Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind

Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind: Facts and Recommendations

Brian M. Stecher
Georges Vernez
with Paul Steinberg
Copyright Date: 2010
Published by: RAND Corporation
Pages: 96
https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.7249/mg977rc
  • Cite this Item
  • Book Info
    Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind
    Book Description:

    Studies suggest that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001's goal of 100 percent of U.S. students proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014 will not be met. The authors recommend more-uniform state academic standards and teacher requirements and broader measures of student learning, including more subjects and tests of higher-thinking and problem-solving skills.

    eISBN: 978-0-8330-4985-8
    Subjects: Education

Table of Contents

  1. Front Matter
    (pp. i-ii)
  2. Preface
    (pp. iii-vi)
  3. Table of Contents
    (pp. vii-x)
  4. Figure
    (pp. xi-xii)
  5. Executive Summary
    (pp. xiii-xviii)
  6. Acknowledgments
    (pp. xix-xx)
  7. Abbreviations
    (pp. xxi-xxii)
  8. CHAPTER ONE Introduction
    (pp. 1-12)

    When Congress passed theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB), it established an ambitious goal for the nation’s states, districts, and schools:All children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year.¹ How the federal government seeks to achieve this goal is multifaceted, but at its heart is a set of provisions related to performance-based accountability.

    While accountability for school performance has been part of previous federal legislation under the 1994 and 1998 reauthorization of theElementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965(ESEA),NCLBbuilds on this heritage, altering and expanding its...

  9. CHAPTER TWO How Did States Implement the NCLB Provisions?
    (pp. 13-22)

    As noted in Chapter One, states had a great deal of flexibility in how they chose to design and implement their programs to meetNLCB’s accountability requirements. Such flexibility included how states set their academic, proficiency, teacher quality, and LEP standards, as well as how they scaled proficiency targets and computed AYP.

    How states took advantage of this flexibility in implementing the provisions ofNLCBis the topic of this chapter.

    Content standards are a fundamental part ofNCLB(as they were inIASA), but, as noted in Chapter One,NCLBwent one step further thanIASAby requiring that...

  10. CHAPTER THREE How Did Districts and Schools Perform with NCLB in Place?
    (pp. 23-30)

    Establishing standards, assessments, and targets is only the first step in the performance-based accountability that is at the heart ofNCLB. These accountability tools are used by states (and the districts and schools within them) to determine whether, as the law mandates, they are progressing toward proficiency for all students in reading and mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year. School and district performance is assessed, and schools and districts that need to improve are identified.

    In this chapter, we present an overview of the key findings about how districts and schools performed in making or not making AYP, in...

  11. CHAPTER FOUR How Did Education Stakeholders Respond to Improve Student Performance?
    (pp. 31-48)

    As noted in Chapter Two, once assessments are performed, states, districts, schools, and teachers must take steps to improve and work toward achieving the overarching goal:All children will be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013–2014 school year. In this chapter, we examine how federal and state funds were allocated to support school and district improvements. We also examine the state and district technical assistance provided to schools and the actions taken by districts and schools to improve student performance and teacher qualifications. Finally, we examine how information about the status of schools is provided to all...

  12. CHAPTER FIVE How Did Parents Respond to the Services Provided?
    (pp. 49-54)

    As noted in Chapter One, a keyNCLBaim is to provide new educational options to parents whose children attend Title I schools that are not making adequate progress toward meeting state standards for all students. The first of these options is the opportunity for parents to transfer their child to another school in the district that has not been identified for improvement (i.e., public school choice). The second option is the opportunity for parents to enroll their child in SES—such as tutoring, remediation, or other academic instruction—offered by a state-approved provider and in addition to instruction provided...

  13. CHAPTER SIX How Can NCLB Be Made More Effective?
    (pp. 55-62)

    NCLBcontinued the federal government’s traditional focus on seeking to increase the achievement of the nation’s students who are most in need. In its means, however, it moved beyond previous legislation to include a stronger focus on judging schools in terms of student outcomes, creating strong accountability requirements (i.e., putting some real “teeth” in enforcing its provisions), using parental choice (and the marketplace as a whole) as drivers of improvement, paying attention to subgroup performance in measuring performance gains, requiring higher teacher qualification requirements, and basing school-improvement efforts on practices that had been shown to be effective through scientific testing....

  14. APPENDIX A Data Sources for This Report
    (pp. 63-64)
  15. APPENDIX B Abstracts of Reports
    (pp. 65-72)
  16. References
    (pp. 73-74)