Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?
Abstract
The leading school reform policy in the United States revolves around strong accountability of schools with consequences for performance. The federal government's involvement through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 reinforces the prior movement of many states toward policies based on measured student achievement. Analysis of state achievement growth as measured by the National Assessment of Educational progress shows that accountability systems introduced during the 1990s had a clear positive impact on student achievement. This single policy instrument did not, however, also lead to any narrowing in the Black-White achievement gap (though it did narrow the Hispanic-White achievement gap). Moreover, the Black-White gap appears to have been adversely impacted over the decade by increasing minority concentrations in the schools. An additional issue surrounding stronger accountability has been a concern about unintended outcomes related to such things as higher exclusion rates from testing, increased dropout rates, and the like. Our analysis of special education placement rates, a frequently identified area of concern, does not show any responsiveness to the introduction of accountability systems.© 2005 by the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Hanushek and Raymond (2005) identified 25 states that implemented consequential accountability prior to NCLB by coupling public reporting of school performance to the possibility of meaningful sanctions based on that performance.
“The authors identified 25 states that implemented 'consequential accountability' prior to NCLB by coupling the public reporting of data on school performance to the possibility of meaningful sanctions based on that performance.”
From The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement (2011) · cites this paper as Hanushek and Raymond (2005)
The timing of consequential-accountability policies differed from that reported by Hanushek and Raymond (2005) in Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Tennessee.
“Our review also suggested that the timing of consequential-accountability policies differed from that reported by Hanushek and Raymond (2005) in four states: Connecticut, New Mexico, North Carolina and Tennessee.”
From The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement (2011) · cites this paper as Hanushek and Raymond (2005)
The paper's evidence of treatment heterogeneity by race, ethnicity, grade and subject is broadly similar to results from evaluations of earlier state-level school-accountability policies (e.g., Hanushek and Raymond 2005).
“Along those lines, it is interesting to note that our evidence of treatment heterogeneity by race, ethnicity, grade and subject is broadly similar to the results from evaluations of earlier state-level school-accountability polices (e.g., Hanushek and Raymond 2005).”
From The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement (2011) · cites this paper as Hanushek and Raymond 2005
Cites
Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error
Heckman, J. J. (1979) · Econometrica · doi:10.2307/1912352 · Cited by 28,779 · see citing works
How Much Should We Trust Differences-in-Differences Estimates?
Bertrand, M., Duflo, E., & Mullainathan, S. (2004) · The Quarterly Journal of Economics · doi:10.1162/003355304772839588 · Cited by 10,641 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2011) · Journal of Policy Analysis and Management · doi:10.1002/pam.20586 · Cited by 487 · see citing works
U.S. Elementary and Secondary Schools: Equalizing Opportunity or Replicating the Status Quo?
Rouse, C. E., & Barrow, L. (2006) · The Future of Children · doi:10.1353/foc.2006.0018 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Reback, R., Rockoff, J., & Schwartz, H. L. (2014) · American Economic Journal Economic Policy · doi:10.1257/pol.6.3.207 · Cited by 79 · see citing works
Toward a framework for public accountability in education reform
Hutt, E., & Polikoff, M. S. (2020) · Educational Researcher · doi:10.3102/0013189x20931246 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
What Do Changes in State Test Scores Imply for Later Life Outcomes?
Doty, E., Kane, T., Patterson, T., & Staiger, D. (2022) · doi:10.3386/w30701 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
Science teachers’ data use practices: A descriptive analysis
Snodgrass Rangel, V., Monroy, C., & Bell, E. (2016) · Education Policy Analysis Archives · doi:10.14507/epaa.24.2348 · Cited by 11 · see citing works
- Authors
- Hanushek, E. A., & Raymond, M. E.
- Affiliations
- The University of Texas at Dallas (US)
- Centre de Recherche et de Documentation sur l'Océanie (CREDO) (FR)
- Venue
- Journal of Policy Analysis and Management
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2005
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 297-327
- ISSN
- 0276-8739 (ISSN-L)
- 1520-6688
- OpenAlex
- W2890027640
- Cited by
- 663
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 16 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 15 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 22 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 54 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 54 · 2012: 57
- FWCI
- 57.42
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Policy Analysis and Management (publishedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Educational Assessment and Improvement
- Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
- Social Sciences › Education › Teacher Education and Assessments
- Keywords
- school accountability, No Child Left Behind Act, academic performance, achievement gap, Black-White achievement gap, special education placement, school dropout, unintended consequences of education policy, state education policy
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
