What was the primary purpose of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001?

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a United States federal law that aimed to improve student outcomes by promoting standards-based education reform. Its core premise was that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could lead to improved individual results in education. The act sought to close achievement gaps by ensuring accountability, flexibility, and choice in schools.

When was the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) enacted into law in the United States?

The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted into law on January 8, 2002, by President George W. Bush.

What existing federal legislation did the No Child Left Behind Act reauthorize?

The No Child Left Behind Act reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which had been signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. NCLB specifically included and updated the Title I provisions of the ESEA, which focus on providing resources to disadvantaged students.

What was the colloquial acronym commonly used for the No Child Left Behind Act?

The common colloquial acronym used for the No Child Left Behind Act is NCLB.

What was the long title of the No Child Left Behind Act, reflecting its core objective?

The long title of the No Child Left Behind Act was "An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind." This title clearly outlines the law's central goals of improving educational outcomes for all students and ensuring accountability in the process.

What was the significance of the 1983 report "A Nation at Risk" in the context of educational reform leading to NCLB?

The 1983 report "A Nation at Risk," published by President Ronald Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education, highlighted concerns about the state of the American education system. It suggested that the nation's economic security was threatened by declining educational standards and called for a reorientation of the system with higher academic expectations for students, contributing to the momentum for federal educational reform.

How did international education policy trends influence the focus on standards and accountability in the U.S. with the passage of NCLB?

Following World War II, international organizations like UNESCO, the World Bank, and the OECD increasingly focused on global educational development, emphasizing learning outcomes and evaluation against defined performance standards. The NCLB Act of 2001 reflected this global movement towards greater accountability in education by incorporating similar principles of setting standards and measuring performance.

What was the initial criticism leveled against the NCLB proposal concerning the use of vouchers for school choice?

Initially, the NCLB proposal included provisions for vouchers, which would allow parents to choose alternative schools if their district failed to meet state standards. Critics, such as those from the Education Trust, argued that this approach would divert much-needed funds from schools that were already struggling and required the most support.

Who were the key legislative sponsors who co-authored the No Child Left Behind Act in Congress?

The No Child Left Behind Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Representatives John Boehner and George Miller, and in the Senate by Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg, indicating significant bipartisan collaboration on the legislation.

What were the main goals of the No Child Left Behind Act as stated by the Department of Education?

According to the Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act aimed to increase school accountability for student educational outcomes and reduce the disparities in achievement between lower-performing and higher-performing students and districts. It sought to ensure that all students, regardless of background, received a quality education.

What did the NCLB Act mandate for federally funded public schools regarding annual student testing?

The NCLB Act mandated that all federally funded public schools administer standardized tests annually to students in specific grade levels. This requirement was central to the act's focus on accountability, providing data to measure student progress and school performance.

Explain the concept of "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) as established by the No Child Left Behind Act.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was a key component of NCLB, requiring schools receiving Title I funding to demonstrate annual improvement in student test scores. This progress was measured across all students and specific subgroups, with the ultimate goal of all students reaching proficiency within 12 years. States developed their own objectives and standards for AYP.

What were the escalating consequences for schools that repeatedly failed to meet AYP targets under NCLB?

Schools failing to meet AYP targets faced increasing sanctions. After two consecutive years of missing targets, they were labeled "In Need of Improvement" and required to develop an improvement plan, potentially allowing students to transfer. Further failures led to mandatory free tutoring, corrective actions like staff replacement or curriculum changes, and eventually, restructuring options such as closure or conversion to a charter school.

What specific requirements did NCLB impose on states for developing their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) objectives?

NCLB required states to establish statewide measurable objectives for improving student achievement for all students and for specific subgroups (economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, limited English proficiency). These objectives were to aim for all students to be proficient within 12 years, based primarily on state assessments plus one additional academic indicator, and were to be reported separately for each subgroup.

What was the ultimate proficiency goal set by NCLB for all students in reading and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year?

