A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010

A Review of the empiRicAl liteRAtuRe on
no child left Behind fRom 2001 to 2010
In 2001, the U.S. congress signed the No Child Left Behind bill
into law. Arguably, this has been one of the most signiicant educational
reform policies of the 21st century. Much has been written about its effect
on students, teachers, curriculum, administrators and others. Nonethe-
less, a comprehensive review of the empirical studies on NCLB does not
exist within the extant scholarship on this topic. The purpose of this article
is to review the empirical literature related to NCLB and its effect on vari-
ous groups and at various levels of education from 2001 to 2010. Recom-
mendations for future research on this topic are presented as well.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is arguably the
most signiicant educational reform enacted in the United States in decades.
It has greatly inluenced the public discourse surrounding education and has
had a major effect on the daily workings of students, teachers, and admin-
istrators. The intent of this legislation is to hold schools accountable for de-
ined levels of student achievement each year. Further, NCLB required all
students to be proicient in reading and mathematics by the year 2014.
Since the onset of NCLB in 2001, much has been written in re-
gards to its effect on students, teachers, curriculum, administrators and other
stakeholders (e.g., Abbate-Vaughn, 2007a; Chen, Paige, & Bhattacharjee,
2004). The vast majority of this scholarship describes the negative effects of
NCLB. In addition, a signiicant portion of the scholarship on NCLB exists
as conceptual arguments based on previously conducted research in close-
ly related areas (i.e., standardized testing, school reform, direct instruction,
etc.). Given the fact that the deadline (2014) for all students to be proicient
in reading and mathematics passed a year ago, an inevitable question arises:
How has NCLB affected various groups within the ield of education? The
purpose of this paper is to review the empirical literature published from
2001–2010 related to NCLB and its effect on various groups within the ield
of education. To establish a contextual background for this review, we begin
with a brief discussion of the history of the No Child Left Behind legisla-
tion. Next, we discuss our methods for selecting articles for inclusion in this
literature review. Then, we discuss the effects of NCLB on teachers, student
achievement, administrators, and states. Finally, we conclude with recom-
mendations for future research into NCLB.
It is important to note here that NCLB was not reauthorized in
2007. Instead, President Barack Obama’s administration announced in
September 2011 that it would grant waivers to states that did not meet the
original NCLB requirements. Based on an approved application status,
Terry Husband & Carolyn Hunt
Planning and Changing
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254
212

states that did not meet the original NCLB requirements were permitted to
provide and implement an alternative accountability plan for student pro-
iciency. Currently, more that half of the states in the U.S. have applied
for and or received waivers from the original requirements of NCLB. Be-
cause many of the developments and realities surrounding these waivers
and alternative accountability plans are currently in progress, we purpose-
ly chose to focus our literature review between the years of 2001–2010.
history of the no child left Behind Act of 2001
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was passed with
wide bipartisan support as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Second-
ary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and was signed into law by President
George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. The overwhelming support, which in-
cluded high ranking politicians from both parties such as Senator Ted Ken-
nedy and Representative John Boehner, may have been due, in part, to lofty
rhetoric (Mathis, 2003) for it is dificult to disagree with the law’s laudable
goals of ensuring a high quality education for all and leaving no child behind
(Rentschler, 2005). President Bush appealed to this idealism in his proposal
to Congress stating, “We have a genuine national crisis. More and more, we
are divided into two nations. One that reads, and one that doesn’t. One that
dreams, and one that doesn’t” (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 1).
This emotional appeal served as the basis for NCLB, which intended to re-
pair a purportedly failing educational system through more targeted federal
regulations of educational funding (Mathis, 2003).
Despite the lofty goals of NCLB, there have been many obstacles to
successful implementation and frequent criticisms of the law (Klein, 2007;
Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Ravitch 2009; Rentschler, 2005). As such, when
the law came up for reauthorization in 2007, bipartisan support for the leg-
islation had waivered and there has yet to be an agreement for its reauthori-
zation. In 2011, the Obama administration released A Blueprint for Reform
(U.S. Department of Education, 2011b) in which they outlined proposals
for the reauthorization of ESEA, yet little progress has been made towards
reforming the law. Furthermore, an increasing number of schools are be-
ing labeled as failures under the strict guidelines of NCLB. In response,
the Obama administration has offered waivers of NCLB sanctions to states
that agree to adopt the administration’s college-and career-ready standards,
focus on the lowest achieving 15% of schools, and include student perfor-
mance in teacher evaluations (U.S. Department of Education, 2011a). Nev-
ertheless, NCLB remains in effect, albeit with less authority in the states that
have received waivers (McNeil, 2012). Below we outline the major compo-
nents of the law and briely explain the exceptions provided by the waivers.
A Review of the Empirical Literature on NCLB
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 213

