired to understand its impact on CTE programs. Based on a review of the recent literature on NCLB and CTE, this chapter examines the primary NCLB legislation provisions, presents the issues and challenges that have manifested as a result of the enactment of NCLB, investigates its impact on CTE, and assesses the coordination of NCLB and the new Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Improvement Act of 2006. This chapter concludes with solutions and recommendations for further research.

scholarly journals School Finance Reform and the Distribution of Student Achievement

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 1-26 ◽  
Author(s):  
Julien Lafortune ◽  
Jesse Rothstein ◽  
Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach
Keyword(s):  
School Districts ◽  
Low Income ◽  
School Finance ◽  
Educational Achievement ◽  
School Resources ◽  
Finance Reform ◽  
National Assessment ◽  
School Finance Reform ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Representative Samples

We study the impact of post-1990 school finance reforms, during the so-called “adequacy” era, on absolute and relative spending and achievement in low-income school districts. Using an event study research design that exploits the apparent randomness of reform timing, we show that reforms lead to sharp, immediate, and sustained increases in spending in low-income school districts. Using representative samples from the National Assessment of Educational Progress, we find that reforms cause increases in the achievement of students in these districts, phasing in gradually over the years following the reform. The implied effect of school resources on educational achievement is large. (JEL H75, I21, I22, I24, I28)

School Accountability

2018 ◽  
pp. 520-550
Author(s):  
Morgan Polikoff ◽  
Shira Korn
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
The United States ◽  
School Accountability ◽  
Unintended Consequences ◽  
Accountability Systems ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Policy Choices ◽  
Accountability Policy ◽  
Improve Student Achievement ◽  
Every Student Succeeds Act

This chapter summarizes the history and effects of standards-based school accountability in the United States and offers suggestions for accountability policy moving forward. It analyzes standards-based accountability in both the No Child Left Behind Act and the Every Student Succeeds Act, and discusses the effects of accountability systems. The authors argue that school accountability systems can improve student achievement, but that unintended consequences are possible. How accountability systems are designed—the metrics and measures used and the consequences for performance—has both symbolic and practical implications for the efficacy of the system and the individuals affected. Synthesizing what is known about the design of school accountability systems, the authors propose policy choices that can improve the validity, reliability, transparency, and fairness of these systems.

Growth Models in the Age of School Reform and Accountability

2015 ◽  
pp. 490-510
Author(s):  
Sean W. Mulvenon ◽  
Sandra G. Bowman ◽  
Jill A. Berta
Keyword(s):  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
School Reform ◽  
Secondary School ◽  
Policy Implementation ◽  
Educational Policy ◽  
Growth Models ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Accountability Systems ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Evaluation Models

The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (ESEA) in 2002, also called “No Child Left Behind,” mandated use of accountability systems to evaluate school and district performance. The accountability systems were initially required to use cross-sectional student level assessment results in the evaluation models when assigning performance labels to school systems. Growth models were approved for use in the evaluation models in 2006, but their implementation required development of policy, identification of appropriate methods, and guidelines for assigning labels of performance to schools. The purpose of this chapter is to review the development of educational policy, implementation, and challenges in the use of growth models in accountability systems.

Implications for Scaling up Advanced Course Offerings and Takings: Evidence from Florida

2016 ◽  
Vol 118 (13) ◽  
pp. 1-22 ◽  
Author(s):  
Patrice Iatarola
Keyword(s):  
High School ◽  
No Child Left Behind ◽  
Student Performance ◽  
Critical Mass ◽  
School Experiences ◽  
Race To The Top ◽  
High School Experiences ◽  
Left Behind ◽  
Course Offerings ◽  
Advanced Courses

This article summarizes a set of research studies that focus on high school course offerings, takings, and effects. Improving high school experiences and having students graduate from high school ready for college are national priorities under President Obama's Race to the Top initiative. Doing so by expanding access to advanced courses dates back a decade to President George W. Bush and the National Governors Association's efforts in the No Child Left Behind era. Courses are still seen as the gateway to higher student performance and access to college. From research done in collaboration with Dylan Conger and Mark Long, we found that taking more rigorous math courses increases students’ likelihood of being ready for college math, and that gaps in math course taking explain about one third of the gap between White and Black students and White and Hispanic students’ readiness for college. Advanced courses do matter—even taking just one advanced course improves students’ test scores, likelihood of graduating from high school, and likelihood of attending a four-year university. Schools, however, could do more to overcome the gap. We found that the best predictor of schools’ offering advanced courses was their having a critical mass of students with very high prior achievement. Resources, however, were not a factor.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document