No Child Left Behind Act: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 19:58, 15 November 2007

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB (/ˈnɪkəlbiː/), is a United States federal law that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The act was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001^[1] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. The act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

The act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.^[2]

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers "to teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.^[3]

Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, a new Congress is considering major revisions, as one group of 50 Republican senators and representatives introduced legislation in March 2007 to provide states much greater freedom from NCLB's controls and punishments.^{[citation needed]}

Overview

Teacher quality

The No Child Left Behind act requires that, in order to receive federal funding, (by the end of the 2006-07 school year)^[4] all teachers be "highly qualified" as defined in the law. A highly qualified teacher is one who has (1) fulfilled the state's certification and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelor's degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise. The procedure for demonstrating subject matter knowledge depends on a teacher's tenure and level of instruction.

For those who are new to the profession (less than one year of experience):

Elementary teachers must pass a state test demonstrating their subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts, writing, mathematics and other areas of basic elementary school curricula.
Middle and high school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in each academic subject area they teach, such demonstration can occur either through passage of a rigorous state academic subject test or successful completion of an undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major or an advanced certification or credentialing.

Experienced teachers can satisfy the subject matter requirement in the same manner as new teachers or demonstrate subject knowledge through a state-determined high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). These requirements have caused some difficulty in implementation especially for special education teachers and teachers in small rural schools who are often called upon to teach multiple grades and subjects.^[5]

Student testing

The progress of all students will be measured annually for math and reading in grades 3-8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-08 school year, testing also will be conducted in science once during grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–11.

In order to receive federal school funding, assessments are required in public schools by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Assessments may take any form so long as the same assessment system is used for all students in a state. Although it is not required under NCLB, states generally have chosen inexpensive multiple-choice standardized tests.^{[citation needed]}

Some states choose to adopt tests which statistically norm, or rank student performance relative to each other, but this is discouraged by NCLB. Under NCLB, assessments should normally be criterion-referenced tests, which focus on whether a student knows the required content or can do the required skill as outlined in the state's standards. Norm-referenced tests, by contrast, merely compare the performance of students to determine where students rank compared to other students.

English language learners are generally exempted from testing during their first year in an American school. After that, they must participate in the assessment process -- either in English or in their native language, at the sole discretion of the individual state -- for the next three to five years. After five years, students are expected to be sufficiently proficient in English to take the test in English.

Scientifically based research

The phrase scientifically based research is found 111 times in the text of the No Child Left Behind Act.^[6] Schools are required to use "scientifically based research" strategies in the classroom and for professional development of staff. Research meeting this label, which includes only a small portion of the total research conducted in the field of education and related fields, must involve large quantitative studies using control groups as opposed to partially or entirely qualitative or ethnographic studies, research methodologies which may suggest different teaching and professional development strategies but that do not result in evidence demonstrating efficacy.

The No Child Left Behind Act defines the term "scientifically based research" as research that:

Applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties;
Uses systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and
Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

However, programs marketed as research based may not be entirely scientifically researched.

Schools can obtain information about "research-based" instructional strategies and programs from several government-funded sources, including:

Best Evidence Encyclopedia ^[7]

Campbell Collaboration (C2) ^[8]

Center on Instruction. ^[9]

Florida Center for Reading Research. ^[10]

National Institute for Literacy ^[11]

National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices ^[12]

NICHY Research to Practice Database ^[13]

Promising Practices Network. ^[14]

Results for Kids Resources ^[15]

What works Clearinghouse. ^[16]

A nonprofit organization Educational Underwriters^[17] was founded to provide an avenue for vendors seeking to have material reviewed. ^{[dubious – discuss]}

Public school choice

Schools identified as needing improvement are required to provide students with the opportunity to take advantage of public school choice no later than the beginning of the school year following their identification for school improvement. NCLB authorized — and Congress has subsequently appropriated — a substantial increase in funding for Title I aid, in part to provide funding for school districts to implement the law’s parental choice requirements. About 1 percent of eligible students made use of the school choice option as of 2004–05.^[18]

Claims made in favor of the act

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Improved test scores (NAEP)

The Department of Education points to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:^[19]

More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).

Improvement over local standards

In addition, many argue that local government had failed students, necessitating federal intervention to remedy issues like teachers teaching outside their areas of expertise, and complacency in the face of continually failing schools.^[20] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, arguing that local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress, also known as AYP.^[21]

The establishment of statewide standards, instead of city or neighborhood curricula, also benefits students who move between neighboring communities by increasing the odds that lessons learned in one school will generally line up sensibly with lessons taught at the new school.