The No Child Left Behind Act set an ambitious goal for all students to reach the "proficient" level or above in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year. This meant that states had to ensure that 100% of their students met the established proficiency standards within this timeframe.

How did NCLB define "highly qualified" teachers, and what flexibility did it offer states in this definition?

NCLB required states to ensure all students were taught by "highly qualified" teachers. While the law mandated that teachers generally needed a bachelor's degree, full certification, and subject matter knowledge, it allowed states to set their own specific standards for what constituted "highly qualified." Existing teachers could meet these requirements through state-determined standards, often referred to as HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation).

What was the "safe harbor" provision within NCLB, and what did it represent for future assessment methods?

The "safe harbor" provision allowed school districts to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that did not meet state minimum achievement standards, by meeting certain criteria. This provision was seen as a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessment models, which focus on student improvement over time rather than just absolute proficiency levels.

What was the definition of "scientifically based research" as mandated by the No Child Left Behind Act for educational programs?

The No Child Left Behind Act defined "scientifically based research" as research employing rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to yield reliable and valid knowledge relevant to educational activities and programs. This research was expected to produce replicable findings and empirical conclusions about effective teaching methods and programs.

How did NCLB's emphasis on standardized testing in core subjects potentially impact the curriculum and instruction in other areas like arts and electives?

NCLB's primary focus on reading and mathematics, driven by accountability measures and testing, led some schools to reduce instructional time or resources for subjects not included in the accountability standards, such as history, arts, language, and music. This narrowing of the curriculum was a significant criticism of the act, especially during budget constraints.

What criticisms were raised regarding the "teaching to the test" phenomenon associated with the accountability measures in NCLB?

Critics argued that NCLB's emphasis on standardized testing encouraged teachers to "teach to the test," focusing narrowly on skills measured by the exams rather than fostering deeper understanding of the broader curriculum. This approach, while potentially raising test scores, was seen by some as limiting effective instruction and student learning.

How did NCLB's accountability system potentially create challenges for schools that were showing improvement but had not yet reached the "proficient" level for all students?

Under NCLB, schools were held accountable for all students reaching a "proficient" level, even if the school was making significant progress. This meant that schools demonstrating improvement could still be labeled as "failing" if they did not meet the absolute proficiency targets, which critics argued could be demotivating and counterproductive.

What were the arguments that the 100% proficiency goal of NCLB was unrealistic or unattainable for all students?

Critics argued that the goal of 100% student proficiency by 2014 was unrealistic due to the inherent variability in student potential and learning capabilities. They pointed out that factors beyond a school's control, such as home life or individual learning differences, could affect test performance, making universal proficiency by a set deadline seem unattainable.

How did NCLB's focus on group accountability potentially conflict with the individualized approach required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)?

NCLB's emphasis on group-level Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) was seen by some as inconsistent with IDEA's core principle of providing individualized education plans (IEPs) tailored to each student with a disability. Critics worried that the focus on group scores might overshadow the specific needs and progress of individual students with disabilities, potentially leading schools to de-emphasize inclusion or support for these students.

What positive effects did NCLB and IDEA have on students with disabilities, according to organizations like the National Council on Disability?

Organizations like the National Council on Disability reported that NCLB and IDEA together positively influenced attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities. They noted that the inclusion of these students in state assessment and accountability systems made their academic progress more visible and prompted greater administrative review of assessments and accommodations, ultimately leading to more attention and resources for these students.

What were the criticisms regarding the funding levels provided for the No Child Left Behind Act?

A significant criticism of NCLB was that the federal funding allocated to support its mandates was insufficient to cover the additional expenses incurred by states and school districts. Critics, including some initial supporters like Senator Ted Kennedy, argued that the necessary funds were not provided, creating a "fantasy" where ambitious goals were set without adequate resources.

What argument did critics make about the federal government's funding for NCLB not fully covering the costs of its mandates?

