The Effects of NCLB on School Resources and Practices

A number of studies have examined the impact of school accountability policies, including No Child Left Behind (NCLB), on student achievement. However, there is relatively little evidence on how school accountability reforms and NCLB, in particular, have influenced education policies and practices. This study examines the effects of NCLB on multiple district, school, and teacher traits using district-year financial data and pooled cross sections of teacher and principal surveys. Our results indicate that NCLB increased per-pupil spending by nearly $600, which was funded primarily through increased state and local revenue. We find that NCLB increased teacher compensation and the share of elementary school teachers with advanced degrees but had no effects on class size. We also find that NCLB did not influence overall instructional time in core academic subjects but did lead schools to reallocate time away from science and social studies and toward the tested subject of reading.

[1]  R. Bifulco.  The Influence of Performance-Based Accountability on the Distribution of Teacher Salary Increases , 2010, Education Finance and Policy.

[2]  G. Kingsbury,et al.  The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Student Achievement and Growth: 2005 Edition , 2005 .

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

[4]  W. Shadish,et al.  Experimental and Quasi-Experimental Designs for Generalized Causal Inference , 2001 .

[5]  Jacqueline K. Peck,et al.  No Child Left Behind , 2005 .

[6]  X. Liu.  The effect of teacher influence at school on first-year teacher attrition: A multilevel analysis of the Schools and Staffing Survey for 1999–2000 , 2007 .

[7]  Henry Braun,et al.  Mapping State Standards to the NAEP Scale. Research Report. ETS RR-08-57. , 2008 .

[8]  Jonah E. Rockoff,et al.  The Effects of No Child Left Behind on School Services and Student Outcomes. Conference Paper. , 2009 .

[9]  Jane Hannaway.  Reform and Resource Allocation: National Trends and State Policies , 2002 .

[10]  Brian M. Stecher,et al.  Perceived Effects of the Kentucky Instructional Results Information System (KIRIS). , 1996 .

[11]  Charles Blankenship,et al.  Mapping State Profieciency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007 , 2009 .

[12]  Margaret E. Raymond,et al.  Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance? , 2004 .

[13]  M. Carnoy,et al.  Does External Accountability Affect Student Outcomes? A Cross-State Analysis , 2002 .

[14]  Richard M. Ingersoll,et al.  The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools , 1999 .

[15]  Scott Naftel,et al.  Explore RAND Education , 2004 .

[16]  J. Krieg.  Are Students Left Behind? The Distributional Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act , 2008, Education Finance and Policy.

[17]  Marshall S. Smith,et al.  Systemic school reform , 1990 .

[18]  Thomas S. Dee,et al.  The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement , 2009 .

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

[20]  C. Kelley,et al.  CONSORTIUM FOR POLICY RESEARCH IN EDUCATION , 2012 .

[21]  Jennifer A. Fredricks,et al.  School Engagement: Potential of the Concept, State of the Evidence , 2004 .

[22]  Sheila E. Murray,et al.  Education-Finance Reform and the Distribution of Education Resources , 1998 .

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

[24]  John Doyle,et al.  Who Controls Teachers’ Work? Power and Accountability in America’s Schools , 2004 .

[25]  Tessa Kaganoff,et al.  The Effects of Standards-Based Assessment on Classroom Practices: Results of the 1996-97 RAND Survey of Kentucky Teachers of Mathematics and Writing , 1998 .

[26]  Jennifer L. Glanville,et al.  The Measurement of School Engagement , 2007 .

[27]  Michael Russell,et al.  Perceived Effects of State-Mandated Testing Programs on Teaching and Learning: Findings from a National Survey of Teachers. , 2003 .

[28]  Howard S. Bloom,et al.  Evaluating the Accelerated Schools Approach: A Look at Early Implementation and Impacts on Student Achievement in Eight Elementary Schools. , 2001 .

[29]  M. Tienda,et al.  Students Left Behind , 2010, Educational evaluation and policy analysis.

[30]  Laura S. Hamilton,et al.  Testing for Accountability in K-12 , 2006 .

[31]  R. Murnane,et al.  Teachers' Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices , 2010 .

[32]  Don McLaughlin,et al.  Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto NAEP Scales: 2005-2007. Research and Development Report. NCES 2010-456. , 2009 .

[33]  Margaret E. Goertz,et al.  Assessment and Accountability Systems in the 50 States, 1999-2000. CPRE Research Report Series. , 2001 .

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

[35]  Kenneth K. Wong,et al.  The Impact of Accountability on Racial and Socioeconomic Equity: Considering Both School Resources and Achievement Outcomes , 2004 .

[36]  H. Bloom.  Estimating Program Impacts on Student Achievement Using “ Short ” Interrupted Time Series , 1999 .

[37]  Jiahe Qian,et al.  MAPPING STATE STANDARDS TO THE NAEP SCALE , 2008 .

[38]  Grace Taylor,et al.  A Survey of Teachers' Perspectives on High-Stakes Testing in Colorado: What Gets Taught, What Gets Lost , 2002 .

[39]  C. Swanson,et al.  Standards-Based Reform in Practice: Evidence on State Policy and Classroom Instruction from the NAEP State Assessments , 2002 .