Too Much Information: When Does Additional Testing Benefit Schools?

References

• Baron DP, Myerson RB (1982) Regulating a monopolist with unknown costs. Econometrica 50(4):911–930.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Bloom BS, Madaus GF, Hastings JT (1971) Handbook on Formative and Summative Evaluation of Student Learning (McGraw-Hill, New York).Google Scholar
• Bulkley KE, Oláh LN, Blanc S (2010) Introduction to the special issue on benchmarks for success? Interim assessments as a strategy for educational improvement. Peabody J. Ed. 85(2):115–124.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Burch P (2010) The bigger picture: Institutional perspectives on interim assessment technologies. Peabody J. Ed. 85(2):147–162.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Cavanagh S (2015) As McGraw-Hill Education leaves state testing, market thrives for classroom assessment. Education Week Online (July 31), https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2015/07/31/as-mcgraw-hill-education-leaves-state-testing-market.html.Google Scholar
• Chiang H, Speroni C, Herrmann M, Hallgren K, Burkander P, Wellington A (2017) Evaluation of the Teacher Incentive Fund: Final report on implementation and impacts of pay-for-performance across four years (NCEE 2017-4004). Report, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Chu LY, Sappington DE (2009) Implementing high-powered contracts to motivate intertemporal effort supply. RAND J. Econom. 40(2):296–316.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Clotfelter CT, Ladd HF (1996) Recognizing and rewarding success in public schools. Ladd HF, ed. Holding Schools Accountable: Performance-Based Reform in Education (Brookings Institution, Washington, DC), 23–64.Google Scholar
• Crémer J, Khalil F, Rochet JC (1998) Contracts and productive information gathering. Games Econom. Behav. 25(2):174–193.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Davison ML, Seo YS, Davenport EC Jr, Butterbaugh D, Davison LJ (2004) When do children fall behind? What can be done? Phi Delta Kappan 85(10):752–761.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dee TS, Wyckoff J (2015) Incentives, selection, and teacher performance: Evidence from IMPACT. J. Policy Anal. Management 34(2):267–297.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Dillon E, Rotherham A (2007) States’ evidence: What it means to make ‘adequate yearly progress’ under NCLB. Report, Education Sector, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Doherty KM, Jacobs S (2013) State of the states 2013: Connect the dots—Using evaluations of teacher effectiveness to inform policy and practice. Report, National Council on Teacher Quality, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Eberts R, Hollenbeck K, Stone J (2002) Teacher performance incentives and student outcomes. J. Human Resources 37(4):913–927.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Figlio DN, Kenny LW (2007) Individual teacher incentives and student performance. J. Public Econom. 91(5–6):901–914.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fryer RGJ (2013) Teacher incentives and student achievement: Evidence from New York City public schools. J. Labor Econom. 31(2):373–407.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fudenberg D, Holmstrom B, Milgrom P (1990) Short-term contracts and long-term agency relationships. J. Econom. Theory 51(1):1–31.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Fuloria PC, Zenios SA (2001) Outcomes-adjusted reimbursement in a health-care delivery system. Management Sci. 47(6):735–751.Link, Google Scholar
• Gneezy U, Meier S, Rey-Biel P (2011) When and why incentives (don’t) work to modify behavior. J. Econom. Perspect. 25(4):191–210.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Goertz ME, Oláh LN, Riggan M (2009) From testing to teaching: The use of interim assessments in classroom instruction. CPRE Research Reports, Consortium for Policy Research in Education, Philadelphia.Google Scholar
• Johnson SM (1984) Merit pay for teachers: A poor prescription for reform. Harvard Ed. Rev. 54(2):175–186.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Klein A (2015) No Child Left Behind: An overview. Education Week Online (April 10), https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html.Google Scholar
• Klein A (2016) The Every Student Succeeds Act: An ESSA overview. Education Week Online (March 31), https://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/every-student-succeeds-act/.Google Scholar
• Lewis TR, Sappington DE (1991) All-or-nothing information control. Econom. Lett. 37(2):111–113.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis TR, Sappington DE (1993) Ignorance in agency problems. J. Econom. Theory 61(1):169–183.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Lewis TR, Sappington DE (1997) Information management in incentive problems. J. Political Econom. 105(4):796–821.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Li Y, Marion S, Perie M, Gong B (2010) An approach for evaluating the technical quality of interim assessments. Peabody J. Ed. 85(2):163–185.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Linn RL (2000) Assessments and accountability. Ed. Res. 29(2):4–16.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Murnane R, Cohen D (1986) Merit pay and the evaluation problem: Why most merit pay plans fail and a few survive. Harvard Ed. Rev. 56(1):1–18.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Neal D, Schanzenbach DW (2010) Left behind by design: Proficiency counts and test-based accountability. Rev. Econom. Statist. 92(2):263–283.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Olson L (2005) Benchmark assessments offer regular checkups on student achievement. Ed. Week, ePub ahead of print November 29, 2005, https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/benchmark-assessments-offer-regular-checkups-on-student-achievement/2005/11.Google Scholar
• Perie M, Marion S, Gong B (2009) Moving toward a comprehensive assessment system: A framework for considering interim assessments. Ed. Measurement 28(3):5–13.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Perie M, Marion S, Gong B, Wurtzel J (2007) The role of interim assessments in a comprehensive assessment system. Report, The Aspen Institute, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Pham LD, Nguyen TD, Springer MG (2020) Teacher merit pay: A meta-analysis. Amer. Ed. Res. J. 58(3):527–566.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Plambeck EL, Zenios SA (2000) Performance-based incentives in a dynamic principal-agent model. Manufacturing Service Oper. Management 2(3):240–263.Link, Google Scholar
• Podgursky MJ, Springer MG (2007) Teacher performance pay: A review. J. Policy Anal. Management 26(4):909–949.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Raugust K, Mickey K, Meaney K (2019) PreK-12 testing market forecast 2019-2020. Report, Simba Information, Stamford, CT.Google Scholar
• Sawchuk S (2009) Testing faces ups and downs amid recession. Education Week Online (May 12), https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/testing-faces-ups-and-downs-amid-recession/2009/05.Google Scholar
• Shumsky RA, Pinker EJ (2003) Gatekeepers and referrals in services. Management Sci. 49(7):839–856.Link, Google Scholar
• Springer MG, Ballou D, Hamilton L, Le VN, Lockwood JR, McCaffrey DF, Pepper M, Stecher BM (2011) Teacher Pay for Performance: Experimental Evidence from the Project on Incentives in Teaching (POINT) (Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness, Rockville, MD).Google Scholar
• Steinberg MP, Donaldson ML (2016) The new educational accountability: Understanding the landscape of teacher evaluation in the post-NCLB era. Ed. Finance Policy 11(3):340–359.Crossref, Google Scholar
• Topol B, Olson J, Roeber E, Hennon P (2013) Getting to higher-quality assessments: Evaluating costs, benefits, and investment strategies. Report, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education, Stanford University, Stanford, CA.Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Education (2009) Race to the top program: Executive summary. Report, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
• Young VM, Kim DH (2010) Using assessments for instructional improvement: A literature review. Ed. Policy Anal. Arch. 18(19).Google Scholar
• Zhang H, Zenios S (2008) A dynamic principal-agent model with hidden information: Sequential optimality through truthful state revelation. Oper. Res. 56(3):681–696.Link, Google Scholar