IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/fip/fedpbr/y2004iq3p5-21.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

What test scores can and cannot tell us about the quality of our schools

Author

Listed:
  • Theodore M. Crone

Abstract

\\"What Test Scores Can and Cannot Tell Us about the Quality of Our Schools,\\" by Ted Crone, recognizes that how to best judge the quality of our schools is a thorny issue. The No Child Left Behind Act, which was signed into law in January 2002, mandates standardized testing in math and reading for students in grades three through eight. The test scores will then be used both to gauge the students' level of proficiency in these subjects and to evaluate the schools' performance. But emphasizing test scores as a measurement of the quality of schools raises several questions. Crone looks at some of these questions and warns us to be cautious in how we use test scores.

Suggested Citation

  • Theodore M. Crone, 2004. "What test scores can and cannot tell us about the quality of our schools," Business Review, Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia, issue Q3, pages 5-21.
    • Handle: RePEc:fip:fedpbr:y:2004:i:q3:p:5-21
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.philadelphiafed.org/-/media/frbp/assets/economy/articles/business-review/2004/q3/brq304tc.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Daniel M. Koretz, 2002. "Limitations in the Use of Achievement Tests as Measures of Educators' Productivity," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 37(4), pages 752-777.
    2. Edward P. Lazear, 2001. "Educational Production," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 116(3), pages 777-803.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gadi Barlevy & Derek Neal, 2012. "Pay for Percentile," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1805-1831, August.
    2. Bokhari, Farasat A.S. & Schneider, Helen, 2011. "School accountability laws and the consumption of psychostimulants," Journal of Health Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(2), pages 355-372, March.
    3. Christopher C. Klein, 2007. "Efficiency versus Effectiveness: Interpreting Education Production Studies," Working Papers 200703, Middle Tennessee State University, Department of Economics and Finance.
    4. Ma, Lingjie & Koenker, Roger, 2006. "Quantile regression methods for recursive structural equation models," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 134(2), pages 471-506, October.
    5. Jacob M. Markman & Eric A. Hanushek & John F. Kain & Steven G. Rivkin, 2003. "Does peer ability affect student achievement?," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 18(5), pages 527-544.
    6. Foreman-Peck, James & Foreman-Peck, Lorraine, 2006. "Should schools be smaller? The size-performance relationship for Welsh schools," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 25(2), pages 157-171, April.
    7. Renato Gomes & Alessandro Pavan, 2013. "Cross-Subsidization and Matching Design," Discussion Papers 1559, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
    8. Piopiunik, Marc & Schwerdt, Guido & Woessmann, Ludger, 2013. "Central school exit exams and labor-market outcomes," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 31(C), pages 93-108.
    9. ,, 2009. "Monopolistic group design with peer effects," Theoretical Economics, Econometric Society, vol. 4(1), March.
    10. Iversen, Jon Marius Vaag & Bonesrønning, Hans, 2015. "Conditional gender peer effects?," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 55(C), pages 19-28.
    11. Clément de Chaisemartin & Nicolás Navarrete H., 2023. "The Direct and Spillover Effects of a Nationwide Socioemotional Learning Program for Disruptive Students," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 41(3), pages 729-769.
    12. John Bishop & Ludger Wossmann, 2004. "Institutional Effects in a Simple Model of Educational Production," Education Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 12(1), pages 17-38.
    13. Helmuth Cremer & Dario Maldonado, 2013. "Mixed oligopoly in education," Documentos de Trabajo 10500, Universidad del Rosario.
    14. Nicole Schneeweis & Rudolf Winter-Ebmer, 2008. "Peer effects in Austrian schools," Studies in Empirical Economics, in: Christian Dustmann & Bernd Fitzenberger & Stephen Machin (ed.), The Economics of Education and Training, pages 133-155, Springer.
    15. Roland G. Fryer, Jr & Tanaya Devi & Richard T. Holden, 2012. "Vertical versus Horizontal Incentives in Education: Evidence from Randomized Trials," NBER Working Papers 17752, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    16. Facundo Albornoz & Samuel Berlinski & Antonio Cabrales, 2016. "Motivation, Resources and the Organization of the School System," IDB Publications (Working Papers) 94958, Inter-American Development Bank.
    17. Liu, Jing & Lee, Monica & Gershenson, Seth, 2021. "The short- and long-run impacts of secondary school absences," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 199(C).
    18. V. Joseph Hotz & Mo Xiao, 2011. "The Impact of Regulations on the Supply and Quality of Care in Child Care Markets," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1775-1805, August.
    19. Hjertstrand, Per & Norbäck, Pehr-Johan & Persson, lars, 2017. "The Educated Underdog Becomes the Ultimate Superstar," Working Paper Series 1176, Research Institute of Industrial Economics.
    20. David N. Figlio, 2007. "Boys Named Sue: Disruptive Children and Their Peers," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 2(4), pages 376-394, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:fip:fedpbr:y:2004:i:q3:p:5-21. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Beth Paul (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/frbphus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.