four Key components
There are four key components embedded in NCLB (U.S. De-
partment of Education, 2002). The irst component concerns stronger ac-
countability. The law required all states to submit a single statewide ac-
countability plan to the department of Education by January 31, 2003.
This accountability plan had to include annual assessments in math and
reading in grades 3–8 and at least one assessment in grades 10–12. Science
assessments were added in the 2007/2008 school year. The tests must be
based on “challenging state standards” and results must be “disaggregat-
ed by poverty levels, race, ethnicities, and limited English proiciencies”
(U.S. DoE, 2002, p. 9). Each state was required to establish a deinition of
Adequately Yearly Progress (AYP) based on Annual Measurable Achieve-
ment Objectives (AMAOs), which ensure that 100% of students (includ-
ing those in subgroups) reach proiciency in reading in math by the year
2014. States were further required to establish intermediate progress tar-
gets and to review the progress of each school and district receiving Title
I funds. Schools are classiied as meeting AYP goals if they have met the
intermediate targets for student progress and have tested 95% of students
in subgroups. These accountability results must be disseminated through
the publication of local and state school report cards.
Schools who fail to meet annual AYP targets are subjected to pu-
nitive sanctions. Schools who do not meet AYP goals for two consecutive
years are identiied as “in need of improvement” and must provide trans-
portation for students who wish to attend a more successful school in the
district. In addition, schools identiied as “in need of improvement” must
spend at least 10% of their Title I funds on professional development for
teachers and administrators. Schools who fail to reach AYP goals for three
consecutive years must use 20% of their Title I funds to provide low-in-
come families with options for tutoring services from public or private
providers including faith-based organizations. Schools that do not meet
AYP targets for a fourth consecutive year are subject to corrective actions
such as the replacement of school staff, the adoption of new curriculum,
decreased principal authority, hiring outside consultants, or internal reor-
ganization of the school. If a school fails to make AYP for a ifth year, they
must “fundamentally restructure the school” (U.S. DoE, 2002, p. 18) by ei-
ther reopening as a public charter school, replacing all or most of the staff,
or turning the school over to the state or a private company. States that
have received waivers no longer need to meet 100% proiciency by 2014
and have greater lexibility in deining their annual achievement goals and
identifying schools as in need of improvement (U.S. DoE, 2011a).
A second key component of NCLB is greater lexibility in the use
of federal funds for states, school districts, and schools. As long as states
meet accountability requirements, they may transfer or consolidate grant
funds to be used for any purpose authorized by the Elementary and Sec-
Husband & Hunt
214

ondary Education Act. This provision is intended to offer greater lexibil-
ity and choice in how federal funding is used so that schools can address
their individual school improvement needs. States were also promised in-
creases in federal funding for school improvement from one- half percent
of Title I funds under the ESEA Act of 1994 to 2% under NCLB and in-
creasing to 4% in 2004 plus an additional $500 million for local school im-
provement grants (U.S. DoE, 2002).
A third key component of NCLB emphasizes “more choices for
the parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds” (U.S. DoE,
2002, p. 9). Parents of children in underperforming schools have the op-
tion to send their children to a better performing school in the district or
to a public charter school. Parents also have the right under the Unsafe
School Choice Option to transfer their children if a school is “persistently
dangerous” (U.S. DoE, 2002, p. 177). NCLB aims to increase school
choice by supporting existing charter schools and encouraging new char-
ter schools. After three years of underperformance, parents may choose to
enroll their children in supplemental support services (SES) supplied by
a list of state-approved organizations and vendors. Schools must prompt-
ly notify parents of their option to transfer to children to another school
or obtain supplemental services. Furthermore, under NCLB’s “Right to
Know Provision” (U.S. DoE, 2002, p. 15), schools must notify parents
annually of their right to request information about teachers’ professional
qualiications. School choice provisions and SES programs are no longer
mandatory under the administration’s waiver plan (Riddle, 2012).
The fourth key component of NCLB emphasizes the use of “teach-
ing methods that have been proven to work” (U.S. DoE, 2002, p. 9). This
provision of the law requires that all school improvement plans, profes-
sional development, and assistance for low-performing schools and all
Title I instruction be based on teacher strategies that have been proven
effective by rigorous “scientiically based research” (U.S. DoE, 2002, p.
13). NCLB narrowly deines scientiically based research as that which “is
evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which in-
dividuals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different condi-
tions and with appropriate controls” (Smith, 2003, p. 126). This deinition
of research excludes qualitative forms of educational research such as case
studies, ethnographic research, discourse analysis, and action research.
In addition to these four key components, NCLB places an em-
phasis on improving reading instruction for young children, enhancing
teacher quality, and ensuring that all children learn English (U.S. DoE,
2002). The improvement of reading instruction is primarily addressed
through the Reading First and Early Reading First programs, which pro-
vide additional grant funding to low-performing, high-poverty schools for
the purpose of implementing scientiically based research and profession-
al development to ensure that all children are reading at grade level by
third grade. The goal of enhancing teacher quality is addressed through
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 215

