Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools under No Child Left Behind

We conduct the first nationwide study of incentives under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, which requires states to punish schools failing to meet target passing rates on students' standardized exams. States' idiosyncratic policies created variation in the risk of failure among very similar schools in different states, which we use to identify effects of accountability pressure. We find NCLB lowers teachers' perceptions of job security, shifts time towards specialist teachers in high-stakes subjects and away from whole-class instruction, and has positive or neutral effects on students' enjoyment of learning and achievement in reading, math, and science. (JEL H52, H75, I21, I28, J45)

Bad Tests or Bad Test Use? A Case of SAT Use to Examine Why We Need Stakeholder Conversations on Validity

Background Much is still unknown or unclear about how and where validity issues arise in high stakes testing situations in education, and ways by which we can rectify validity problems in practice and policy contexts. Purpose This paper is the Foreword to the special issue of the Teachers College Record, When Education Measures Go Public – Stakeholder Perspectives on How and Why Validity Breaks Down. Method The paper analyzes a recent case involving an application of the SAT to highlight tensions between validity and test score use in high stakes school accountability environments driven by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. It uses the case study as a vehicle to introduce the individual papers and authors in the section. Conclusions There are information and power gaps among those who set societal priorities for using tests for high stakes purposes, those who design and conduct psychometric research on tests and testing programs, and those who could eventually face consequences of assessment misuse. These gaps could be addressed through thoughtful exchanges among key assessment stakeholders, as this special issue shows.

Technology and Student Achievement

Since the introduction of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, education in the United States has, in the words of President Bush, been seen as “a national priority and a local responsibility.” The first of the four basic education reform principles stated in the NCLB Act is local accountability for results. The second principle, flexibility and local control, empowers states to create their own standards and to test every student’s progress using tests aligned with these standards. In addition, there are also programs to promote the alignment of technology with educational goals within the NCLB legislation. In more and more states, school performance is assessed by means of a standardized assessment test which is designed to assess the academic level of students, schools, and districts. It is also intended to assist in identifying students’ strengths and weaknesses and to foster improvements in academic achievement. In one such state (that will remain anonymous) the reading and mathematics portions of the exam are administered to grades 5, 8, and 11.

Declaring Bankruptcy on Educational Inequity

The authors consider Ladson-Billings’ (2006) charge to reframe the way the ‘achievement gap’ is viewed, and put forth the metaphor of “bankruptcy” as a way to acknowledge the educational debt and educational inequity and move towards debt forgiveness in public education. Specifically, the bankruptcy metaphor is used to examine the debt embedded in the historical progression of federal school reform policy including the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. Acknowledging this debt requires valuing and supporting children and their families through educational policy that supports equity. The authors assert that reconciliation of the debt requires working across disciplines and agencies to address the larger community issues surrounding educational inequities.

Measurement Matters: Perspectives on Education Policy from an Economist and School Board Member

One of the potential strengths of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act enacted in 2002 is that the law requires the production of an enormous amount of data, particularly from tests, which, if used properly, might help us improve education. As an economist and as someone who served 13 years on the School Committee1 in Brookline Massachusetts, until May 2009, I have been appalled by the limited ability of districts to analyze these data; I have been equally appalled by the cavalier manner in which economists use test scores and related measures in their analyses. The summary data currently provided are very hard to interpret, and policymakers, who typically lack statistical sophistication, cannot easily use them to assess progress. In some domains, most notably the use of average test scores to evaluate teachers or schools, the education community is aware of the biases and has sought better measures. The economics and statistics communities have both responded to and created this demand by developing value-added measures that carry a scientific aura. However, economists have largely failed to recognize many of the problems with such measures. These problems are sufficiently important that they should preclude any automatic link between these measures and rewards or sanctions. They do, however, contain information and can be used as a catalyst for more careful evaluation of teachers and schools, and as a lever to induce principals and other administrators to act on their knowledge.

Factories: Getting Rid Of Learning

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has been the main focus of educational debate since we entered the 21st Century. It has left educators in dispute about the reasonableness of federally-ordered reforms and the necessity for holding all students to the same academic standards. The 2001 legislation expanded the federal government’s role in public education and required greater school accountability and teacher qualifications with little concern for mandate funding. The NCLB requirements have resulted in larger public schools and rural school consolidation. This development has placed unnecessary burden on public schools and has forced many districts to eliminate educational programming. This article will discuss the ramifications of NCLB in public school settings, as well as the specific problems of schools in rural areas.

THE INTERSECTION OF TEST IMPACT, VALIDATION, AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM POLICY

The article addresses the intersection of policy, validity, and impact within the context of educational reform in U.S. schools, looking in particular at the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (2001). The discussion makes a case that it is important to reconsider the established views regarding the responsibility of test developers and users in investigating impact given the conflated roles of developers and users under NCLB. The article also introduces the concept of social impact analysis (SIA) to argue for an expansion of the traditional conceptualization of impact research. SIA promotes a proactive rather than a reactive approach to impact, in order to inform policy formulation upfront.