Evidence for the Feedback Role of Performance Measurement Systems

References

• Anagnostopoulos A, Kumar R, Mahdian M (2008) Influence and correlation in social networks. Proc. 14th ACM SIGKDD Internat. Conf. Knowledge Discovery Data Mining (ACM, Raleigh, NC), 7–15.Google Scholar
• Bennett RE (2011) Formative assessment: A critical review. Assessment Ed. Principles Policy Practice 18(1):5–25.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Betebenner DW (2008) A primer on student growth percentiles. Working paper, National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Dover, NH.Google Scholar
• Black P, Wiliam D (1998) Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment Ed. 5(1):7–74.Google Scholar
• Cardinaels E, Van Veen-Dirks P (2010) Financial vs. non-financial information: The impact of information organization and presentation in a Balanced Scorecard. Accounting Organ. Soc. 35(6):565–578.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Casas-Arce P, Martinez-Jerez FA, Narayanan VG (2017) The impact of forward-looking metrics on employee decision-making: The case of customer lifetime value. Accounting Rev. 92(3):31–56.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cheng MM, Humphreys KA (2012) The differential improvement effects of the strategy map and scorecard perspectives on managers’ strategy judgments. Accounting Rev. 87(3):899–924.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chetty R, Friedman JN, Rockoff JE (2014a) Measuring the impacts of teachers I: Evaluating bias in teacher value-added estimates. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(9):2593–2632.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Chetty R, Friedman JN, Rockoff JE (2014b) Measuring the impact of teachers II: Teacher value-added and student outcomes in adulthood. Amer. Econom. Rev. 104(9):2633–2679.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Childress S, Elmore R, Grossman A, Johnson S, eds. (2007) Managing School Districts for High Performance (Harvard Education Press, Cambridge, MA).Google Scholar
• Davis S, Albright T (2004) An investigation of the effect of the balanced scorecard implementation on financial performance. Management Accounting Res. 15(2):135–153.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Demerjian P, Lev B, McVay S (2012) Quantifying managerial ability: A new measure and validity tests. Management Sci. 58(7):1229–1248.Link, Google Scholar
• Demski J, Feltham GA (1976) Cost Determination: A Conceptual Approach (Iowa State University Press, Ames).Google Scholar
• DiMaggio PJ, Powell WW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. Amer. Sociol. Rev. 48(2):147–160.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dunn KE, Airola D, Lo W-J, Garrison M (2013) Becoming data driven: The influence of teachers’ sense of efficacy on concerns related to data-driven decision making. J. Experiment. Ed. 81(2):222–241.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ehlert M, Koedel C, Parsons E, Podgursky M (2012) Selecting growth measures for school and teacher evaluations. Working Paper 80, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Farrell AM, Kadous K, Towry KL (2012) Does the communication of causal linkages improve employee effort allocations and firm performance? An experimental investigation. J. Management Accounting Res. 24(1):77–102.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fensterwald J (2015a) Panel recommends continuing districts’ waiver from NCLB. EdSource. Accessed July 31, 2018, http://edsource.org/2015/panel-recommends-continuing-districts-waiver-from-nclb/82052.Google Scholar
• Fensterwald J (2015b) No child left behind waiver extended for CORE districts. EdSource. Accessed July 31, 2018, http://edsource.org/2015/no-child-left-behind-waiver-extended-for-core-districts/87664.Google Scholar
• Firestone WA, Pennell JR (1993) Teacher commitment, working conditions, and differential incentive policies. Rev. Ed. Res. 63(4):489–525.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fryer RG (2013) Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. J. Labor Econom. 31(2):373–406.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goldhaber D (2002) The mystery of good teaching. Ed. Next 2(1):50–55.Google Scholar
• Grafton J, Lillis A, Widener S (2010) The role of performance measurement and evaluation in building organizational capabilities and performance. Accounting Organ. Soc. 35(7):689–706.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Grissom R, Kim J (2012) Effect Sizes for Research: Univariate and Multivariate Applications (Taylor & Francis Group LLC, New York)Google Scholar
• Hanushek E (2006) Teacher quality. Hanushek E, Welch F, eds. Handbook of the Economics of Education (North-Holland, London), 1052–1078.Google Scholar
• Hanushek E (2011) The economic value of higher teacher quality. Econom. Ed. Rev. 30(3):466–479.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hanushek E, Rivkin S (2010) Generalizations about using value-added measures of teacher quality. Amer. Econom. Rev. 100(May):267–271.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Hattie J (2009) Visible Learning (Routledge, New York)Google Scholar
• Henry G, Thompson CL, Fortner CK, Zulli RA, Kershaw DC (2010) The impact of teacher preparation on student learning in North Carolina public schools. White paper, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Chapel Hill.Google Scholar
