Under Pressure: Job Security, Resource Allocation, and Productivity in Schools Under Nclb

The most sweeping federal education law in decades, the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, requires states to administer standardized exams and to punish schools that do not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the fraction of students passing these exams. While the literature on school accountability is well-established, there exists no nationwide study of the strong short-term incentives created by NCLB for schools on the margin of failing AYP. We assemble the first comprehensive, national, school-level dataset concerning detailed performance measures used to calculate AYP, and demonstrate that idiosyncrasies in state policies create numerous cases where schools near the margin for satisfying their own state's AYP requirements would have almost certainly failed or almost certainly made AYP if they were located in other states. Using this variation as a means of identification, we examine the impact of NCLB on the behavior of school personnel and students' academic achievement in nationally representative samples. We find that accountability pressure from NCLB lowers teachers' perceptions of job security and causes untenured teachers in high-stakes grades to work longer hours than their peers. We also find that NCLB pressure has either neutral or positive effects on students' enjoyment of learning and their achievement gains on low-stakes exams in reading, math, and science.

[1]  Steven W. Hemelt Performance effects of failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Evidence from a regression discontinuity framework , 2011 .

[2]  S. Corcoran,et al.  Teacher Effectiveness on High- and Low-Stakes Tests. , 2011 .

[3]  E. Brunner,et al.  Probation Length and Teacher Salaries: Does Waiting Pay Off? , 2010 .

[4]  David N. Figlio,et al.  School Accountability and Teacher Mobility , 2010 .

[5]  David N. Figlio,et al.  School Accountability and Teacher Mobility. NBER Working Paper No. 16070. , 2010 .

[6]  Gadi Barlevy,et al.  Pay for Percentile , 2009, SSRN Electronic Journal.

[7]  T. Dee,et al.  The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement , 2009 .

[8]  Hanley S. Chiang How Accountability Pressure on Failing Schools Affects Student Achievement , 2009 .

[9]  D. Ballou Achievement Trade-Offs and No Child Left Behind , 2009 .

[10]  Helen F. Ladd,et al.  Status versus Growth: The Distributional Effects of School Accountability Policies. Working Paper. , 2009 .

[11]  Matthew G. Springer The influence of an NCLB accountability plan on the distribution of student test score gains , 2008 .

[12]  Jonah E. Rockoff,et al.  Short Run Impacts of Accountability on School Quality , 2008 .

[13]  Randall Reback Teaching to the rating: School accountability and the distribution of student achievement , 2008 .

[14]  David N. Figlio,et al.  Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure , 2007 .

[15]  David N. Figlio,et al.  Feeling the Florida Heat? How Low-Performing Schools Respond to Voucher and Accountability Pressure. Working Paper 13. , 2007 .

[16]  J. Cullen,et al.  Tinkering Toward Accolades: School Gaming Under a Performance Accountability System , 2006 .

[17]  Rajashri Chakrabarti,et al.  Vouchers, Public School Response, and the Role of Incentives: Evidence from Florida , 2007 .

[18]  Cecilia Elena Rouse,et al.  Do Accountability and Voucher Threats Improve Low-Performing Schools? , 2005 .

[19]  David N. Figlio Testing, Crime and Punishment , 2005 .

[20]  Jennifer Booher-Jennings,et al.  Below the Bubble: “Educational Triage” and the Texas Accountability System , 2005 .

[21]  M. E. Lucas,et al.  What's in a Grade? School Report Cards and the Housing Market , 2004 .

[22]  Helen F. Ladd,et al.  School-Based Accountability in North Carolina: The Responses of School Principals , 2002 .

[23]  Richard J. Murnane,et al.  Estimating the Labor Market Signaling Value of the GED , 2000 .