Increased accountability

Supporters of NCLB claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools, offers parents greater educational options for their children, and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students.^[22] NCLB aims to show achievement toward these goals through federally mandated standardized testing.

In addition to and in support of the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:

Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
Establishes the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly enhance parental involvement and improved administration through the use of the assessment data to drive decisions on instruction, curriculum and business practices.

Attention to minority populations

Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and African Americans and Latinos. Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.

Quality of education

Increases the quality of education by decreasing the quantity. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
Emphasizes reading, writing, math and science achievement through a number of "core academic subjects" that include subjects as diverse as algebra and art.

School choice

Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.

Safe harbor

Gives school districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.

Funding

Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
Provides more resources to schools. Federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.

Public perception of public education

Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

Claims made in criticism of the Act

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

'Gaming' the system

The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to exclude minorities or other groups (to enhance apparent school performance; as many as 2 million students)^[23] and have employed creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).^[24]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.^[25]

The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.^[26]

Problems with standardized tests

Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.^[27] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any classtime on the practical applications of addition (e.g., story problems) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."

Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.^[28] A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.^[29]

Standardized tests have also been accused of cultural bias, and the practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.^[30]

Violation of separation of church and state

Since the Act's inception, President Bush has allowed "faith-based" groups to serve as private tutors, receiving public money, in public schools under the act, which has angered some who campaign for separation of church and state. The US Department of Education's website says: "No Child Left Behind provides opportunities for faith-based organizations to assist in educating children."^[31]^[32]

Incentives against low-performing students

Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher^[33] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether.^[34]

Under the NCLB act, schools that do not meet certain established standards are given additional funds in an attempt to boost scores. Critics argue that schools have less of an incentive to do better if they are already receiving more funds. However, schools are also given bonuses for meeting yearly requirements. Since these requirements are given each year schools are less likely to rapidly increase their scores as a slow and gradual improvement would be financially better. Another part of the NCLB act gives schools that perform well awards and special recognition that opponents argue would encourage schools already doing well to push out disadvantaged students even more.

Incentives against gifted, talented, and high performing students

Anecdotal evidence has been slowly gathering across the country regarding local school systems reallocating money in such a manner as to only fund teaching for core subjects or for remedial special education. In other words, NCLB forces school programs to ration education in such a manner as to only guarantee mandated skill levels in reading, writing, and arithmetic to all students. All other programs not essential to providing mandated skills to regular students or remedial special education students are being gutted by those districts. ^[35] While Federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with a free appropriate public education^{[citation needed]} commensurate to the actual abilities of these students.

State refusal to produce non-English assessments

Students who are learning English have an automatic three-year-long window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must generally demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. The local education authority may grant any individual English learner another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis. In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers).[5] The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.^[36]

State education budgets

Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.^{[citation needed]} The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenue and higher expenses.

Narrow curriculum

NCLB's focus on math and English language skills (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students lose the benefits of a broad education.^[37]

A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contends that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to rising levels of childhood obesity.^[38]

The Center on Public Education found that after implementation of NCLB, 71 percent of the districts surveyed had elementary schools that cut back on instructional time for a subject to make room for more reading and math — the primary focus of the law.^[39]

Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 71% believe instructional time has increased for reading, writing, and math (subjects tested under the law), and decreased for the arts, elementary social studies, and foreign languages.^[40]^[41]

In some places, the implementation of NCLB during a time of budget restraints has been blamed for the elimination of classes and activities which are outside of NCLB's focus area.^[42] "It hurts me to give up art, but it hurts me even more to have kids who can't read," said school principal Kathy Deck in Indianapolis, Indiana.^[43]

Narrow definition of research

Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, anecdotes, personal experience, or other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.^[44]

Limitations on local control

Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB so long as they also refuse federal funding for their schools.^[45]

Facilitates military recruitment

NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.^[46] ^[47] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military.

Some students may not learn as well

Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.^[48] While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of a student who has below-average capabilities.

NCLB funding

Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.

Many early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation because it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."^[49]

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.^[50] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is. ^[51]

Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises, and have responded to criticisms by claiming that President Bill Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law.^[52] Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing.

Federal funding is particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have led many governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets. While some new money flows to local districts as a result of NCLB, the amount falls far short of the cuts being made at the state level.

Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind [6] is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor and religious groups that have signed on to a statement calling for major changes to the federal education law. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) initiated and chaired the meetings that produced the statement, originally released in October 2004. The statement's central message is that "the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement." The number of organizations signing the statement has nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, as the law's scheduled reauthorization approaches.

