You are here:

School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis
ARTICLE

, Graduate School of Business and Public Policy, United States ; , Sanford School of Public Policy, United States

Economics of Education Review Volume 62, Number 1, ISSN 0272-7757 Publisher: Elsevier Ltd

Abstract

This paper examines the effect of a federally supported school turnaround program in North Carolina elementary and middle schools. Using a regression discontinuity design, we find that the turnaround program did not improve, and may have reduced, average school-level passing rates in math and reading. One potential contributor to that finding appears to be that the program increased the concentration of low-income students in treated schools. Based on teacher survey data, we find that, as was intended, treated schools brought in new principals and increased the time teachers devoted to professional development. At the same time, the program increased administrative burdens and distracted teachers, potentially reducing time available for instruction, and increased teacher turnover after the first full year of implementation. Overall, we find little evidence of success for North Carolina's efforts to turn around low-performing schools under its Race to the Top grant.

Citation

Heissel, J.A. & Ladd, H.F. (2018). School turnaround in North Carolina: A regression discontinuity analysis. Economics of Education Review, 62(1), 302-320. Elsevier Ltd. Retrieved December 9, 2023 from .

This record was imported from Economics of Education Review on March 1, 2019. Economics of Education Review is a publication of Elsevier.

Full text is availabe on Science Direct: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2017.08.001