Critics argued that while federal education funding increased significantly after NCLB's passage, these increases did not fully reimburse the additional costs schools incurred to comply with the law's new testing and accountability requirements. This funding shortfall meant schools often had to reallocate funds from other programs to meet NCLB goals.

What was Ted Kennedy's criticism regarding the implementation of NCLB reforms in relation to funding?

Senator Ted Kennedy, a key sponsor of the NCLB Act, criticized its implementation by stating, "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not." This highlighted the concern that the ambitious goals of the legislation were not being adequately supported by the necessary financial resources.

How did NCLB's requirements affect state education budgets, particularly during times of fiscal crisis?

The implementation of NCLB coincided with fiscal crises in many states, forcing budget cuts, including in education. Simultaneously, states had to incur additional expenses to comply with NCLB's new mandates. The federal funding provided for NCLB was often insufficient to cover these added costs, placing further strain on state education budgets.

What was the central message of the Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind regarding accountability?

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind, signed by over 135 organizations, called for major changes to the law. Its central message was that the law's emphasis should shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for implementing systemic changes that genuinely improve student achievement.

What reforms did the Obama administration propose in 2010 for the successor legislation to NCLB?

In 2010, the Obama administration proposed reforms for the successor to NCLB, suggesting a broader range of assessments to evaluate advanced academic skills beyond basic reading and math. The plan also aimed to reduce stringent accountability punishments by focusing more on student improvement and incorporating measures beyond standardized tests, while incentivizing student retention through graduation.

How did the Obama administration's proposed reforms aim to address criticisms of NCLB's stringent accountability punishments?

The Obama administration's proposed reforms sought to lessen NCLB's strict accountability punishments by shifting the focus towards student improvement and growth. This included developing more comprehensive assessment systems that captured a wider range of skills and providing states with more flexibility in how they measured progress, moving away from a sole reliance on standardized test scores.

What was the significance of President Obama granting waivers from NCLB requirements to several states starting in 2012?

Starting in 2012, President Obama granted waivers from certain NCLB requirements to several states. In exchange for this flexibility, these states agreed to raise standards, improve accountability, and implement essential reforms to enhance teacher effectiveness, signaling a move towards more state-level control over educational policies.

What legislation replaced the No Child Left Behind Act, and when was it signed into law?

The No Child Left Behind Act was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), which was signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015. This new legislation aimed to provide states with greater flexibility in setting their own standards for measuring school and student performance.

How does the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) differ from NCLB in terms of state flexibility and school accountability measures?

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) grants states more flexibility in setting their own standards for measuring school and student performance compared to NCLB's more prescriptive federal mandates. Notably, ESSA eliminates the mandatory labels for lower-performing schools that were part of NCLB and allows for different measures of school success, including graduation rates.

What was the impact of NCLB on the achievement gaps between different racial and ethnic minority student groups?

The NCLB Act aimed to narrow the racial and ethnic achievement gaps by establishing common expectations for all students. While studies showed some improvements in test scores, evidence regarding a significant narrowing of these gaps since NCLB's enactment was mixed. The law required schools to focus attention on traditionally underserved groups, which had not always been the case with previous accountability systems.

What did NCLB require regarding the attention paid to traditionally underserved student populations, such as low-income students and students with disabilities?

NCLB mandated that schools and districts pay specific attention to the academic achievement of traditionally underserved student populations. This included low-income students, students with disabilities, and students from major racial and ethnic subgroups. This requirement aimed to ensure that disparities in educational outcomes for these groups were identified and addressed.

What issue arose concerning states' practices in testing English language learners under NCLB?

Under NCLB, English language learners were generally given a three-year window to take assessments in their native language before demonstrating proficiency in English. However, many states opted not to provide native language assessments, testing most English language learners in English instead, which critics argued could under-report their learning progress.

What did a 2006 study reveal about the demographic composition of schools that failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)?

