Content area
Full Text
* A key question for educators is whether accountability policies linked to measurable performance outcomes induce schools to "game the system," rather than make genuine improvements.
* This study of an influential Florida program allowing students from failing schools to transfer to better ones suggests that the failing schools engaged in differential classifications of students into exempt categories to artificially boost accountability.
* The finding that schools resort to strategic classifications offers lessons for the design of accountability programs elsewhere, including New York City's Progress Reports program and New York's implementation of the federal No Child LeftBehind Act.
(ProQuest: ... denotes formulae omitted.)
1. Introduction
ver the past two decades, state and federal education policies have increasingly emphasized school accountability. This approach focuses on the assignment of rewards and sanctions for schools based on measurable outcomes, usually student performance on standardized tests. A common criticism of accountability policies is that they may induce schools to "game the system" along with-or instead of-making genuine educational improvements. This article investigates whether schools resorted to such strategic behavior in response to the Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program (FOSP), an influential accountability policy that made students from low-performing schools eligible for vouchers to transfer to better ones. Our findings have important implications for New York City's Progress Reports program and New York's implementation of the federal No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) Act, which were modeled on the Florida program but contain crucial design changes.
Starting in the 1998-99 school year,1 Florida began assigning letter grades to schools on a scale of A to F based on student performance on statewide standardized tests.2 The Florida Opportunity Scholarship Program, introduced in June 1999, embedded a voucher program within this accountability system. It made students from low-performing schools eligible for vouchers to transfer to private schools and higher-performing public schools. Specifically, students from any school receiving two F grades in four years were made eligible for vouchers. These vouchers were funded by public school revenue, with funds following students to their new schools. Thus, FOSP can be viewed as a "threat of vouchers" program-schools receiving an F grade for the first time were at risk of being subjected to vouchers, but vouchers were actually issued only if the school received another F grade...