IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/tpr/edfpol/v12y2017i1p77-106.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Has NCLB Encouraged Educational Triage? Accountability and the Distribution of Achievement Gains

Author

Listed:
  • Dale Ballou

    (Peabody College Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37203)

  • Matthew G. Springer

    (Peabody College Vanderbilt University Nashville, TN 37203)

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has been criticized for encouraging schools to neglect students whose performance exceeds the proficiency threshold or lies so far below it that there is no reasonable prospect of closing the gap during the current year. We examine this hypothesis using longitudinal data from 2002–03 through 2005–06. Our identification strategy relies on the fact that as NCLB was phased in, states had some latitude in designating which grades were to count for purposes of a school making adequate yearly progress. We compare the mathematics achievement distribution in a grade before and after it became a high-stakes grade. We find in general no evidence that gains were concentrated on students near the proficiency standard at the expense of students scoring much lower, though there are inconsistent signs of a trade-off with students at the upper end of the distribution.

Suggested Citation

  • Dale Ballou & Matthew G. Springer, 2017. "Has NCLB Encouraged Educational Triage? Accountability and the Distribution of Achievement Gains," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 12(1), pages 77-106, Winter.
    • Handle: RePEc:tpr:edfpol:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:77-106
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/EDFP_a_00189
    Download Restriction: Access to PDF is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Krieg, John M., 2011. "Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 654-664, August.
    2. Murphy, Kevin J., 2000. "Performance standards in incentive contracts," Journal of Accounting and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 245-278, December.
    3. John M. Krieg, 2008. "Are Students Left Behind? The Distributional Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 3(2), pages 250-281, April.
    4. David J. Deming & Sarah Cohodes & Jennifer Jennings & Christopher Jencks, 2016. "School Accountability, Postsecondary Attainment, and Earnings," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 98(5), pages 848-862, December.
    5. Derek Neal & Diane Whitmore Schanzenbach, 2010. "Left Behind by Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 92(2), pages 263-283, May.
    6. Springer, Matthew G., 2008. "The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(5), pages 556-563, October.
    7. Chingos, Matthew M. & West, Martin R., 2011. "Promotion and reassignment in public school districts: How do schools respond to differences in teacher effectiveness?," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 419-433, June.
    8. Thomas S. Dee & Brian Jacob, 2011. "The impact of no Child Left Behind on student achievement," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 30(3), pages 418-446, June.
    9. Helen F. Ladd & Douglas L. Lauen, 2010. "Status versus growth: The distributional effects of school accountability policies," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 29(3), pages 426-450.
    10. Randall Reback & Jonah Rockoff & Heather L. Schwartz, 2011. "Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools Under NCLB," NBER Working Papers 16745, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    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. Figlio, D. & Karbownik, K. & Salvanes, K.G., 2016. "Education Research and Administrative Data," Handbook of the Economics of Education,, Elsevier.
    2. Chakrabarti, Rajashri, 2014. "Incentives and responses under No Child Left Behind: Credible threats and the role of competition," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 110(C), pages 124-146.
    3. Feng, Li & Figlio, David & Sass, Tim, 2018. "School accountability and teacher mobility," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 103(C), pages 1-17.
    4. Richardson, J.T., 2015. "Accountability incentives and academic achievement: Distributional impacts of accountability when standards are set low," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 1-16.
    5. Mitra Akhtari & Natalie Bau & Jean-William Laliberté, 2024. "Affirmative Action and Precollege Human Capital," American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, American Economic Association, vol. 16(1), pages 1-32, January.
    6. repec:umc:wpaper:1308 is not listed on IDEAS
    7. Naven, Matthew, 2020. "Within-School Heterogeneity in Quality: Do Schools Provide Equal Value Added to All Students?," MPRA Paper 100123, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    8. Glenn Ellison & Ashley Swanson, 2012. "Heterogeneity in High Math Achievement Across Schools: Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions," NBER Working Papers 18277, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    9. Glenn Ellison & Ashley Swanson, 2016. "Do Schools Matter for High Math Achievement? Evidence from the American Mathematics Competitions," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 106(6), pages 1244-1277, June.
    10. Evan Riehl & Meredith Welch, 2023. "Accountability, Test Prep Incentives, and the Design of Math and English Exams," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 42(1), pages 60-96, January.
    11. Michael Coelli & Gigi Foster & Andrew Leigh, 2018. "Do School Principals Respond to Increased Public Scrutiny? New Survey Evidence from Australia," The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, vol. 94(S1), pages 73-101, June.
    12. Holbein, John B. & Ladd, Helen F., 2017. "Accountability pressure: Regression discontinuity estimates of how No Child Left Behind influenced student behavior," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 58(C), pages 55-67.
    13. Krieg, John M., 2011. "Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 654-664, August.
    14. Annika B. Bergbauer & Eric A. Hanushek & Ludger Woessmann, 2024. "Testing," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 59(2), pages 349-388.
    15. Henry W. KINNUCAN & Martin D. SMITH & Yuqing ZHENG & Jose R. LLANES, 2012. "The Effects of No Child Left Behind on Student Performance in Alabama’s Rural Schools," Regional and Sectoral Economic Studies, Euro-American Association of Economic Development, vol. 12(1), pages 5-24.
    16. Nguyen Minh & Rivkin Steven G. & Sartain Lauren & Schiman Jeffrey C., 2022. "School district investments in general skills: The case of principal residency programs," IZA Journal of Labor Economics, Sciendo & Forschungsinstitut zur Zukunft der Arbeit GmbH (IZA), vol. 12(1), pages 1-29, January.
    17. Steven W. Hemelt & Brian Jacob, 2017. "Differentiated Accountability and Education Production: Evidence from NCLB Waivers," NBER Working Papers 23461, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    18. Sims, David P., 2013. "Can failure succeed? Using racial subgroup rules to analyze the effect of school accountability failure on student performance," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 32(C), pages 262-274.
    19. Sade Bonilla & Thomas S. Dee, 2020. "The Effects of School Reform under NCLB Waivers: Evidence from Focus Schools in Kentucky," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 15(1), pages 75-103, Winter.
    20. Cuesta, José Ignacio & González, Felipe & Larroulet Philippi, Cristian, 2020. "Distorted quality signals in school markets," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 147(C).
    21. Markowitz, Anna J. & Bassok, Daphna & Player, Daniel, 2020. "Simplifying quality rating systems in early childhood education," Children and Youth Services Review, Elsevier, vol. 112(C).

    More about this item

    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:tpr:edfpol:v:12:y:2017:i:1:p:77-106. 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: Kelly McDougall (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://direct.mit.edu/journals .

    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.