A 2006 study indicated that schools in California and Illinois that failed to meet Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) predominantly served minority students, with 75-85% minority populations. In contrast, schools that met AYP had significantly lower percentages of minority students, generally under 40%.

How did NCLB's accountability system potentially incentivize schools to manipulate test results or student classifications?

The system of incentives and penalties under NCLB created strong motivations for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results or statistics to avoid sanctions. This included practices like "creative reclassification" of high school dropouts to reduce unfavorable statistics, thereby improving reported AYP figures.

What were the arguments that the 100% proficiency goal of NCLB was unattainable due to variability in student potential?

Critics argued that the NCLB goal of achieving 100% student proficiency was unattainable because it did not adequately account for the natural variability in student potential and learning capabilities. They contended that some students might simply be unable to perform at the mandated grade level, regardless of teaching effectiveness, making the goal unrealistic.

How did NCLB's focus on standardized testing potentially affect the curriculum and instruction in subjects not directly assessed, such as history or the arts?

NCLB's strong emphasis on standardized tests in reading and mathematics led to concerns that schools might narrow their curriculum by reducing time and resources for non-assessed subjects like history, arts, and music. This shift aimed to maximize instructional time for subjects directly linked to accountability metrics, potentially limiting students' exposure to a well-rounded education.

What was the "Reading First" program established by NCLB, and what was its intended purpose?

The "Reading First" program was a new initiative created by NCLB, funded at over $1 billion, designed to help states and local school districts implement "scientific, research-based" reading programs for children in kindergarten through third grade. Priority was given to high-poverty areas, aiming to improve early literacy skills.

What criticisms were raised about the adequacy of federal funding for NCLB initiatives?

A primary criticism was that the federal funding allocated for NCLB initiatives was insufficient to cover the costs associated with implementing its requirements, such as developing new tests and providing interventions. Critics argued that this funding gap hindered schools' ability to meet the law's ambitious goals, leading some to call the legislation underfunded.

What was the role of the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) under NCLB?

The Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) administered funds under NCLB for classroom technology, professional development for educators, and updated research. Funds were distributed to states, which then allocated them to local districts, with a significant portion dedicated to teacher training and technology integration aimed at improving student achievement.

What was the purpose of the "Mathematics and Science Partnerships" program under Title II of NCLB?

The Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) program, part of Title II of NCLB, aimed to improve student achievement in math and science. It achieved this by fostering partnerships between university science, math, and engineering departments and elementary and secondary school teachers, focusing on enhancing teachers' content knowledge and instructional performance.

How did NCLB's requirements for "highly qualified" teachers impact existing teachers versus new teachers?

NCLB extended the "highly qualified" teacher requirements beyond new hires to include existing teachers, including tenured staff. While new teachers typically needed a bachelor's degree, certification, and subject knowledge demonstration, existing teachers could meet the standard through the same requirements or a state-determined "High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation" (HOUSSE).

What were the arguments that NCLB's focus on standardized testing might lead to a narrowing of the curriculum?

Arguments against NCLB's reliance on standardized testing suggested that it could lead to a narrowing of the curriculum, as teachers might prioritize teaching only the specific skills and content measured by the tests. This phenomenon, known as "teaching to the test," could potentially limit students' exposure to broader educational concepts and critical thinking skills not directly assessed.

What was the "Race to the Top" initiative, and how did it relate to the Obama administration's approach to education reform?

The "Race to the Top" initiative was a $4.35 billion program launched by the Obama administration through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. It aimed to incentivize states to adopt innovative education reforms, including improving assessments and teacher evaluations, aligning with the administration's broader goals for education reform that sought to address NCLB's perceived shortcomings.

No Child Left Behind Act Wiki: The No Child Left Behind Act: Shaping American Education

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

When you are ready...
🎮 Play the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge Game🎮

Overview

Landmark Legislation

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a significant piece of U.S. federal legislation enacted in 2002. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), introducing substantial reforms focused on accountability and standards-based education.

