2004 - Does School Accountability Lead to Improved Student Performance

Attribution: Hanushek, Eric, & Raymond, Margaret
Researchers: Eric HanushekMargaret Raymond
University Affiliation: Stanford University
Email: hanushek@standford.edu macke@stanford.edu
Research Question:
Provide evidence on the expected effects of NCLB not only on student performance but also on other potential consequences. Controlled for student and school characteristics.
Published: 1
Journal Name or Institutional Affiliation: NBER -National Bureau of Economics
Journal Entry: No. 10591
Year: 2004
Findings:
  • Introduction of state accountability had a positive impact on student math performance during the 1990s. States that introduced consequential accountability systems early, tended to show more rapid gains in NAEP performance, holding other things constant.
  • Report cards do not have a significant influence on performance.
  • Large differences in sending per pupil never influences score. The impact of aggregate state spending is consistently small and statistically insignificant.
  • When states introduce accountability measures, they tend simultaneously to reduce on average their exclusion rates by a small amount.
  • With disaggregation of performance by race, distinct differences in gains by Black and Hispanics.
  • The Black-White gap appears to have been harmed over the decade by increasing minority concentration.
Keywords: Academic AchievementAccountabilityAchievement GapMathNo Child Left BehindRacial CompositionReadingRegions: NationalMethodologies: QuantitativeResearch Designs: Secondary Survey DataAnalysis Methods: Fixed Effects Regression Models Sampling Frame:National
Sampling Types: RandomAnalysis Units: SchoolStudentData Types: Quantitative-Panel Data
Data Description:
  • Uses NAEP (National Assessment of Educational Progress) data.
  • Two elements: 1)tracking over performance 2) race and ethnicity
  • 348 observations of state gain on test is available
  • Two cohort observations for math growth (1992-96 and 1996-2000) and two for reading growth (1994-98 and 1998-2002).–> Panel of achievement in each subject
  • Data on accountability come from a survey and analysis of all states by CREDO (Fletcher & Raymond (2002).
  • DV: Achievement Data (Growth in NAEP Performance for reading and for math -4th-8th grade)..
  • IV: Demographics, school resources and school racial and ethnic composition, accountability system for schools (whether or not they attached consequences to school performance or simply provided a public report), also includes summary data on the racial and ethnic composition across the schools in each state (state fixed effects).
Theoretical Framework:
Relevance:
Archives: K-12 Integration, Desegregation, and Segregation Abstracts