Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

This article considers the impact of a high-stakes testing and reporting requirement on students using publicly funded vouchers to attend private schools. We describe how such a policy was implemented during the course of a previously authorized multi-year evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program, which provided us with data on voucher students before and after the reform, as well as on public school students who received no new policy treatment. Our results indicate substantial growth for voucher students in the first high-stakes testing year, particularly in mathematics, and for students with higher levels of earlier academic achievement. We discuss these results in the context of both the school choice and accountability literatures.

Keywords

school vouchers high-stakes testing accountability

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Barnard

Frangakis

C. E.

Hill

J. L.

Rubin

D. B.

(2003). Principal stratification approach to broken randomized experiments: A case study of school choice vouchers in New York City. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 98, 299–311.

Booher-Jennings

(2005). Below the bubble: “Educational triage” and the Texas Accountability System. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 231–268.

Carlson

D. E.

Cowen

J. M.

Fleming

D. J.

(2013a). Life after vouchers: What happens to private school students when they return to the public sector? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 179–199.

Carlson

D. E.

Cowen

J. M.

Fleming

D. J.

(2013b). Third-party governance and performance measurement: A case study of private school vouchers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory. Advance online publication. doi:10.1093/jopart/mut017

Carnoy

Loeb

(2002). Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24, 305–331.

Chakrabarti

(2007). Vouchers, public school response, and the role of incentives: Evidence from Florida (Federal Reserve Bank of New York: Staff Report No. 37). Retrieved from http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/staff_reports/sr306.pdf

Chiang

(2009). How accountability pressure on failing schools affects student achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 93, 1045–1057.

Cowen

J. M.

Fleming

D. J.

Witte

J. F.

Wolf

P. J.

(2012). Going public: Who leaves a large, longstanding, and widely available urban voucher program. American Educational Research Journal, 49, 231–256.

Cowen

J. M.

Fleming

D. J.

Witte

J. F.

Wolf

P. J.

Kisida

(2013). School vouchers and student attainment: Evidence from a state-mandated study of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Policy Studies Journal, 41, 147–167.

10.

Cullen

J. B.

Reback

(2006). Tinkering toward accolades: School gaming under a performance accountability system (NBER Working Paper 12286). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w12286

11.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

(2011). The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30, 418–446.

12.

Dee

T. S.

Jacob

Schwartz

N. L.

(2013). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 35, 252–279.

13.

Dickman

Schmidt

(2012). Research brief: Significant growth in choice. Milwaukee, WI: Public Policy Forum.

14.

Emerson

(2014). Public accountability & private-school choice. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute. Retrieved from http://www.edexcellence.net/publications/public-accountability-private-school-choice

15.

Figlio

D. N.

(2011). Evaluation of the Florida Tax Credit Scholarship Program participation, compliance and test scores in 2009-10 (Report to the Florida Department of Education). Retrieved from https://www.floridaschoolchoice.org/pdf/FTC_Research_2009-10_report.pdf

16.

Figlio

D. N.

Getzler

L. S.

(2002). Accountability, ability, and disability: Gaming the system (NBER Working Paper 9307). Retrieved from http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=347079

17.

Figlio

D. N.

Rouse

C. E.

(2005). Do accountability and voucher threats improve low-performing schools? Journal of Public Economics, 90, 239–255.

18.

Finn

C. E.

Hentges

C. M.

Petrilli

M. J.

Winkler

A. M.

(2009). When private schools take public dollars: What’s the place of accountability in school choice programs? Washington, DC: The Thomas B. Fordham Institute.

19.

Greene

J. P.

Peterson

P. E.

(1998). Effectiveness of school choice: The Milwaukee voucher experiment. Education and Urban Society, 31, 190–213.

20.

Grissom

J. A.

Nicholson-Crotty

Harrington

J. R.

(2014). Estimating the effects of No Child Left Behind on teachers’ work environments and job attitudes. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Advance online publication. doi:10.3102/0162373714533817

21.

