No Child Left Behind Act: Wikis


Note: Many of our articles have direct quotes from sources you can cite, within the Wikipedia article! This article doesn't yet, but we're working on it! See more info or our list of citable articles.

Did you know ...

More interesting facts on No Child Left Behind Act

Include this on your site/blog:


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
Full title An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.
Acronym / colloquial name NCLB
Enacted by the 107th United States Congress
Effective January 8, 2002
Public Law 107-110
Stat. 30 Stat. 750, 42 Stat. 108, 48 Stat. 986, 52 Stat. 781, 73 Stat. 4, 88 Stat. 2213, 102 Stat. 130 and 357, 107 Stat. 1510, 108 Stat. 154 and 223, 112 Stat. 3076, 113 Stat. 1323, 115 Stat. 1425 to 2094
Act(s) amended Adult Education and Family Literacy Act
Age Discrimination Act of 1975
Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act of 1994
Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988
Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998
Civil Rights Act of 1964
Communications Act of 1934
Community Services Block Grant Act
Department of Education Organization Act
District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999
Education Amendments of 1972
Education Amendments of 1978
Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999
Education for Economic Security Act
Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993
General Education Provisions Act
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Higher Education Act of 1965
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act
Internal Revenue Code of 1986
Johnson-O'Malley Act of 1934
Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997
McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987
Museum and Library Services Act
National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977
National and Community Service Act of 1990
National Child Protection Act of 1993
National Education Statistics Act of 1994
National Environmental Education Act of 1990
Native American Languages Act
Public Law 88-210
Public Law 106-400
Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980
Rehabilitation Act of 1973
Safe Drinking Water Act
School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994
State Dependent Care Development Grants Act
Telecommunications Act of 1996
Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1987
Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976
Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century
Workforce Investment Act of 1998
Legislative history
Major amendments

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [1][2] (often abbreviated in print as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nicklebee")[3] is a United States Act of Congress that was originally proposed by the administration of President George W. Bush immediately after taking office.[4] The bill, shepherded through the Senate by Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's sponsors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.[5] The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384-45),[6] and United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91-8).[7] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. 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. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.[8]


Favorable claims

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Improved test scores

The Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:[9]

  • 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 black and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
  • Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and black 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)..

Many argue that these statistics are misleading. They compare 2005 with 2000, when No Child Left Behind didn't even take effect until 2003. They point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 was roughly the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which calls into question how any increase can be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some of the subgroups are cherry-picked -- that in other subgroups scores remained the same or actually fell. [10]

Improvement over local standards

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.[11] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, because 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 (AYP).[12] States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as a result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states, and the District of Columbia at ninety-eight percent of its schools, achieving the No Child Left Behind Standards.[13]

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.[14] 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 students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".[15] Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself.[15] 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

  • Ideally, increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance
  • Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "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 [9].
  • Emphasizes reading, writing, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects".

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.
  • 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.


As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and Congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education funding. Title I funding to districts for disadvantaged children increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004.[16] A new $1 billion Reading First program was created, distributing funds to local schools to improve the teaching of reading, and over $100 million for its companion, Early Reading First.[17] Numerous other formula programs received large increases as well. This was consistent with the administration's position of funding formula programs, which distribute money to local schools for their use, and grant programs, where particular schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.[18]

Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB, is administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states in turn reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004-05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and math, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs. [19]

In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money. [20]

The NCLB increases were companions to another massive increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed very large increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at the same time as the NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, a state formula-funding program that distributes money to local districts for the education of students with disabilities, was increased from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004.[21] Because a district's and state's performance on NCLB measures depended on improved performance by students with disabilities, particularly students with learning disabilities, this 60 percent increase in funding was also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation.

Public perception of public education

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


The desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the act per se, because it applied to all states making it difficult to infer what would have happened without the act. However, analyses of the state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that accountability for outcomes led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems.[22] The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact.[23] 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 shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.[24]

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 employ "creative reclassification" of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[25]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.[26]

The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.[27] Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[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]

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.[30] 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 class time 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."

Moreover, many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" actually misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State and Michigan) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two-thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two points.[31] Wiggins and McTighe blamed the low success rate on teachers who correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present rote knowledge/skill items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.

The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students.[32] For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers to speak.[33]

The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[34]

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.[35]

Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students

Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts. In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[36] 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, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement.