NCLB’s requirements for highly qualiied teachers. The law required that
states develop a plan to ensure that all teachers are highly qualiied by the
end of the 2005–2006 school year. NCLB deines highly qualiied teach-
ers as those who are fully certiied, possess a bachelor’s degree, and have
demonstrated competence in subject knowledge and teacher skills. Addi-
tionally, NCLB increases the professional standards for paraprofessionals
by requiring either two years of postsecondary education or the success-
ful completion of state or local academic assessments. NCLB also em-
phasizes that paraprofessionals should not provide instructional services
without the direct supervision of a highly qualiied teacher. In states with
waivers, districts no longer have to develop an improvement plan if they
do not meet targets for highly qualiied teacher but are instead required to
improve their teacher evaluation and support systems (U.S. DoE, 2011a).
As Congress and the Administration continue to debate possible
reforms for the next reauthorization of ESEA, it is timely to review the ef-
fects of NCLB over the last decade in an effort to make more informed
decisions as we move forward and draft new plans for ensuring a quality
education for all students. Moreover, this review can shed light on the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of general principles embedded within the law
such as high-stakes accountability, standardization, scientiically-based
research, and academic achievement, which may be found in other educa-
tional contexts across the globe.
methods
We began the search for relevant studies on the effects of NCLB
by mining through various electronic databases. Initially, we searched
through Academic Search, EBSCO ERIC, ERIC (OVID), and ERIC (U.S.
Department of Education) using the terms No Child Left Behind. This ini-
tial search yielded a total of 2,109 publications. We read through each of
the abstracts to determine if the study was empirical or conceptual in na-
ture. We deined empirical as studies that exist as irst hand investigations
on the effect or effect of NCLB. Adhering to the Council of the American
Educational Association (2006) standards for reporting research, we fur-
ther narrowed our selection to papers that (a) involved a formally articulat-
ed research design, (b) yielded some form of data, (c) emphasized NCLB
and its effect thereof as an explicit purpose, and (d) were published in a
peer reviewed publication outlet.
We included the irst three criteria to limit this review to litera-
ture on NCLB that was supported by evidence. This is signiicant because
a large amount of scholarship on NCLB consists of conceptual arguments
that are supported by previous research instead of irst-hand research into
the effects of NCLB. We included the inal criterion because there is a con-
siderable amount of scholarship into the effects of NCLB that is published
in non-peer reviewed outlets. Consequently, for the purposes of this re-
Husband & Hunt
216

view we only included relevant studies that had undergone a formal, rigor-
ous, peer-review process as a prerequisite for publication. Ultimately, this
selection/exclusion process limited the original 2,109 articles to a total of
128 articles that are included in this review.
Once we located all of the articles to be included in the review, we
began reading and annotating them. We used a template (See Appendix A)
that we developed to ensure consistency during the reading and annotation
processes. We read and annotated the articles between the fall semester
of 2010 to the summer of 2011. After annotating the articles, we engaged
in an open-ended coding process to identify the major themes and trends
within the literature. Next, we created categories for analyzing the stud-
ies and sorted each study into these categories based on similar and emer-
gent themes. The analytic categories we developed included: (a) Effects
of NCLB on teachers and teaching, (b) effects on students and student
achievement, (c) effects on administrators and school oficials, and (d) ef-
fects on state oficials and organizations. (See Appendix B)
Following this categorization process, we closely reviewed the
studies in each of the categories while attending to both the content and the
methods employed. In keeping with thematic analysis (Boyatzis, 1998),
we identiied themes within each category of studies. Then, we identiied
exemplary studies to represent the themes within each one. Finally, we be-
gan drafting the manuscript for publication.
This review does not claim to encapsulate the whole ield of schol-
arly literature addressing the topic of NCLB, as there are several books and
book chapters that we intentionally do not address in this review. In addition,
as Lieblich, Tuval-Mashiach, and Zilber (1998) contend, we believe that it
is impossible to create absolutely objective categories for organizing data.
Consequently, we do not argue that these are the only possible categories that
could be developed from the scholarly literature. Instead, we attempt to rec-
oncile this issue by making the methods we used within this review transpar-
ent. Furthermore, this review makes no reference to previous literature re-
views on this topic because no formal meta-analysis of NCLB exists to date.
Results
In the following section, we discuss the effects of NCLB as it per-
tains to the following groups of studies: teachers and teaching; student
achievement; school and district administrators; and state oficials and or-
ganizations. We reviewed a total of 128 articles concerning the effects of
NCLB on these groups of stakeholders. See Appendix B for a list of articles
included in the review for each category. Across these categories, we found
that NCLB has had far-reaching intended and unintended effects, both posi-
tive and negative, on a broad range of educational factors including teach-
er morale, instructional practices, administrative decisions, and student
achievement.
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 217