Core Objective

NCLB aimed to close the achievement gap between students by establishing high standards and measurable goals. The premise was that setting clear expectations and assessing progress would improve educational outcomes for all students, particularly those in disadvantaged groups.

Federal Role

The Act expanded the federal government's role in public education by mandating annual testing, annual academic progress reporting, and specific teacher qualifications. While it did not set national standards, it required states to develop their own and ensure accountability.

Background

Precursors to NCLB

The foundation for NCLB was laid by earlier legislation and reports highlighting concerns about the U.S. education system. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 aimed to provide resources to low-income students but faced challenges in achieving its goals.

"A Nation at Risk"

The 1983 report "A Nation at Risk" warned that the nation's economic security was threatened by declining educational standards. It called for a significant reorientation of the education system and an increase in academic expectations for students.

Political Climate

Following the "A Nation at Risk" report and shifts in political sentiment, congressional Republicans began advocating for federal educational reforms emphasizing standardized testing and accountability. President George W. Bush also made bipartisan education reform a key campaign promise in the lead-up to the 2000 election.

Global Context

The focus on learning outcomes and evaluation procedures reflected a global trend. International organizations like UNESCO, the World Bank, and OECD were increasingly emphasizing accountability in education systems worldwide, influencing U.S. policy discussions.

Legislative History

From Proposal to Law

President Bush first proposed the core ideas of NCLB in January 2001. The bill, H.R. 1, was introduced in the House of Representatives in March 2001, with key co-sponsors including John Boehner, George Miller, Ted Kennedy, and Judd Gregg.

Bipartisan Passage

Despite facing challenges from both Democrats (seeking more funding) and Republicans (concerned about federal overreach), the Act garnered significant bipartisan support. It passed the House on December 13, 2001 (381-41) and the Senate on December 18, 2001 (87-10), before being signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002.

Key Provisions

Accountability and AYP

Schools receiving federal Title I funding were required to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores. This involved annual standardized testing in reading and math for students in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school.

AYP targets had to be met by all students and specific subgroups (economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities, limited English proficiency). The goal was 100% proficiency by 2013-14. Schools failing AYP for consecutive years faced increasing sanctions, including public labeling, improvement plans, offering school choice or tutoring, and potential restructuring or closure.

Teacher Quality

NCLB mandated that all teachers be "highly qualified," meaning they must hold a bachelor's degree, be fully certified, and demonstrate subject matter competency. States defined their own standards for "highly qualified," often including HOUSSE (High Objective Uniform State Standard of Evaluation) for existing teachers.

School Choice and Support

Schools failing to meet AYP for two or more consecutive years were required to offer students the option to transfer to higher-performing schools within the district. Students in schools failing for three years or more were entitled to free tutoring and supplemental educational services.

Research and Curriculum

The Act emphasized the use of "scientifically based research" for instructional methods and programs. It also designated reading, language arts, mathematics, and science as "core academic subjects," potentially impacting instructional time for other subjects.

Special Education Alignment

NCLB sought to align with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), requiring students with disabilities to be included in state assessments and accountability systems, with appropriate accommodations. This aimed to ensure these students received academic attention and resources.

Effects and Criticisms

Test Score Impact

Proponents pointed to improvements in NAEP scores, particularly for younger students and minority groups, as evidence of NCLB's positive impact. However, critics argued that score increases were modest, potentially due to states lowering standards or "teaching to the test," rather than genuine learning gains.

Curriculum Narrowing

A significant criticism was that the intense focus on standardized testing led schools to narrow the curriculum, reducing time and resources for subjects like arts, history, and music to prioritize tested subjects like reading and math. This also impacted gifted students, with federal funding for gifted education seeing a decline.

