Moderate gains have been made but at what cost?

  • The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement.
  • dissertation comment faire conclusion!
  • Introduction!

Our results suggest that NCLB led to increases in teacher compensation and the online gokkasten share of teachers with graduate degrees. We find evidence that NCLB shifted the allocation of instructional time toward math and reading, the subjects targeted by the new accountability systems. Skip to main content. Year of Publication:. The overall purpose of the Early Reading First Program is to prepare young children to enter kindergarten with the necessary language, cognitive, and early reading skills to prevent reading difficulties and ensure school success.

Funds are dedicated to help states and local school districts eliminate the reading deficit by establishing high-quality, comprehensive reading instruction in kindergarten through grade 3. Building on a solid foundation of research, the program is designed to select, implement, and provide professional development for teachers using scientifically based reading programs, and to ensure accountability through ongoing, valid and reliable screening, diagnostic, and classroom-based assessment.

School library media centers can contribute to improved student achievement by providing up-to-date instructional materials aligned to the curriculum and instructional practices, collaborating with and supporting teachers, administrators, and parents, and extending their hours of operation beyond the school day.

Site-wide navigation

RIF to provide, through aid to local nonprofit groups and volunteer organizations, reading motivation activities. Learn more.

Constitution for the states. Although it accounted for only 1.

No Child Left Behind and education outcomes: Research roundup - Journalist's Resource

While a state could have avoided the pressure of NCLB by foregoing its share of Title 1 funds, none chose to do so. Each school was required to make adequate yearly progress AYP toward the proficiency goal and was subject to consequences if it failed to do so. This AYP requirement applied not only to the average for all students in the school, but also to subgroups defined by economic, racial, and disability characteristics. Consistent with our federal system, states were to use their own tests and to set their own proficiency standards. The other concerns related to purported inefficiencies in the U.

I return to these concerns below with my overall evaluation of NCLB. Proponents expected NCLB to boost student achievement overall and to reduce gaps between disadvantaged student subgroups and their more advantaged counterparts. These tests have been given to nationally representative random samples of fourth and eighth graders throughout the country since the early s.

NAEP scores are comparable for students across the country, and, unlike high stakes tests at the state level, are not susceptible to teaching to the test. The dashed vertical line denotes the year NCLB was adopted.


  1. Origin of the No Child Left Behind Policy?
  2. is global climate change man-made argumentative essay.
  3. essays on healthy living lifestyles.
  4. As DeVos Approves Education Plans, She Finds Skeptics in G.O.P. Governors.
  5. medical malpractice research papers.
  6. values of philosophy essay.
  7. creating a thesis worksheet!
  8. Thus, these trends provide little or no support for the hypothesis that NCLB raised test scores. Of course, these trends alone do not account for what would have happened in the absence of NCLB.

    Republish this article

    Moreover, since it applied to all schools throughout the country and was introduced at a single point in time, there is no obvious control group to which one can compare the outcomes for those subject to NCLB. Different groups of researchers have used a variety of methods to explore the causal impacts.

    NCLB Flexibility Hearing: Jack Jennings

    To isolate the causal effects of NCLB, they make use of the fact that some states had introduced their own accountability systems in various years prior to the introduction of the national program. They view states that had no prior accountability system as the group that was treated by the federal law, with the others serving as the control group.

    They also find some positive effects by subgroup. Given the challenges of implementing a new program and the fact that education is a cumulative process, with outcomes in Grade 4 dependent in part on prior year achievement, any gains in seems far too early to attribute to NCLB. Other researchers come to quite similar conclusions.

    No Child Left Behind

    Building on the Dee and Jacob methodology, but with attention to the fidelity with which NCLB was implemented by individual states, Lee and Reaves find no significant effects that can be attributed to the law on either overall achievement in reading or math or on achievement gaps. Using a very different approach that focuses on the pressure schools face when they are in danger of failing and measuring achievement by low stakes test results from national ECLS surveys rather than the NAEP, Reback, Rockoff, and Schwartz find small positive effects in reading scores, but no statistically significant effects on math or science scores during the first 2 years of NCLB.

    The overall test score effects of NCLB are clearly disappointing. Moreover, its positive effects on certain subgroups in some grades and subjects were far from sufficient to move the needle much on test score gaps.

    No Child Left Behind Act

    Such gaps in NAEP scores remained high in Perhaps the most positive aspect of NCLB is that it generated huge amounts of data on student achievement in math and reading. The availability of rich data on all tested students, not just samples of students, has been a bonanza for educational researchers and policymakers alike. It is hard to overstate the significance for researchers in specific states of having test score data for all tested students that can be matched over time to other educational data on teachers and schools and that can be matched in some states to other large data sets such as those on vital statistics, higher education, and labor market outcomes.

    A second positive component of NCLB, especially in the eyes of civil rights groups, is that schools are held accountable not only for the aggregate test scores of their students but also for the average test scores of subgroups of students whom they might otherwise ignore.


    • the kid in the red jacket book report;
    • Connect with us?
    • self reflection essay guide.

    One possible problem, though, is that individual schools may not be the appropriate unit of accountability for subgroup performance. Students in the designated categories can still be ignored when there are too few of them in individual schools. Moreover, individual schools have fewer policy levers for improving the performance of subgroups than policymakers at the district level who set the rules under which students and teachers are allocated among schools and make decisions about the resources available to individual schools.