2011
DOI: 10.3386/w16745
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

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

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1

Citation Types

1
10
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 23 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 19 publications
1
10
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Scholars have hypothesized that accountability pressure affects student test scores through increased effort and productivity by educators (Reback et al, 2011), greater alignment between curriculum frameworks and the content of what is taught in classrooms (Brown & Clift, 2010), teaching to the test and even the test format (McNeil, 2000; Pedulla et al, 2003), educational triage (Booher-Jennings, 2005), more intensive use of data to identify struggling students, differentiated instruction, after-school tutoring, and double-dose instruction. The heavy reliance on high-stakes testing has prompted scholars to caution against using test scores as performance measures (Amrien & Berliner, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Linn, 2000).…”
Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Scholars have hypothesized that accountability pressure affects student test scores through increased effort and productivity by educators (Reback et al, 2011), greater alignment between curriculum frameworks and the content of what is taught in classrooms (Brown & Clift, 2010), teaching to the test and even the test format (McNeil, 2000; Pedulla et al, 2003), educational triage (Booher-Jennings, 2005), more intensive use of data to identify struggling students, differentiated instruction, after-school tutoring, and double-dose instruction. The heavy reliance on high-stakes testing has prompted scholars to caution against using test scores as performance measures (Amrien & Berliner, 2002; Darling-Hammond, 2004; Linn, 2000).…”
Section: Theoretical and Empirical Backgroundmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This study examines whether subgroup-specific accountability pressure from NCLB has increased the math and reading achievement of students in focal subgroups and whether treatment effects are moderated by school type and student position in the prior test score distribution. Prior research suggests that the incentive to improve may be a function of distance to the cutoff (Brown & Clift, 2010; Reback, 2008; Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2011). In other words, schools at the margin of passing AYP may have greater incentives to improve compared to schools well above or well below passing thresholds.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…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).…”
Section: Grounding the Inquiry: Literature On Accountability And Learmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This focus on the teacher as a means to increase student achievement, linked to accountability standards, targeted teachers for improvement and also diminished teachers' autonomy over the technical core of their work (Milner, 2013;Neal & Schanzenbach, 2010;Nichols & Berliner, 2007). The loss of autonomy over their work combined with performance pressure of assessment and accountability policies led teachers to report increased stress and anxiety, longer work hours, and lower morale (Byrd-Black, 2010;Haladyna, Haas, & Allison, 1998;Reback, Rockoff, & Schwartz, 2011;Rentner et al, 2006;Wronowski, 2018). In addition to the de-professionalizing loss of autonomy over the technical core of their work, teachers in the federal era of accountability policy also reported demoralization that is distinct from generalized burnout and low morale that are experienced on an individual level.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%