effects of nclB on teachers and teaching
Teachers and their everyday practices within classrooms have
been greatly affected by the implementation of NCLB over the past de-
cade. In this section, we discuss how the law has affected understandings
of teacher quality, teachers’sense of self-eficacy and morale, and their in-
structional decision-making and professional freedom.
teacher preparation and professional development. A signii-
cant number of studies examined how the notion of “Highly Qualiied”
teachers, as deined by NCLB, compares with practical notions of teacher
quality. While large numbers of teachers are deemed “Highly Qualiied” in
the primary content areas they are teaching, the notion of “Highly Quali-
ied” as deined in the law is often inconsistent with localized notions of
teacher quality (Blank, Langesen, Laird, Toye, & de Mellon, 2004; Boe,
Suijie, Cook, 2007; Choi, 2010; Eppley, 2009; Garcia,Agbemakplido,Ab-
della, Lopez, & Registe, 2006; Heck, 2007; Manning & Peterson, 2005;
Margolis, 2006; Roellke & Rice, 2008; Smith, 2008; Snow-Gerono, &
Franklin, 2006; Xuejin, Jianping, & Poppink, 2007). For example, in a
critical policy analysis of the “Highly Qualiied” provision of NCLB on
teacher quality in rural schools, Eppley (2009) found that the oficial dei-
nition of “Highly Qualiied” teachers relects a reductionist and quantii-
able conceptualization of teacher quality that is closely linked to the num-
ber of academic courses teachers have completed and levels of credentials
they have achieved rather than localized views and values about effective
teachers and teaching. As a result of this reductionist conceptualization of
teacher quality, many rural administrators were forced to make employ-
ment decisions based more on content knowledge than on knowledge and
understanding of the community and speciic school factors.
Other studies indicated that NCLB has led to an increased num-
ber of paraprofessionals who have achieved the “Highly Qualiied” status
as outlined in the law (Abbate-Vaughn, 2007a; Abbate-Vaughn, 2007b;
Wall, Davis, Winkler Crowley, & White, 2005). Notably, these studies also
found that many paraprofessionals chose alternative routes to achieving
“Highly Qualiied” status over attaining additional coursework or degrees.
For example, in an ethnographic study, Abbate-Vaughn (2007a) found that
all nine of the paraprofessionals who participated in his study elected to
participate in “local portfolio activities” in order to earn “Highly Qual-
iied” status when presented with the options of completing 60 college
credit hours, passing a commercial test for paraprofessionals, or demon-
strating knowledge of and ability through formal state and local assess-
ments. The participants explained that they selected this option to maintain
their current employment status.
Another line of research concerned how NCLB-centered profes-
sional development projects and programs affect teachers’ sense of self-
eficacy in the classroom. These studies found that many teachers who
Husband & Hunt
218

participated in NCLB related professional development projects and pro-
grams experienced an increased sense of self-eficacy (Chen, Paige, &
Bhattacharjee, 2004; Ciyer, Nagasawa, Swadener, & Patet, 2010; Eaton,
2005; Overbaugh, & Lu, 2008). For example, in a mixed-methods examina-
tion of the effects of the NCLB grant-funded Arizona System Ready/Child
Ready Early Childhood Professional Development Project (AzSRCR)
on the self-eficacy of 256 educators, Ciyer et al. (2010) found that the
teachers experienced signiicant increases in their sense of self-eficacy
related to teaching mathematics and reading. Additionally, the participants
reported an enhanced sense of pride and professionalism in their work
with young children.
teachers in underperforming, urban, and rural schools. Sev-
eral researchers focused on the effect of NCLB on teachers and teaching
in what is referred to as “underperforming” schools (Crocco, & Costigan,
2007; Floch, Taylor, & Thomsen, 2006; Gerstl-Pepin, & Woodside-Jiron,
2005; Karl et al., 2007; McQuillan & Salomon-Fernandez, 2008; Olsen &
Sexton, 2009; Stillman, 2009; Yeh, 2006). The term “underperforming” is
used within these studies to designate schools that have not reached their
AYP goals for two or more consecutive years. With the exception of a few
of these studies (e.g., Stillman, 2009; Yeh, 2006) indings indicated that
NCLB has: (a) created tension between teachers, (b) created a highly rigid
teaching environment, and (c) diminished teachers’ sense of professional
autonomy (Crocco, & Costigan, 2007; Floch et al., 2006; Gerstl-Pepin, &
Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Karl et al., 2007; McQuillan & Salomon-Fernan-
dez, 2008; Olsen & Sexton, 2009).
For example, in a qualitative study involving six teachers at one un-
derperforming high school in California, Olsen and Sexton (2009) identiied
four negative consequences of the NCLB law on teachers and their teaching
practices. First, the researchers found that teachers often experienced ten-
sions with each other as they worked toward fulilling various requirements
of the law. The teachers in the study often had competing perspectives on
how to increase student achievement. Next, the teachers reported feeling
overwhelming pressure to conform to the administrator’s vision, which in
most cases was closely aligned with the goals and objectives of the law. This
often created a highly structured and inlexible working climate. Third, the
teachers reported feeling that the law was jeopardizing their professional au-
tonomy. Further, they reported that the pressure to meet the requirements of
the law discouraged professional collaboration among teachers.
In many cases, the designation of “underperforming” had a negative
effect on urban teachers’ sense of morale and job satisfaction (Byrd-Blake
et al., 2010; Price, 2010). For example, through quantitative and qualitative
surveys administered to 96 teachers in an urban school district, Byrd-Blake
et al. (2010) reported that many urban teachers experienced less content-
ment with their work as a result of NCLB. The teachers identiied the fol-
lowing consequences of NCLB that led to a gradual deterioration in their
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 219

