IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ntj/journl/v54y2001i2p385-400.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

School-Based Educational Accountability Systems: The Promise and the Pitfalls

Author

Listed:
  • Ladd, Helen F.

Abstract

This article discusses schools as the primary unit of accountability and how school performance is measured and examines whether school-based accountability and incentive programs increase student achievement and how they impact the behavior of principals.

Suggested Citation

  • Ladd, Helen F., 2001. "School-Based Educational Accountability Systems: The Promise and the Pitfalls," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association;National Tax Journal, vol. 54(2), pages 385-400, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:54:y:2001:i:2:p:385-400
    DOI: 10.17310/ntj.2001.2.09
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2001.2.09
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://doi.org/10.17310/ntj.2001.2.09
    Download Restriction: Access is restricted to subscribers and members of the National Tax Association.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.17310/ntj.2001.2.09?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ladd, Helen F., 1999. "The Dallas school accountability and incentive program: an evaluation of its impacts on student outcomes," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 18(1), pages 1-16, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. William Duncombe & Anna Lukemeyer & John Yinger, 2008. "The No Child Left Behind Act," Public Finance Review, , vol. 36(4), pages 381-407, July.
    2. Tavares, Priscilla Albuquerque, 2015. "The impact of school management practices on educational performance: Evidence from public schools in São Paulo," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 1-15.
    3. Julie Berry Cullen & Randall Reback, 2006. "Tinkering Toward Accolades: School Gaming Under a Performance Accountability System," NBER Working Papers 12286, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Winters, Marcus A. & Trivitt, Julie R. & Greene, Jay P., 2010. "The impact of high-stakes testing on student proficiency in low-stakes subjects: Evidence from Florida's elementary science exam," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 138-146, February.
    5. Constant I. Tra & Anna Lukemeyer & Helen Neill, 2013. "Evaluating The Welfare Effects Of School Quality Improvements: A Residential Sorting Approach," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(4), pages 607-630, October.
    6. David N. Figlio & Marianne E. Page, 2003. "Can School Choice and School Accountability Successfully Coexist?," NBER Chapters, in: The Economics of School Choice, pages 49-66, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    7. Claus M. Hoerandner & Robert J. Lemke, 2006. "Can No Child Left Behind Close The Gaps In Pass Rates On Standardized Tests?," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 24(1), pages 1-17, January.
    8. David N. Figlio & Lawrence S. Getzler, 2002. "Accountability , Ability and Disability: Gaming the System," NBER Working Papers 9307, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. George M. Holmes, "undated". "Teaching To The Test: Triage in the Classroom," Working Papers 0110, East Carolina University, Department of Economics.
    2. Jones, Michael D., 2013. "Teacher behavior under performance pay incentives," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 37(C), pages 148-164.
    3. Timothy Bond & Kevin Mumford, 2017. "Teacher Performance Pay in the United States: Incidence and Adult Outcomes," Purdue University Economics Working Papers 1289, Purdue University, Department of Economics.
    4. Deborah Wilson & Bronwyn Croxson & Adele Atkinson, 2004. "“What Gets Measured Gets Done”: Headteachers’ Responses to the English Secondary School," The Centre for Market and Public Organisation 04/107, The Centre for Market and Public Organisation, University of Bristol, UK.
    5. Sims, David P., 2008. "Strategic responses to school accountability measures: It's all in the timing," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 27(1), pages 58-68, February.
    6. Pierre Koning & C.J. Heinrich, 2009. "Cream-skimming, parking and other intended and unintended effects of performance-based contracting in social welfare services," CPB Discussion Paper 134, CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.
    7. Stoddard, Christiana & Kuhn, Peter J., 2004. "Incentives and Effort in the Public Sector: Have U.S. Education Reforms Increased Teachers’ Work Hours?," IZA Discussion Papers 1412, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    8. Brian A. Jacob & Steven D. Levitt, 2003. "Rotten Apples: An Investigation of the Prevalence and Predictors of Teacher Cheating," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 118(3), pages 843-877.
    9. Rezende, Marcelo, 2010. "The effects of accountability on higher education," Economics of Education Review, Elsevier, vol. 29(5), pages 842-856, October.
    10. Brian A. Jacob & Lars Lefgren, 2004. "The Impact of Teacher Training on Student Achievement: Quasi-Experimental Evidence from School Reform Efforts in Chicago," Journal of Human Resources, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 39(1).
    11. Jacob, Brian A., 2005. "Accountability, incentives and behavior: the impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago Public Schools," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 89(5-6), pages 761-796, June.
    12. Alejandra Mizala & Pilar Romaguera, 2003. "Desafíos metodológicos de los Sistemas de Evaluación e Incentivos en Educación. El caso del SNED en Chile (Methodological challenges for evaluation and incentive systems in education. The case of SNED," Documentos de Trabajo 159, Centro de Economía Aplicada, Universidad de Chile.
    13. Billger, Sherrilyn M., 2007. "Principals as Agents? Investigating Accountability in the Compensation and Performance of School Principals," IZA Discussion Papers 2662, Institute of Labor Economics (IZA).
    14. Gadi Barlevy & Derek Neal, 2012. "Pay for Percentile," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 102(5), pages 1805-1831, August.
    15. Shao-Hsun Keng, 2016. "The Effect of a Stricter Academic Dismissal Policy on Course Selection, Student Effort, and Grading Leniency," Education Finance and Policy, MIT Press, vol. 11(2), pages 203-224, Spring.
    16. Nick Manning & Zahid Hasnain & Jan Henryk Pierskalla, 2012. "Public Sector Human Resource Practices to Drive Performance," World Bank Publications - Reports 25489, The World Bank Group.
    17. Elizabeth Webster & Mark Wooden & Gary Marks, 2004. "Reforming the Labour Market for Australian Teachers," Melbourne Institute Working Paper Series wp2004n28, Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research, The University of Melbourne.
    18. Karthik Muralidharan & Venkatesh Sundararaman, 2011. "Teacher Performance Pay: Experimental Evidence from India," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 119(1), pages 39-77.
    19. Rosalind Levacic & Stephen Machin & David Reynolds & Anna Vignoles & James Walker, 2000. "The Relationship between Resource Allocation and Pupil Attainment: A Review," CEE Discussion Papers 0002, Centre for the Economics of Education, LSE.
    20. Courty, Pascal & Kim, Do Han & Marschke, Gerald, 2011. "Curbing cream-skimming: Evidence on enrolment incentives," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 18(5), pages 643-655, October.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ntj:journl:v:54:y:2001:i:2:p:385-400. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: The University of Chicago Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.ntanet.org/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.