3. Suppose there is a school accountability system in a particular school district. The school district faces sanctions if less than 80% of tested students score below procient o the test. You conduct a study of the effects of the accountability system, and you nd that: (1) the policy led to improvements in scores on the high-stakes test used to determine whether a school would be sanctioned, (2) the policy led to improvements in scores on a low-stakes test, but by much less than the gains on the high-stakes test, (3) the policy led to increases in the fraction of students who did not take the test, and this effect was strongest in schools where student test scores historically have been low, and (4) the teachers identied by their principals as being the strongest instructors in their school were reassigned to math and reading (the tested subjects) from other subjects (e.g., art and science). (a) The class notes indicate that a goal of accountability policies is to get schools to use their resources more effectively, thereby moving from inside to onto the production possibilities frontier (PPF). Based on the results of your study, what evidence is there that this account- ability policy led to a movement onto the PPF? (b) Another potential goal of an accountability system is to move it along the PPF. Is there evidence consistent with such a change? Specif- ically, what types of knowledge \"production\" seem to have been re- duced and which seem to have been increased? c Is there any evidence that schools enga e in \" amin the system\" g g g (a.k.a. \"juking the stats\" ? That is, what evidence is there that schools engaged in behavior to increase y but not necessarily y*