Education critic Alfie Kohn argues that the NCLB law is "unredeemable" and should be scrapped. He is quoted saying "[I]ts main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills".^[53]

In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.^[54] The Commission is an independent, bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis and research, the Commission uncovered the successes of NCLB, as well as provisions which need to be changed or significantly modified.

The Commission's recommendations are summarized as follows:

Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities
Accelerating Progress and Closing Achievement Gaps Through Improved Accountability
Moving Beyond the Status Quo to Effective School Improvement and Student Options
Fair and Accurate Assessments of Student Progress
High Standards for Every Student in Every State
Ensuring High Schools Prepare Students for College and the Workplace
Driving Progress Through Reliable, Accurate Data

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal [7]. It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communitiesand holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

Background of name

The name's most likely origin is the motto of the advocacy group The Children's Defense Fund, "Leave No Child Behind." The CDF motto itself likely comes from the motto of the United States Army Rangers, "Leave No Man Behind."^{[citation needed]}

References

^ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml
^ Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Section on Military recruitment. (PDF - English). Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/ List of articles regarding NCLB debate
^ (nd) Original deadline of 2005-06 extended, see Letter from Secretary. Department of Education website. Retrieved 6/8/07.
^ (nd) Teacher Quality Guidance. Department of Education website. Retrieved 3/8/07.
^ (nd) Title IX - General Provisions. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07/.
^ Best Evidence Encyclopedia, see [1]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Center on Instruction, see on Instruction. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/8/07.
^ Florida Center for Reading Research, see [2]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ National Institute for Literacy, see Institute for Literacy. U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, see [3]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ NICHY Research to Practice Database, see Letter from Secretary. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Promising Practices Network, see Practices Network. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Results for Kids Resources, see [4], IDEA Partnership. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ What Works Clearinghouse, see works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 7/22/07.
^ Educational Underwriters, Inc., retrieved 2007 June 27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)
^ [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement]
^ (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ Mizell, H. (2003) NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity? Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ No Child Left Behind. Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005. New York State Education Agency. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ (2007) NCLB Shortcomings. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2007.
^ (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. FactCheck.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ Haney, W. (nd) Evidence on Education under NCLB (and How Florida Boosted NAEP Scores and Reduced the Race Gap). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Education Policy. Lynch School of Education. Boston College. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
^ (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ "Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales". NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. June 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
^ (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ "No Child Left Behind and Faith-Based Leaders". United States Department of Education. Retrieved 2007-06-28.
^ "No Child Left Behind's Faith-Based Initiative Provision and the Establishment Clause". Journal of Law and Education. Retrieved 2007-06-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)
^ (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. SusanOhanian.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ Ryan, J. (2004) The Perverse Incentives of No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ "The Genius Problem" by John Cloud, Time, 27 July 2007, pp 40-46
^ Crawford, J. (nd) [http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/NABE_on_NCLB.pdf No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners]. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ (2003) Major NCLB Problems.
^ Trickey, H. (2006) No child left out of the dodgeball game? CNN.com. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ Trickey, H. (2006)
^ Lynch, Robert L. (2007) No Child Left Behind Act wrongly left the arts behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
^ Associated Press (2007) Schools Boost Focus On Math And Reading. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
^ National Education Association (2003) Cuts Leave More and More Public School Children Behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
^ Washington Post (2004) 'No Child' Law Leaves Schools' Old Ways Behind. Retrieved 15 September 2007.
^ Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ (nd) SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved 7 June 2007.
^ EdAccountability.org website.
^ (nd) Leaving No Child Left Behind: States charged with implementing Bush’s national education plan balk at the cost of compliance. The American Conservative. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.
^ (nd) Fact Sheet on Education. House of Representatives. Retrieved 3/18/07.
^ NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.
^ Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.

External links

Center for Education Reform website Promoting charter schools and other reforms

Comments by Secretary of Education

Facts About NCLB Funding

Failing Grades: The Federal Politics of Education Standards, Kevin R. Kosar (Scholarly book on the politics that produced the No Child Left Behind Act)

How To Fix No Child Left Behind on Time.com (a division of Time Magazine)

Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for Teacher Education

Military Free Zone Reveals some of the darker sides of the NCLB Act

Mississippi Teacher Corps Focus Paper on No Child Left Behind

National Education Association 'No Child Left Behind'/ESEA (NEA's position)

NCLB Desktop Reference (online version, includes Microsoft documents and PDF links)

National Institute for Literacy

NCLB Desktop Reference (147 pages)

NCLB Voices (hundreds of observations and stories from educators who have been affected by this law)

No Child Left Behind: Testing, Reporting, and Accountability

"No Child Left" is a site and journal opposed to NCLB and highly critical of its approach to schools.