levels of job satisfaction: (a) increased pressure for students to demonstrate
achievement outcomes on standardized tests, (b) lack of parental involve-
ment, (c) little or no concern with disciplinary issues, (d) frustration over
teaching students who are performing signiicantly below grade level, (d)
increased amounts of paperwork to complete for data purposes, (e) pressure
to complete the curriculum at a faster pace, and (f) lack of enrichment or ex-
tracurricular activities. Much like urban teachers and teachers in underper-
forming schools, Powell, Higgins, Aram and Freed (2009) pointed out that
NCLB has had a negative effect on rural teachers’instructional and curricu-
lar practices. In a survey involving 76 rural teachers in Maine and 101 rural
principals in Missouri, these researchers found that NCLB led to an increase
in the amount of time spent on reading instruction at the expense of science
instruction. Moreover, while NCLB led to increases in the amount of re-
sources that were available to teachers, these resources consisted of mostly
basal textbooks. Many of the teachers in this study argued that NCLB con-
tributed to more teachers leaving the teaching profession by devaluing their
professional knowledge base and skills.
Teachers of speciic content areas. Within our review, we found
that teachers are often required to change their instructional practices and
priorities in order to comply with NCLB. For instance, several research-
ers highlighted how NCLB has inluenced the quantity and quality of so-
cial studies and science instruction in P–12 classrooms (Grifith & Schar-
mann, 2008; McMurrer, 2008; Rock et al., 2006). With the exception of
one study (e.g., Krumenaker, 2009), researchers found that teachers spent
less time teaching social studies and science due to on-going pressures to
increase student performance on reading and math assessments (Grifith
& Scharmann, 2008; McMurrer, 2008; Rock et al., 2006). For example,
Rock et al. (2006) administered qualitative and quantitative interviews to
320 elementary teachers in North Carolina and found that nearly 56% of
the teachers spent less time on social studies instruction than they did prior
to NCLB. In addition, many of the teachers reported that most of the “pull-
outs” for reading, writing, and math interventions associated with NCLB
occurred during the time allotted for social studies instruction. Moreover,
they taught social studies only two or three times per week or alternated
social studies instruction with science instruction each week.
NCLB has also affected the instructional practices of ESL and bi-
lingual teachers. Researchers argued that NCLB has dramatically altered
the nature of many ESL teachers’professional responsibilities (Harper, De
Jong, & Platt, 2008; Lapayese, 2007). For instance, through qualitative in-
terviews with 52 ESL teachers in Florida, Harper et al. (2008) found that
many ESL teachers have shifted their instructional foci from English lan-
guage development to the teaching of intensive reading skills and strate-
gies in order to fulill the requirements of Reading First Programs. Simi-
larly, Lapayese (2007) found that NCLB had a negative effect on bilingual
teachers with regard to issues of racial equity and justice. In a qualitative
Husband & Hunt
220

investigation involving ive bilingual Latina/o teachers in four schools in
Southern California, Lapayese found that NCLB requirements discour-
aged many teachers from using Spanish in classrooms with Spanish speak-
ing students. Due to requirements embedded within the law, English was
considered to be the only appropriate language within formal instructional
contexts. Interestingly, many of the teachers in the study perceived these
requirements of the law to be overtly racist and therefore continued to use
Spanish in their classrooms.
Studies demonstrated that general education teachers have also
felt pressure to alter their reading and writing instructional practices. Es-
sentially, NCLB had led to the adoption and implementation of more for-
mal, scripted reading programs in many schools (McIntyre et al., 2005;
Pease-Alvarez & Samway, 2008), although teachers often differed in how
they implement these formal scripted programs (McIntyre et al., 2005).
For example, in a qualitative investigation involving 35 classrooms over
a two-year period of time, McIntyre et al. (2005) found that teachers had
low implementation idelity of the reading programs that were adopted by
their schools. More speciically, across all four adopted reading programs
(Four Blocks, Literacy Collaborative, Success forAll, Reading Recovery),
teachers varied greatly in terms of the foci of their instructional practices.
Similarly, McCarthey (2008) found that NCLB has had a direct
effect on what constitutes writing instruction in both “high-income” and
“low-income” schools. Through interviews and observations with 18 third
and fourth grade teachers in six schools in Illinois, McCarthey identiied
the following consequences of NCLB on teachers’ writing practices: (a)
an increased focus on testing, (b) curriculum narrowing, (c) an increased
awareness of lower achieving students, and (d) an increased concern for
English language learners. Importantly, while the teachers in the high-in-
come schools criticized aspects of NCLB, they were shielded from many
of its effects because they were teaching in a high-performing school. Mc-
Carthey further noted a wide range of approaches to writing instruction.
Five teachers used a writer’s workshop approach, three teachers used an
integrated approach to writing curriculum, ive teachers used a genre ap-
proach to writer’s workshop, and ive teachers used packaged programs or
basal texts with writing components included.
Researchers have also documented how NCLB has affected the
professional development and instructional practices of teachers of the
arts (e.g., music, visual art, etc.). Although NCLB led to a signiicant in-
crease in professional development among Arts teachers, the amount of
instructional time spent on arts education decreased drastically in order to
meet various requirements of the law (Amrein-Beardsley, 2009; Conway,
Hibbard, Albert, & Hourigan, 2005; McMurrer, 2008; Spohn, 2008). For
example, through a series of qualitative interviews with six arts educa-
tors in a rural area in Ohio, Spohn (2008) found that instructional time in
the arts was reduced to accommodate NCLB requirements. Many students
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 221

