We use matched birth records and longitudinal student records in Florida to investigate whether first-, second-, and third-generation Asian and Hispanic immigrants have different educational success (measured by test scores, disciplinary problems, truancy, high school graduation, and college readiness). We find that, for both Asian and Hispanic students, early-arriving first generation immigrants perform better than do second-generation immigrants, who perform better than third-generation immigrants. The earlier the arrival, the better the students tend to perform. There is therefore a general pattern of successively reduced achievement in the generations following the generation that immigrated to the United States.

Educational accountability policies are a popular tool to close the achievement gaps between advantaged and disadvantaged students. However, these policies may exacerbate inequality if families from advantaged backgrounds are better able to advocate for their children and thus circumvent policy. We investigate this possibility in the context of the early grade retention policy in Florida, which requires all students with reading skills below grade level to be retained in the third grade, yet grants exemptions under special circumstances. We find that Florida's third-grade retention policy is in fact enforced differentially depending on children's socioeconomic background, especially maternal education. Holding exemption eligibility constant, scoring right below the promotion cutoff results in an increase in the probability of retention that is 14 percent greater for children whose mothers have less than a high school degree compared with children whose mothers have a bachelor's degree or more. We also find that the discrepancies in retention rates are mainly driven by the fact that students with well-educated mothers are more likely to be promoted based on subjective exemptions, such as teacher portfolios.

The federal Race to the Top competition provided significant impetus for states to adopt value-added models as a part of their teacher evaluation systems. Such models typically link students to their teachers in the spring semester when statewide tests are administered and estimate a teacher's performance based on his or her students’ learning between the test date in the previous school year and the test date in the current year. Because of data limitations in many states, however, the effect of most student learning experiences between two consecutive tests cannot be distinguished from, and hence is often attributed to, the value added of teachers in the spring classrooms. This study examines how teacher evaluations are affected by such misattribution and explores methods that can provide the best approximation in the absence of more detailed data. We find that ignoring previous school-year teachers’ contributions on student learning has a sizeable impact on estimated value-added scores for teachers in the current school year. We also present an alternative approach that can be implemented in the absence of more detailed data on student learning experiences and closely approximates teacher value-added scores that are estimated based on complete student enrollment and roster information.

Test-based accountability has become the new norm in public education over the last decade. In many states and school districts nationwide, student performance on standardized tests plays an important role in high-stakes decisions, such as grade retention. This study examines the effects of grade retention on student misbehavior in Florida, which requires students with reading skills below grade level to be retained in the third grade. The regression discontinuity estimates suggest that grade retention increases the likelihood of disciplinary incidents and suspensions in the short run, yet these effects dissipate over time. The findings also suggest that these short-term adverse effects are concentrated among economically disadvantaged and male students.