No Child Left Behind: Misguided Accountability System for English Language Learners

No Child Left Behind at Wikia

National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest)

Linda Perlstein, The Nation 21 October 2004, "The Issue Left Behind"

Pros & Cons of the No Child Left Behind Act, at About.com

President Discusses No Child Left Behind and High School Initiatives, Speech text and video, 12 January 2005

Remarks by President Bush at signing ceremony

Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the No Child Left Behind Act

Senator Ted Kennedy supporting the renewal of NCLB, March 2007

School Ranking Data based on NCLB (subscription required)

Text of No Child Left Behind Act

White House paid commentator to promote law, 7 January 2005, Greg Toppo, USA Today

No Child Left Behind Act Reauthorization Association for Career and Technical Education's position on NCLB reauthorization, including background information

Interactive Map:The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts Center for American Progress

[1] ttp://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml

[2] Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Section on Military recruitment. (PDF - English). Retrieved 6/7/07.

[3] ttp://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/ List of articles regarding NCLB debate

[4] (nd) Original deadline of 2005-06 extended, see Letter from Secretary. Department of Education website. Retrieved 6/8/07.

[5] (nd) Teacher Quality Guidance. Department of Education website. Retrieved 3/8/07.

[6] (nd) Title IX - General Provisions. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07/.

[7] Best Evidence Encyclopedia, see [1]. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[8] Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[9] Center on Instruction, see on Instruction. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/8/07.

[10] Florida Center for Reading Research, see [2]. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[11] National Institute for Literacy, see Institute for Literacy. U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[12] National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, see [3]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Retrieved 7/22/07.

[13] NICHY Research to Practice Database, see Letter from Secretary. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[14] Promising Practices Network, see Practices Network. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[15] Results for Kids Resources, see [4], IDEA Partnership. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[16] What Works Clearinghouse, see works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 7/22/07.

[EdU-17] Educational Underwriters, Inc., retrieved 2007 June 27 {{citation}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

[18] [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement]

[19] (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[20] Mizell, H. (2003) NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity? Retrieved 6/7/07.

[21] No Child Left Behind. Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005. New York State Education Agency. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[22] (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[23] (2007) NCLB Shortcomings. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Retrieved 18 March 2007.

[24] (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. FactCheck.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[25] Haney, W. (nd) Evidence on Education under NCLB (and How Florida Boosted NAEP Scores and Reduced the Race Gap). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Education Policy. Lynch School of Education. Boston College. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[26] (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved 15 September 2007.

[27] (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[28] (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[29] "Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales". NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. June 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-08. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)

[30] (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[depted-31] "No Child Left Behind and Faith-Based Leaders". United States Department of Education. Retrieved 2007-06-28.

[edjournal-32] "No Child Left Behind's Faith-Based Initiative Provision and the Establishment Clause". Journal of Law and Education. Retrieved 2007-06-28. {{cite web}}: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher= (help)

[33] (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. SusanOhanian.org. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[34] Ryan, J. (2004) The Perverse Incentives of No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[35] "The Genius Problem" by John Cloud, Time, 27 July 2007, pp 40-46

[36] Crawford, J. (nd) [http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/NABE_on_NCLB.pdf No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners]. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[37] (2003) Major NCLB Problems.

[38] Trickey, H. (2006) No child left out of the dodgeball game? CNN.com. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[39] Trickey, H. (2006)

[40] Lynch, Robert L. (2007) No Child Left Behind Act wrongly left the arts behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.

[41] Associated Press (2007) Schools Boost Focus On Math And Reading. Retrieved 15 September 2007.

[42] National Education Association (2003) Cuts Leave More and More Public School Children Behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.

[43] Washington Post (2004) 'No Child' Law Leaves Schools' Old Ways Behind. Retrieved 15 September 2007.

[44] Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[45] Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[46] (nd) SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[47] (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved 7 June 2007.

[48] EdAccountability.org website.

[49] (nd) Leaving No Child Left Behind: States charged with implementing Bush’s national education plan balk at the cost of compliance. The American Conservative. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[50] (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[51] Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.

[52] (nd) Fact Sheet on Education. House of Representatives. Retrieved 3/18/07.

[53] NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.

[54] Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[16]

[17]

[18]

[19]

[20]

[21]

[22]

[23]

[24]

[25]

[26]

[27]

[28]

[29]

[30]

[31]

[32]

[33]

[34]

[35]

[36]

[37]

[38]

[39]

[40]

[41]

[42]

[43]

[44]

[45]

[46]

[47]

[48]

[49]

[50]

[51]

[52]

[53]

[54]