Unrealistic Goals

The mandate for 100% student proficiency by 2014 was widely criticized as unrealistic and unattainable, leading to pressure on schools to manipulate data or focus narrowly on test performance rather than holistic education. The law's group-based accountability measures also clashed with the individualized nature of IDEA for students with disabilities.

Racial Equity Concerns

While NCLB aimed to narrow achievement gaps, studies showed mixed results. Schools failing AYP often served higher percentages of minority students, raising concerns about the law's disproportionate impact. Furthermore, challenges arose regarding state refusal to produce non-English assessments for English language learners.

Funding

Federal Investment

The Bush administration and Congress supported significant increases in federal education funding during NCLB's tenure, with total funding rising from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $55.7 billion in 2004. Programs like Reading First and Enhancing Education Through Technology (EETT) received substantial allocations.

Funding Criticisms

Critics argued that the increased federal funding did not fully cover the costs associated with NCLB's mandates, placing a strain on state and local budgets. Concerns were raised that authorized funding levels were not fully appropriated, leading to potential underfunding of essential reforms and programs.

Criticisms and Reform

Calls for Change

By 2015, bipartisan criticism of NCLB had intensified. Numerous organizations and policymakers called for major changes, advocating for a shift from sanctions for low test scores to supporting systemic improvements and accountability for achieving student success.

Reform Proposals

Proposals suggested moving beyond a narrow focus on test scores to include broader measures of student achievement, teacher effectiveness, and school improvement. Critics like Alfie Kohn argued the law was fundamentally flawed and should be scrapped entirely.

Obama Administration Reforms

Blueprint for Change

In March 2010, the Obama administration proposed reforms to the ESEA, aiming to address NCLB's shortcomings. Key elements included developing broader assessments beyond reading and math, focusing more on student improvement rather than strict penalties, and incentivizing student retention.

Waivers and Flexibility

Recognizing the challenges, the Obama administration began granting waivers from certain NCLB requirements starting in 2012. These waivers allowed states to implement alternative accountability systems that raised standards, improved teacher effectiveness, and focused on essential reforms.

Replacement

The Every Student Succeeds Act

In December 2015, the No Child Left Behind Act was officially replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA shifted more authority back to states, allowing greater flexibility in setting their own standards for school and student performance.

Key Differences

Unlike NCLB's rigid mandates, ESSA allows states to determine their own accountability measures, including how they define school success and address underperforming schools. It also incorporates graduation rates and other indicators beyond standardized test scores.

Teacher's Corner

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

Edit and Print Materials from this study in the wiki2web studio

Click here to open the "No Child Left Behind Act" Wiki2Web Studio curriculum kit

Use the free Wiki2web Studio to generate printable flashcards, worksheets, exams, and export your materials as a web page or an interactive game.

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Learn about no_child_left_behind_act while playing the wiki2web Clarity Challenge game.

Unlock the mystery image and prove your knowledge by earning trophies. This simple game is addictively fun and is a great way to learn!

Play now

Explore More Topics

Discover other topics to study!

denudation

united states court of appeals for the fifth circuit

anathema

ko łobrzeg

b. h. liddell hart

bakdash ice cream parlor

References

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2004)

Nichols, S. L., Berliner, D. C., & Noddings, N. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Harvard Education Press.

Sanger, D. E. (2001, Jan 24). Bush pushes ambitious education plan: Would use U.S. aid to force schools to meet standards. New York Times (1923â).

Arlette Ingram Willis. (2019). Response to intervention: An illusion of equity. Language Arts, 97(2), 83â96.

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

(2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. Washington Post. Retrieved November 13, 2011.

United States. Public Law 107-110. 107th Congress, 2002.

Times Watchdog Report: No Child Left Behind on the way out, but not anytime soon. Retrieved August 12, 2010.

EdAccountability.org website.

