This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Roderick, M. Articles by Bryk, A. S. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                   What's this?

The Impact of High-Stakes Testing in Chicago on Student Achievement in Promotional Gate Grades

University of Chicago

Brian A. Jacob

Harvard University

Anthony S. Bryk

University of Chicago

This article analyzes the impact of high-stakes testing in Chicago on student achievement in grades targeted for promotional decisions. Using a three-level Hierarchical Linear Model, we estimate achievement value added in gate grades (test-score increases over and above that predicted from a student’s prior growth trajectory) for successive cohorts of students and derive policy effects by comparing value added pre- and postpolicy. Test scores in these grades increased substantially following the introduction of high-stakes testing. The effects are larger in the 6th and 8th grades and smaller in the 3rd grade in reading. Effects are also larger in previously low-achieving schools. In reading, students with low skills experienced the largest improvement in learning gains in the year prior to testing, while students with skills closer to their grade level experienced the greatest benefits in mathematics.

Key Words: accountability • high stakes testing • multilevel analysis • student achievement

CiteULike    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				S. L. Christenson, D. M. Decker, H. L. Triezenberg, J. E. Ysseldyke, and A. Reschly Consequences of High-Stakes Assessment for Students With and Without Disabilities Educational Policy, September 1, 2007; 21(4): 662 - 690. [Abstract] [PDF]

				D. M. Picklo and S. L. Christenson Alternatives to Retention and Social Promotion: The Availability of Instructional Options Remedial and Special Education, October 1, 2005; 26(5): 258 - 268. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. A. Bali, D. Anagnostopoulos, and R. Roberts Toward a Political Explanation of Grade Retention Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, January 1, 2005; 27(2): 133 - 155. [Abstract] [PDF]

				S. Goldrick-Rab and C. Mazzeo Chapter 5: What No Child Left Behind Means for College Access Review of Research in Education, January 1, 2005; 29(1): 107 - 129. [PDF]

				L. Hamilton Chapter 2: Assessment as a Policy Tool Review of Research in Education, January 1, 2003; 27(1): 25 - 68. [PDF]