State refusal to produce non-English assessments

All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English-language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for 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). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[37]

Many schools test or assess students with limited English proficiency even when the students are exempt from NCLB-mandated reporting, because the tests may provide useful information to the teacher and school. In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exemption comprises a majority of young students.

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.[38]

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.[39][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] These restraints may have affected humanities and social studies curricula as well. Common Core, a group that encourages a broad inclusive curriculum, recently found that many American high school students lack basic knowledge in history, civics, and literature. The group blamed NCLB for not including these topics in its focus.[44]

Narrow definition of research

Some school districts and researchers object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, ethnographies, clinical interviews, discourse analysis, grounded theory, action research, teaching experiments, design research and 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.[45]

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, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it. The states that choose not to receive funding will have their taxes used in another state instead.[46]

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. If the school refuses to provide the information, that school can lose all of its federal funding until it provides such information. [47] 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.[48][49] 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. Section 9528 of the NCLB also states that military recruiters are permitted to speak to students as well as take them to various military functions, provide transportation to/from a recruiting office and to the school of the student and from school to the registered home address of the student as long as the student is of the age of 17 and the student provides consent.

Variability in student potential and 100% compliance

The Act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. 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.[50] 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 students that have below-average capabilities, such as students with mental retardation.

In fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.[51] Students who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and who are assessed must receive the accommodations specified in the IEP during assessment; if these accommodations do not change the nature of the assessment, then these students' scores are counted the same as any other student's score. Common acceptable changes include extended test time, testing in a quieter room, translation of math problems into the student's native language, or allowing a student to type answers instead of writing them by hand.

Simply being classified as having special education needs does not automatically exempt students from assessment. Most students with mild disabilities or physical disabilities take the same test as non-disabled students.

In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act.[52] States are given broad discretion in selecting alternate assessments. For example, a school may accept an Advanced Placement test for English in lieu of the English test written by the state, and simplified tests for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) and Virginia Grade Level Alternative (VGLA) options, for example, are portfolio assessments.[53]

Organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or LEP students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Opponents say that testing students with disabilities violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by making students with disabilities learn the same material as non-disabled students .[54]


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 critics claim that extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by increased levels of federal NCLB funding. Others note that funding for the law increased massively following passage[55] and that billions in funds previously allocated to particular uses could be reallocated to new uses. Even before the law's passage, Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted ensuring that children are educated remained a state responsibility regardless of federal support:

Washington is willing to help [with the additional costs of federal requirements], as we've helped before, even before we [proposed NCLB]. But this is a part of the teaching responsibility that each state has. ... Washington has offered some assistance now. In the legislation, we have ... some support to pay for the development of tests. But even if that should be looked at as a gift, it is the state responsibility to do this.

Various early Democratic supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming 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."[57] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association:

In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy.

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 during the Bush Administration, 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.[59] Advocacy groups note that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal allotted $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from the year before. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is.[60] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, these claims focused on reallocated funds, as each of President Bush's proposed budgets increased funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including his final 2009 budget proposal. [61]

Members of Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. 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. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period[62] and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001-02 through 2006-07.[63]

State education budgets

According to the book, NCLB Meets School Realities, the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states.[64] While states were being forced to make budget cuts, including in the area of education, they had to incur additional expenses to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funding they received from the federal government in support of NCLB was not enough to cover the added expense necessary to adhere to the new law.

Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind[65] 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".[66]

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.[67] 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 goals 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
  • Parental involvement and empowerment

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal.[68] It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