No Child Left Behind Act#Provisions of the act

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act#Alignment with No Child Left Behind

Individualized Education Program

Cole, Cassandro (November 15, 2006) Report: No Child Left Behind is out of step with special education. Newsroom Indiana University

Rooney, Patrick et al. (June 2006) The Condition of Education 2006. U.S. Department of Education

U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal

U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Budget Table. 2006. 7 April 2009.

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

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

Weinstein, A. "Obama on No Child Left Behind Act", "Education.com, Inc." (2006).

Lowe, R. and Kantor, H. (2006). From New Deal to No Deal: No Child Left Behind Act and the Devolution of Responsibility for Equal Opportunity. 76:4. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Educational Review.

U.S. Department of Education "ESEA Blueprint for Reform", (2010).

Lohman, J. "Comparing No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top.", "OLR Research Report" (4 June 2010).

A full list of references for this article are available at the No Child Left Behind Act Wikipedia page

Feedback & Support

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer

Important Notice

This page was generated by an Artificial Intelligence and is intended for informational and educational purposes only. The content is based on a snapshot of publicly available data from Wikipedia and may not be entirely accurate, complete, or up-to-date.

This is not educational policy advice. The information provided on this website is not a substitute for professional consultation or analysis of educational policy. Always refer to official government documentation and consult with qualified experts for specific policy needs or interpretations.

The creators of this page are not responsible for any errors or omissions, or for any actions taken based on the information provided herein.

The No Child Left Behind Act

💡 Dive in with Flashcard Learning! 💡

Overview ℹ️

🏛️ Landmark Legislation

🎯 Core Objective

🌍 Federal Role

Background 📜

📚 Precursors to NCLB

🚨 "A Nation at Risk"

🇺🇸 Political Climate

🌐 Global Context

Legislative History ⏳

🗓️ From Proposal to Law

🤝 Bipartisan Passage

Key Provisions ⚖️

📊 Accountability and AYP

🧑‍🏫 Teacher Quality

🏫 School Choice and Support

🔬 Research and Curriculum

🤝 Special Education Alignment

Effects and Criticisms 📊

📈 Test Score Impact

📚 Curriculum Narrowing

❓ Unrealistic Goals

⚖️ Racial Equity Concerns

Funding 💰

💸 Federal Investment

📉 Funding Criticisms

Criticisms and Reform 🗣️

🔧 Calls for Change

💡 Reform Proposals

Obama Administration Reforms ⚙️

🔄 Blueprint for Change

🔑 Waivers and Flexibility

Replacement ➡️

📜 The Every Student Succeeds Act

⚖️ Key Differences

Teacher's Corner 🧑‍🏫

Edit and Print this course in the Wiki2Web Teacher Studio

True or False? 🤔

❓ Test Your Knowledge! ❓

Gamer's Corner 🎮

Are you ready for the Wiki2Web Clarity Challenge?

Explore More Topics

📜 Discover other topics to study!

References

📜 References

Feedback & Support 👍

To report an issue with this page, or to find out ways to support the mission, please click here.

Disclaimer ⚠️

📜 Important Notice

Dive in with Flashcard Learning!

Overview

Landmark Legislation

Core Objective

Federal Role

Background

Precursors to NCLB

"A Nation at Risk"

Political Climate

Global Context

Legislative History

From Proposal to Law

Bipartisan Passage

Key Provisions

Accountability and AYP

Teacher Quality

School Choice and Support

Research and Curriculum

Special Education Alignment

Effects and Criticisms

Test Score Impact

Curriculum Narrowing

Unrealistic Goals

Racial Equity Concerns

Funding

Federal Investment

Funding Criticisms

Criticisms and Reform

Calls for Change

Reform Proposals

Obama Administration Reforms

Blueprint for Change

Waivers and Flexibility

Replacement

The Every Student Succeeds Act

Key Differences

Teacher's Corner

True or False?

Test Your Knowledge!

Gamer's Corner

Discover other topics to study!

References

Feedback & Support

Disclaimer

Important Notice