completely lost access to learning in the arts due to various components
of the law. Administrators in this school district reduced instructional time
devoted to music and other non-tested subjects to make more time for
math and language arts instruction, frequently at the middle school level.
Another strand of studies focused on the ways teachers perceived
changes in technology instruction that have resulted from new require-
ments for technology under NCLB (Cullen, Brush, Frey, Hinshaw, & War-
ren, 2006; Lowther, Inan, Strahl, & Ross, 2008; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008;
Stevenson, 2008; Voithofer & Foley, 2007). For instance, Cullen et al.
(2006) conducted interviews with thirteen middle school administrators
and teachers about their experiences with new technology initiatives and
accompanying professional development in their rural district. The partici-
pants were concerned that they did not have an opportunity to provide in-
put into the design of the technology program. They valued the addition of
technologies such as laptop computers and various software programs but
were frustrated with technical dificulties and the reliance on test scores to
determine the effectiveness of the technology program.
teachers of early childhood, elementary, and middle school
students. Several studies focused on teachers’ experiences with and per-
ceptions of NCLB at particular grade levels. For instance, a number of re-
searchers found that many early childhood teachers believed that NCLB
led to negative consequences in their professional practice (Dever &
Carlston, 2009; Hines et al., 2007; Mabry & Margolis, 2006). For exam-
ple, Dever and Carlston (2009) found that as a result of NCLB early child-
hood teachers: (a) felt more restricted in their classrooms, (b) were con-
cerned over the effects of high-stakes testing, (c) were concerned over
meeting the needs of young children given the curricular mandates, and
(d) believed that the law was not achieving its intended goal.
Other studies focused on the effect of NCLB on elementary teach-
ers’ practices and identiied consequences such as loss of instruction-
al time and unrealistic expectations for student achievement (Margolis,
2005, 2006; Pennington, 2007). For example, in a qualitative study in-
volving interviews with 25 elementary teachers in the state of Washing-
ton. Mabry and Margolis (2006) found that many teachers experienced
conlict between a standards-based curriculum and developmentally ap-
propriate practice. In addition, the researchers reported that teachers lost
the opportunity to adapt their instructional practices to individual students’
needs. Furthermore, they noted a high teacher turnover rate among 4th
grade teachers over the two years of the study.
The middle school teachers in these studies often relied heavily on
developmentally inappropriate and teacher-centered instructional methods
in order to ensure student success on standardized assessment measures
(Faulkner & Cook, 2006). For example, through a survey administered to
216 middle school teachers in urban, rural, and suburban schools in North-
ern Kentucky, Faulkner and Cook (2006) found negative effects associ-
Husband & Hunt
222

ated with pressure to increase student achievement on NCLB assessment
measures. Many middle school teachers reported a signiicant loss of in-
struction time as a result of increased time spent covering test material and
the loss of professional freedom to select instructional strategies. Interest-
ingly, nearly 74% of the teachers reported yielding student achievement
success while simultaneously using strategies that are considered ineffec-
tive for that particular age group.
effects on Students and Student Achievement
In this section, we outline the indings from studies concerning
the effect that NCLB has had on student achievement. First, we discuss
the changes in student achievement among the general population and ef-
forts to narrow the achievement gap. Next, we discuss achievement among
speciic subgroups of students and review speciic methods and programs
used to increase student achievement on standardized tests. Our review
suggests that NCLB’s positive effects on student achievement vary greatly
across contexts and student subgroups.
determining the achievement gap. A number of researchers
have investigated the relationship between NCLB and student achieve-
ment. These studies indicate that there has been an upward trend in the
percent of students’ meeting expectations on achievement tests (Jacobson
& Holian, 2010; Springer 2008; Stullich, Eisner, & McCray, 2007). For ex-
ample, Jacobson and Holian (2010) conducted a correlation and regression
analysis of state assessment data in Kentucky from 2001–2005 and in Vir-
ginia from 2001–2006. They found that both states experienced increases
in the number of students identiied as passing by state achievement tests.
Furthermore, there was a positive association between the numbers of stu-
dents classiied as proicient and as advanced. These indings suggest that
NCLB school improvement efforts have increased student achievement
scores for students at a variety of preexisting levels of proiciency.
Other studies found improvements in the achievement gap between
minority students and white, middle-class students (Foorman, & Nixon,
2006; Stullich et al., 2007). For example, Foorman and Nixon (2006) used
descriptive statistics to examine changes in the NAEP scores of eleven large
urban schools from 2003–2005 and found that there were average reduc-
tions in the achievement gaps for minority student groups. Many of these
studies, however, presented conlicted indings (Foorman & Nixon, 2006;
Lee, 2007; Stullich et al., 2007). For instance, Stullich et al. (2007) found
that although achievement gaps were narrowing, recent changes were small.
Furthermore, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) data
showed overall gains for 4th grade students and minority students but mixed
results for middle school and high school students.
Several researchers have attempted to identify sources of this vari-
ability in achievement scores (Lee, 2007; Stullich et al., 2007). For ex-
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 223