Keywords

References

View References & Citations Map
  1. Angrist, J.D., Imbens, G.W., & Rubin, D.B. (1996). Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 91(434), pp. 444-455. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2307/2291629.
  2. Angrist, J.D., & Pischke, J.S. (2009). Mostly harmless econometrics: An empiricist's companion.
  3. Anrig, G. (2015). Lessons from school improvement grants that worked., pp. 1-21. New York: N.Y.: The Century Foundation.
  4. Boyd, D., Lankford, H., & Wyckoff, J. (2007). Increasing the effectiveness of teachers in low-performing schools. Handbook of research in education finance and policy, pp. 612-630. New York, NY: Routledge.
  5. Branch, G.F., Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, S.G. (2012). Estimating the effect of leaders on public sector productivity: The case of school principals.
  6. Campbell, D.T. (1969). Reforms as experiments. American Psychologist, 24(4), pp. 409-429. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1037/h0027982.
  7. Clark, D., Martorell, P., & Rockoff, J. (2009). School principals and school performance. New York: N.Y..
  8. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2007). Teacher credentials and student achievement: Longitudinal analysis with student fixed effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), pp. 673-682. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2007.10.002.
  9. Clotfelter, C.T., Ladd, H.F., & Vigdor, J.L. (2010). Teacher credentials and student achievement in high school: A cross-subject analysis with student fixed effects. Journal of Human Resources, 45(3), pp. 655-681.
  10. Conaty, J. C. (2011, January 31). Race to the top amendment approval. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/amendments/north-carolina-2.pdf.
  11. Copland, M.A. (2003). Leadership of inquiry: Building and sustaining capacity for school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 25(4), pp. 375-395. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3102/01623737025004375.
  12. Cowen, J.M., Butler, J.S., Fowles, J., Streams, M.E., & Toma, E.F. (2012). Teacher retention in Appalachian schools: Evidence from Kentucky. Economics of Education Review, 31(4), pp. 431-441. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.12.005.
  13. Dee, T.S. (2012). School turnarounds: Evidence from the 2009 stimulus. Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
  14. Department of Public Instruction (2011). NC middle and high school turnaround. Available online: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/schooltransformation/turnaround/.
  15. Department of Public Instruction (2012). ESEA waiver implications. Available online: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/docs/program-monitoring/esea/waiver.pdf.
  16. Department of Public Instruction (2013). APR report 2013 on status of RttT TALAS implementation by school. Raleigh: NC.. Available online: https://www.rtt-apr.us/state/north-carolina/2012-2013/talas.
  17. Department of Public Instruction (2013). Race to the top North Carolina report year. Race to the top North Carolina report year, 2 Washington, D.C.: U.S.: Department of Education. Available online: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/performance/north-carolina-year-2.pdf.
  18. Department of Public Instruction (2014). Race to the top North Carolina report year. Race to the top North Carolina report year, 3 Washington, D.C.: U.S: Department of Education. Available online: https://www.rtt-apr.us/sites/default/files/state_year_pdfs/north-carolina/2012-2013/state-specific-summary-report__north-carolina__2012-2013.pdf.
  19. Department of Public Instruction (2015). Federal Program Monitoring. Available online: http://www.ncpublicschools.org/program-monitoring/.
  20. Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Hermann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., & Graczewski, C. (2016). Race to the top Implementation and relationship to student outcomes., pp. 1-267. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  21. Dragoset, L., Thomas, J., Hermann, M., Deke, J., James-Burdumy, S., & Graczewski, C. (2017). School improvement grants Implementation and effectiveness., pp. 1-419. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
  22. Duffrin, E. (2012). North Carolina. Race to the top: What have we learned so far?, pp. 47-50. Washington, D.C.: Center for American Progress.
  23. Fan, J., & Gijbels, I. (1996). Local polynomial modelling and its applications: monographs on statistics and applied probability. Local polynomial modelling and its applications: monographs on statistics and applied probability, 66 Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.
  24. Garet, M.S., Cronen, S., Eaton, M., Kurki, A., Ludwig, M., & Jones, M. (2008). The impact of two professional development interventions on early reading instruction and achievement. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education. Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/quickreviewsum.aspx?sid=92.
  25. Garet, M.S., Wayne, A., Stancavage, F., Taylor, J., Eaton, M., & Walters, K. (2011). Middle school mathematics professional development impact study findings after the second year of implementation. Washington, D.C: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, U.S. Department of Education. Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/quickreviewsum.aspx?sid=92.
  26. Goldberger, A.S. (1972). Selection bias in evaluating treatment effects: The case of interaction. Madison, WI: Unpublished Manuscript.
  27. Hahn, J., Todd, P., & Van der Klaauw, W. (2001). Identification and estimation of treatment effects with a regression-discontinuity design. Econometrica, 69(1), pp. 201-209. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0262.00183.
  28. Hansen, M. (2013). Investigating the role of human resources in school turnaround Evidence in two states. Available online: http://www.caldercenter.org/sites/default/files/conferences/6th/wp89.pdf.
  29. Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., & Rivkin, S.G. (2004). Why public schools lose teachers. Journal of Human Resources, 39(2), pp. 326-354. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3368/jhr.XXXIX.2.326.
  30. Henry, G.T., Campbell, S.L., Thompson, C.L., & Townsend, L.W. (2014). Evaluation of district and school transformation school-level coaching and professional development activities., pp. 1-56. Chapel Hill, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation.
  31. Henry, G.T., Guthrie, J.E., & Townsend, L.W. (2015). Outcomes and impacts of North Carolina's inititative to turn around the lowest-achieving schools., pp. 1-56. Chapel Hill, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation - North Carolina.
  32. Herman, R., Dawson, P., Dee, T.S., Greene, J., Maynard, R., & Redding, S. (2008). Turning around chronically low-performing schools What works clearinghouse. Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Available online: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguide.aspx?sid=7.
  33. Hill, H.C. (2007). Learning in the teaching workforce. Future of Children, 17(1), pp. 111-127.
  34. Imbens, G.W., & Kalyanaraman, K. (2011). Optimal bandwidth choice for the regression discontinuity estimator. The Review of Economic Studies, pp. 933-959. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1093/restud/rdr043.
  35. Jackson, C.K. (2009). Student demographics, teacher sorting, and teacher quality: Evidence from the end of school desegregation. Journal of Labor Economics, 27(2), pp. 213-256. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1086/599334.
  36. Ladd, H.F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), pp. 235-261. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3102/0162373711398128.
  37. Lee, D.S., & Lemieux, T. (2010). Regression discontinuity designs in economics. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(2), pp. 281-355. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.48.2.281.
  38. Loeb, S., Darling-Hammond, L., & Luczak, J. (2005). How teaching conditions predict teacher turnover in California schools. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(3), pp. 44-70. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327930pje8003_4.
  39. Marks, H.M., & Printy, S.M. (2003). Principal leadership and school performance: An integration of transformational and instructional leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 39(3), pp. 370-397. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1177/0013161X03253412.
  40. McCrary, J. (2008). Manipulation of the running variable in the regression discontinuity design: A density test. Journal of Econometrics, 142(2), pp. 698-714. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.005.
  41. Moore Johnson, S., Kraft, M.A., & Papay, J.P. (2012). How context matters in high-need schools: The effects of teachers’ working conditions on their professional satisfaction and their students’ achievement. Teachers College Record, 114(10), pp. 1-39.
  42. North Carolina Race to the Top Application (2010). Race to the top application. Raleigh, NC: Office of the Governor. Available online: https://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/phase2-applications/north-carolina.pdf.
  43. Schochet, P.Z. (2009). Statistical power for regression discontinuity designs in education evaluations. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34(2), pp. 238-266. Available online: https://doi.org/10.3102/1076998609332748.
  44. Sipple, J.W., & Brent, B.O. (2007). Challenges and strategies associated with rural school settings. Handbook of research in education finance and policy, pp. 612-630. New York, NY: Routledge.
  45. Staiger, D., & Stock, J.H. (1997). Instrumental variables regression with weak instruments. Econometrica, 65(3), pp. 557-586. Available online: https://doi.org/10.2307/2171753.
  46. Tang, Y., Cook, T.D., & Kisbu-Sakarya, Y. (2015). Reducing bias and increasing precision by adding either a pretest measure of the study outcome or a nonequivalent comparison group to the basic regression discontinuity design: An example from education. Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.
  47. Thomson, C.L., Brown, K.M., Townsend, L.W., Henry, G.T., & Fortner, K.C. (2011). Turning around North Carolina's lowest achieving schools (2006–2010). Chapel Hill, NC: Consortium for Educational Research and Evaluation - North Carolina.
  48. Van Der Klaauw, W. (2008). Regression-discontinuity analysis: A survey of recent developments in economics. Labour, 22(2), pp. 219-245. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9914.2008.00419.x.
  49. Whalen, A. (2011). Race to the top amendment approval. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/amendments/north-carolina-9.pdf.
  50. Wing, C., & Cook, T.D. (2013). Strengthening the regression discontinuity design: A within-study comparison. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 32(4), pp. 853-877. Available online: https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.21721.

These references have been extracted automatically and may have some errors. Signed in users can suggest corrections to these mistakes.

Suggest Corrections to References