See also


  1. ^ Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, enacted January 8, 2002.
  2. ^
  3. ^ "In an world if Nicklebee ideology dictated how things were, everyone across all demographics and in all nations would have easy access to a good education.", in a letter from the President of
     "The Federal Government's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB — dubbed 'nicklebee')", Sandra Nichols (April 26, 2003), When NCLB Standards Meet Reality,,, retrieved 2008-11-17 
  4. ^
  5. ^ To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind., Library of Congress,+2001-03-22,, retrieved 2008-09-16 
  6. ^ Final vote results for roll-call 145,, May 23, 2001,, retrieved 2008-04-28 
  7. ^ Senate roll call vote
  8. ^ U.S. Department of Education. "Press Releases", 2006-02-06. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  9. ^ (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  10. ^ Linda Perlstein, Tested
  11. ^ Mizell, H (2003). "NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity?". Retrieved 2007-06-07. 
  12. ^ "Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005: No Child Left Behind Act". New York State Education Agency. 2005. Retrieved 2007-06-07. 
  13. ^ "NPR and Newshour 2008 Election Map: More about Wisconsin". 
  14. ^ (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  15. ^ a b "Charting the Course: States Decide Major Provisions Under No Child Left Behind". U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 2008-04-09. 
  16. ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal [1].
  17. ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal [2]
  18. ^ Archived:Introduction: No Child Left Behind, US Department of Education,, retrieved 2009-02-23 
  19. ^ Support the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program Restore Funding to $496 million FY 05 Level, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA),, retrieved 2008-07-06 
  20. ^ Archived:Introduction: No Child Left Behind, US Department of Education,, retrieved 2009-02-23 
  21. ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal [3]
  22. ^ See the analyses of NAEP results in Martin Carnoy and Susanna Loeb, "Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis," Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis 24,no.4 (Winter 2002):305-331, and Eric A. Hanushek and Margaret E. Raymond, "Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?" Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 24,no.2 (Spring 2005):297-327.
  23. ^ Center on Education Policy, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? Washington: Center on Education Policy, June 2007).
  24. ^ List of articles regarding NCLB debate
  25. ^ (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  26. ^ 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 June 7, 2007.
  27. ^ (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  28. ^ (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved November 10th, 2008.
  29. ^ Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales. NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. June 2007. Retrieved 2007-06-08. 
  30. ^ (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  31. ^ Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, 2nd Edition. ASCD. ISBN 978-1-4166-0035-0. p. 42-43
  32. ^ Cohen, L. G. & Spenciner, L. J. (2007). Assessment of children & youth with special needs. (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  33. ^ Statement of Patti Ralabate, National Education Association, August 2, 2006,, retrieved 2008-04-28 
  34. ^ (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  35. ^ (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  36. ^ Cloud, John. Are We Failing Our Geniuses? from Time, July 27, 2007, pp 40-46. Retrieved April 6, 2009.
  37. ^ Crawford, J. (nd) No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  38. ^ (2003) Major NCLB Problems.
  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 September 15, 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 September 15, 2007.
  44. ^ What High Schoolers Don't Know. Retrieved 4/24/08.
  45. ^ Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  46. ^ Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  47. ^ AR 601-210, ARCR 611-4
  49. ^ (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  50. ^ website.
  51. ^ "Doing Your Homework: Answering Questions about Support for NCLB by Sue Heath - Wrightslaw". Retrieved 2008-03-06. 
  52. ^ "VDOE :: No Child Left Behind - NCLB, Understanding AYP". Retrieved 2008-03-06. 
  53. ^ “Terminology” Virginia Department of Education website
  54. ^ [4] Harper, Liz. “No Child Left Behind’s Impact on Specialized Education”. Online NewsHour. August 21, 2005. 20 February 2009.
  55. ^ [5] U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Budget Table. 2006. 7 April 2009.
  56. ^ "Frontline. Testing Our Schools". 
  57. ^ (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.
  58. ^ "Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively". FactCheck. 2004. Retrieved 2007-12-29. 
  59. ^ (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  60. ^ Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.
  61. ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal [6].
  62. ^ [7] U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Budget Table. 2006. 7 April 2009.
  63. ^ National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2007. [8]
  64. ^ Sunderman, Gail L.; James S. Kim, Gary Orfield (2005). NCLB meets school realities: lessons from the field. Corwin Press. p. 10. ISBN 1412915554.,M1. 
  65. ^ "Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act". 2004-10-21. Retrieved 2008-01-03. 
  66. ^ NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  67. ^ Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.
  68. ^ "Forum on Educational Accountability". Retrieved 2008-01-03. 

External links

Law and regulations

NCLB Data Management Systems

Administration comments

Interest groups

Source material

Up to date as of January 22, 2010

From Wikisource

Symbol comment vote.svg This page has moved.
The text of this page has been moved to "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001". If you found this page by following a link, please go back and update it, or notify the webmaster.

Simple English

The No Child Left Behind Act is a United States law that was to help students meet higher standards. This law started during President George W. Bush's time in the White House. President Bush made the law official on January 8, 2002. Schools around the US now have to test their students. If they don't, the schools risk losing funds given to them by the federal government. Some parts of this rule include bilingualism standards. All students must be on at least a proficient level(B+)by the 2013-14 school year.

Since the law started, Congress gave more money to schools from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.[1]


  1. U.S. Department of Education. "Press Releases", 2006-02-06. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.

Got something to say? Make a comment.
Your name
Your email address