ample, Stullich et al. (2007) conducted a statistical analysis of data from
the 2004–2005 school year including the National Longitudinal Study of
NCLB, the Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher
Quality Under NCLB, scores from the NAEP, state performance reports,
and other sources. Their study was a comprehensive review of Title I
implementation since the enactment of NCLB. In addition to many other
questions, they asked what the reasons are for schools failing to make
AYP. They found that states with more challenging standards and proi-
ciency cut scores were less likely to make AYP. Furthermore, schools that
were held accountable for the most subgroups were less likely to meet
AYP targets. Urban schools and schools with higher percentages of poor
and minority students were most likely to fail to make AYP for multiple
years and, thus, be identiied as in need of improvement.
the achievement gap and student subgroups. A large number
of studies have explored the effect of NCLB on speciic subgroups of stu-
dents (See Table 1).
table 1
Description of Articles Addressing Speciic Subgroups
Article Content
Rural contexts
Collins et al. (2005) Semi-structured interviews with directors of special edu-
cation were conducted to examine the effects of NCLB
on rural students with disabilities.
Goetz (2005) Statistical analysis of grade 8 reading and math scores in
rural districts across Pennsylvania.
Haifeng & Cowen (2009) Statistical analysis of the Palmetto Achievement
Challenging Test to explore the differences in scores
between failing schools and choice schools as deined
under NCLB with comparisons between rural and urban
schools.
Hodge & Krumm (2009) Online survey of rural school administrators to examine
the effects of NCLB on special education programs in
rural districts.
McLaughlin et al. (2005) Statistical analysis of NCES data to investigate the ef-
fects of accountability reforms in rural schools.
Powell et al. (2009) Statistical analysis of surveys from teachers and princi-
pals in rural Main to investigate how NCLB has affected
their curricular and instructional decisions.
Thorton et al. (2006) A mixed methods study to examine how accountability
processes under NCLB has affected accountability for
special education students within one US state.
(continued)
Husband & Hunt
224

Article Content
Special education contexts
Eckes & Swando (2009) Content analysis of state education policy documents
from three states to examine what effect NCLB has had
on students with disabilities.
Ehrlich et al. (2008) Descriptive statistical analysis of the mathematics perfor-
mance of 4th grade students with disabilities as deter-
mined by the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment
Exam.
Nagle et al. (2006) Case study examining the effect of NCLB’s requirements
for Adequately Yearly Progress as they relate to students
with disabilities.
Spooner et al. (2008) Policy analysis of state education websites to explore
state’s use of alternative science assessments for students
with disabilities under NCLB.
Thurlow et al. (2009) Policy analysis to examine alternative routes for students
with disabilities to earn a standard diploma under NCLB
requirements.
Vannest et al. (2009) Survey study of educators, administrators’, and staff’s
perceptions of the effect of NCLB for students with dis-
abilities.
Deaf and hard of hearing contexts
Cawthon (2004, 2007) Descriptive statistical analysis of data from a national
survey of teachers and school report cards to explore
how NCLB assessment policies affect students who are
deaf or hard of hearing.
Horvath et al. (2005) A multiple case study to describe how IEP accommo-
dations for students with deaf blindness have been imple-
mented in assessment and instruction under NCLB.
Towles-Reeves et al. (2006) Survey of deaf-blind coordinators to explore their knowl-
edge of and involvement in state assessment systems
under NCLB.
English language learning contexts
Bailey et al. (2007) Document analysis of how state academic content
standards under NCLB overlap with English language
development standards.
Giambo (2010) A case study of Florida’s educational policies concerning
the testing of Limited English Proicient students and the
reporting of their scores.
table 1 (continued)
(continued)
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 225

Article Content
Menkin (2010) A linguistic complexity analysis of the New York Re-
gents Exam.
Nesserlrodt (2007) A case study of an English Language Learner Program at
a High School in Virginia.
Wright & Choi (2006) Survey study of teachers’ views of policies related to
Sheltered English Immersion as supported by Proposi-
tion 203 in Arizona.
Native American contexts
Cleary (2008) Open ended interviews with American Indian, First Na-
tions, and Alaska Native high school students to explore
the tension between the literacy practices of Native
students and NCLB.
Garcia (2008) Statistical analysis of state achievement tests in grades
3, 5, and 8 to explore the change in achievement rates of
American Indian students in Arizona under NCLB.
Nelson et al. (2009) Statistical analysis of rates of proiciency for American
Indian and Alaska Natives students on grade 8 state
achievement tests under NCLB.
Patrick (2008) Case study of a Navajo reservation to identify factors
contributing to academic growth under NCLB.
Winstead et al. (2008) Interpretive analysis to explore tensions between Navajo
policies and NCLB.
Some of these studies focused on increases in test scores and the reduction
of the achievement gap for student subgroups under NCLB (Erlich, Buck-
ley, Midoughas, & Brodesky, 2008; Foorman & Nixon, 2006; Garcia, 2008;
Nelson, Greenough, & Sage, 2009). For instance, several studies (Garcia,
2008; Nelson et al., 2009) indicated that Native American students have
made achievement gains but the achievement gap between NativeAmerican
students and white students has remained the same or increased. Erlich et al.
(2008) found similarly mixed results among students with disabilities. Us-
ing a descriptive statistical analysis of assessment data from Massachusetts,
they discovered that the achievement gap between students in special and
regular education decreased in suburban and rural schools with low or me-
dium special education needs while it stayed the same or widened in urban
schools and high-needs schools (Erlich et al., 2008). Foorman and Nixon
(2006) also found an average reduction in the achievement gap for students
with disabilities but noted variability between states with the gap decreasing
in some states while increasing in others.
Rural contexts. Other studies have looked beyond test scores to fo-
cus on the unintended effects of NCLB policies on speciic populations. For
table 1 (continued)
Husband & Hunt
226