Hanushek

E. A.

Raymond

M. E.

(2005). Does school accountability lead to improved student performance? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 24, 297–327.

22.

Howell

W. G.

Peterson

P. E.

Wolf

P. J.

Campbell

D. E.

(2006). The education gap: Vouchers and urban schools. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.

23.

Howell

W. G.

Wolf

P. J.

Campbell

D. E.

Peterson

P. E.

(2002). School vouchers and academic performance: Results from three randomized field trials. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 21, 191–217.

24.

Jacob

B. A.

(2005). Accountability, incentives and behavior: The impact of high-stakes testing in the Chicago public schools. Journal of Public Economics, 89, 761–796.

25.

Jacob

B. A.

Levitt

S. D.

(2003). Rotten apples: An investigation of the prevalence and predictors of teacher cheating. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 843–877.

26.

Krieg

J. M.

(2008). Are students left behind? The distributional effects of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Finance and Policy, 3, 250–281.

27.

Krueger

A. B.

Zhu

(2004). Another look at the New York City voucher experiment. American Behavioral Scientist, 47, 658–698.

28.

Ladd

H. F.

Lauen

D. S.

(2010). Status versus growth: The distributional effect of school accountability policies. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 29, 426–450.

29.

McShane

M. Q.

Kisida

Jensen

L. I.

Wolf

P. J.

(2012). Milwaukee Parental Choice Program: Descriptive report on participating schools. Fayetteville, AR: University of Arkansas Department of Education Reform. Retrieved from http://www.uaedreform.org/milwaukee-parental-choice-program-descriptive-report-on-participating-schools-2010-11/

30.

Metcalf

K. K.

West

S. D.

Legan

N. A.

Paul

K. M.

Boone

W. J.

(2003). Evaluation of the Cleveland Scholarship and Tutoring Program: Summary Report 1998-2002. Bloomington: Indiana University.

31.

Neal

Schanzenbach

D. W.

(2010). Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 92, 263–283.

32.

Peterson

P. E.

Howell

W. G.

Greene

J. P.

(1999). An evaluation of the Cleveland Voucher Program after two years. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Program on Education Policy and Governance. Retrieved from http://www.hks.harvard.edu/pepg/PDF/Papers/clev2ex.pdf

33.

Rockoff

Turner

L. J.

(2010). Short run impacts of accountability on school quality. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2, 119–147.

34.

Rouse

C. E.

(1998). Private school vouchers and student achievement: An evaluation of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113, 553–602.

35.

Rouse

C. E.

Hannway

Goldhaber

Figlio

(2007). Feeling the Florida heat? How low-performing schools respond to voucher and accountability pressure (CEPS Working Paper No. 156). Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w13681

36.

West

M. R.

Peterson

P. E.

(2006). The efficacy of choice threats within school accountability systems: Results from legislatively induced experiments. Economic Journal, 116, 46–62.

37.

Winters

M. A.

Cowen

J. M.

(2012). Grading New York: Accountability and student proficiency in American’s largest school district. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34, 313–327.

38.

Witte

J. F.

(2000). The market approach to education: An analysis of America’s First Voucher Program. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

39.

Witte

J. F.

Wolf

P. J.

Cowen

J. M.

Fleming

D. J.

Lucas-McLean

(2008). MPCP longitudinal educational growth study baseline report (University of Arkansas Education Working Paper Archive). Retrieved from http://www.uark.edu/ua/der/EWPA/Research/School_Choice/1806.html

40.

Wolf

P. J.

Fleming

D. J.

Witte

J. F.

(2012). Do voucher schools serve students with disabilities? Education Next, 12(3). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/special-choices/

41.

Wolf

P. J.

Kisida

Guttmann

Puma

Eissa

Rizzo

(2013). School vouchers and student outcomes: Experimental evidence from Washington, D.C. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32, 246–270.