“…Yet other research uncovered responses to NCLB and similar accountability reforms that were “distortive,” enhancing test scores and a school’s chances of reaching proficiency targets rather than genuine improvement and learning (Booher-Jennings, 2005; Hamilton et al, 2007; Jennings, 2012; Mintrop, 2012; O’Day, 2002). 11 These behaviors include increasing time on tested topics (Dee, Jacob, & Schwartz, 2013; Jennings & Rentner, 2006; West, 2007) and “test prep” (Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2011), teaching to the test (Smith & Rottenberg, 1991), moving lower performing students around or out so their scores “don’t count” (Figlio, 2006; Price, 2010), focusing on students scoring close to proficiency cut-offs (Hamilton et al, 2007; Jennings & Rentner, 2006) and cheating (Koretz et al, 1996). Some scholars also observed that implementation of NCLB generally focused on compliance rather than substantive improvements (Manna, 2010).…”