• Humphreys K, Trotman K (2011) The balanced scorecard: The effect of strategy information on performance evaluation judgments. J. Management Accounting Res. 23(1):81–98.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ikemoto G, Marsh J (2007) Cutting through the “data-driven” mantra: Different conceptions of data-driven decision making. Moss PA, ed. Evidence and Decision Making, Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education, vol. 106 (Blackwell Publishing Inc., Malden, MA), 105–131.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Ittner C, Larcker D, Randall T (2003) Performance implications of strategy performance measurement in financial services firms. Accounting Organ. Soc. 28(7/8):715–741.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Lee MN (2007) Fulton County School System: Implementing the balanced scorecard. Harvard Business School Case 107-029, Boston.Google Scholar
• Kaplan RS, Norton DP (2004) Strategy Maps: Converting Intangible Assets into Tangible Outcomes (Harvard Business School Press, Boston).Google Scholar
• Keuning T, Van Geel M, Visscher A (2017) Why a data-based decision-making intervention works in some schools and not in others. Learn. Disabilities Res. Practice 32(1):32–45.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Koenker R, Hallock KF (2001) Quantile regression. J. Econom. Perspect. 15(4):143–156.Crossref, Google Scholar
• La Fond T, Neville J (2010) Randomization tests for distinguishing social influence and homophily effects. Proc. 19th Internat. Conf. World Wide Web (ACM, Raleigh, NC), 601–610.Google Scholar
• Lakin JM, Young JW (2013) Evaluating growth for ELL students: Implications for accountability policies. Ed. Measurement 32(3):11–26.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Libby T, Salterio S, Webb A (2004) The balanced scorecard: The effects of the assurance and process accountability on managerial judgment. Accounting Rev. 79(4):1075–1094.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lipe M, Salterio S (2000) The balanced scorecard: Judgmental effects of common and unique performance. Accounting Rev. 75(3):283–298.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Malina M, Selto F (2001) Communicating and controlling strategy: An empirical study of the effectiveness of the balanced scorecard. J. Management Accounting Res. 13(1):47–90.Crossref, Google Scholar
• McKinsey & Co. (2010) How the world’s most improved school systems keep getting better. White paper, McKinsey & Co., New York.Google Scholar
• Meyer JW, Rowan B (1977) Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. Amer. J. Sociol. 83(2):340–363.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Rethinam V (2014) Predictive analytics in K-12: Advantages, limitations and implementation. T.H.E. J. (June 12), https://thejournal.com/articles/2014/06/12/predictive-analytics-in-k-12-advantages-limitations-implementation.aspx.Google Scholar
• Rich M (2013) Reading gains lag improvements in math: In raising scores, 1 2 3 is easier than A B C. New York Times (May 29), A1.Google Scholar
• Rigby D, Bilodeau B (2013) Management tools and trends 2013. White paper, Bain & Company, Boston. Available at http://www.bain.com/publications/articles/management-tools-and-trends-2013.aspx.Google Scholar
• Rivkin S, Hanushek E, Kain J (2005) Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica 73(2):417–458.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Slavin R, Cheung A, Holmes G, Madden N, Chamberlain A (2013) Effects of a data-driven district reform model on state assessment outcomes. Amer. Ed. Res. J. 50(2):371–396.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Sprinkle G (2003) Perspectives on experimental research in managerial accounting. Accounting Organ. Soc. 28:287–318.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Staman L, Timmermans AC, Visscher AJ (2017) Effects of a data-based decision making intervention on student achievement. Stud. Ed. Evaluation 55(1):58–67.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stecker PM, Fuchs LS, Fuchs D (2005) Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psych. Schools 42(8):795–819.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stiggins R (2005) From formative assessment to assessment for learning: A path to success in standards-based schools. Phi Delta Kappa 87(4):324–328.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Stronge J, Ward T, Grant L (2011) What makes good teachers good? A cross-case analysis of the connection between teacher effectiveness and student achievement. J. Teacher Ed. 62(4):339–355.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Taylor WB (2010) The balanced scorecard as a strategy-evaluation tool: The effects of implementation involvement and a causal-chain focus. Accounting Rev. 85(3):1095–1117.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Tuttle CC, Gill B, Gleason P, Knechtel V, Nichols-Barrer I, Resch A (2013) KIPP middle schools: Impacts on achievement and other outcomes. Report 06441.910, Mathematica Policy, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
• Vera-Munoz S, Shackell M, Buehner M (2007) Accountants’ usage of causal business models in the presence of benchmark data: A note. Contemporary Accounting Res. 24(3):1015–1038.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Visscher A, Coe R (2003) School performance feedback systems: Conceptualization, analysis, and reflection. School Effectiveness School Improvement 14(3):321–349.Crossref, Google Scholar