example, several researchers have highlighted the challenges of NCLB for
rural school districts (Collins et al., 2005; Goetz, 2005; Haifeng & Cowen,
2009; Hodge & Krumm, 2009; McLaughlin, Embler, Hernandez, & Caron,
2005; Thorton, Hill, & Usinger, 2006). In one such study, Thorton et al.
(2006) analyzed data from AYP designations, school improvement plans,
site visits and interviews and found that smaller school sizes in rural areas
make accountability data less valid and reduce the number of subgroups that
have to be reported. The authors argued that students from small rural school
districts may be underserved when there are not enough minority students or
students with disabilities to be classiied into a subgroup. Furthermore, the
potential beneits of NCLB are often limited in rural communities due to less
access to important resources such as tutoring services, transportation, and
appropriately certiied teachers (Collins et al., 2005).
Special education contexts.Another line of studies has focused on
the special education subgroup (Eckes & Swando, 2009; Nagle, Yunker,
& Malmgren, 2006; Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Kohprasert, Baker, &
Courtade, 2008; Thurlow, Cormier, & Vang, 2009; Vannest, Mahadevan,
Mason, & Temple-Harvey, 2009). Eckes and Swando (2009) conducted a
document analysis of three state departments of education and determined
that the special education subgroup was often the cause of a school fail-
ing to meet AYP. They questioned the appropriateness of requiring the
same proiciency level for students with disabilities when they often start
out with lower average test scores than their peers in regular education.
They further argued that since special education students are the only sub-
group that has actual limitations on learning abilities, it is unwise to ex-
pect to close the disability gap at the same rate as achievement gaps based
on class and race. Other researchers noted more positive effects on spe-
cial education students (Collins et al., 2005; Nagle et al., 2006; Thurlow
et al., 2009; Vannest et al., 2009). For instance, Nagle et al. (2006) inter-
viewed individuals from state and local educational agencies who empha-
sized new opportunities for students with disabilities such as greater repre-
sentation in standards and opportunities to show what they know through
inclusion in performance assessments.
Deaf and hard of hearing contexts. Students who are deaf or hard
of hearing have also been affected by NCLB policies (Cawthon, 2004;
Cawthon, 2007; Horvath, Kampfer-Bohach, & Kearns, 2005; Towles-
Reeves, Kampfer-Bohach, Garret, Kearns, & Grisham-Brown, 2006).
Researchers have reported inconsistent testing and accommodations for
students who are deaf or hard of hearing and argued that they are often
underrepresented in NCLB accountability frameworks (Cawthon, 2004;
Cawthon, 2007; Horvath et al., 2005). In an extensive analysis includ-
ing survey data, state accountability plans, and school report card data,
Cawthon (2007) noted that there is little transparency in schools’ progress
towards closing the achievement gap for students who are deaf and hard
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 227

of hearing because there are few oficial reports on this subgroup. She fur-
ther noted that students who are deaf and hard of hearing may be dispro-
portionately underrepresented in accountability frameworks because some
states either do not include scores of students who received testing accom-
modations or automatically give them a not proicient score.
English language learners contexts. Similarly, a number of stud-
ies have focused on the ways in which NCLB has affected English lan-
guage learners (Bailey, Butler, & Sato, 2007; Giambo, 2010; Menkin,
2010; Nesselrodt, 2007; Wright & Choi, 2006). For instance, Wright and
Choi (2006) described the intense pressure that English language learn-
ers in Arizona felt in the face of high-stakes testing conducted in English.
They interviewed 40 third grade teachers from 59 schools who report-
ed observing disturbing behaviors during testing including leaving large
portions of the test blank, crying, and vomiting. Wright and Choi (2006)
identiied other negative effects of NCLB such as a narrowing of the cur-
riculum, insuficient English as a second language instruction and accom-
modations, excessive test preparation, and lack of primary language sup-
port (Wright & Choi, 2006). Other reported effects of NCLB on English
language learners include inappropriate testing measures and high dropout
rates (Giambo, 2010; Menkin, 2010). Nesselrodt (2007) offered a more
hopeful vision in her mixed method study of one high school in Virginia,
which had met AYP goals for English language learners. She described an
environment that included a clear and focused mission, frequent progress
monitoring, strong instructional leadership, differentiated instruction, and
home-school relations.
Native American contexts. Several researchers have explored
how NCLB has affected Native American students (Cleary, 2008; Pat-
rick, 2008; Winstead, Lawrence, Branmeier, & Frey, 2008). Through an
interpretive analysis of Navajo and NCLB policies, Winstead et al. (2008)
found that prominent notions of federal policies such as standardization
and progress often conlict with the local cultural values of Navajos. They
also documented legal conlicts between NCLB’s emphasis on improved
English language proiciency and the Native American Languages Act de-
signed to protect the Navajo language through school-based primary lan-
guage programs. Additionally, NCLB’s standards requirements and puni-
tive sanctions are at odds with The Navajo Sovereignty in Education Act,
which ensures local control over creating standards and school closures
(Winstead et al., 2008). Other researchers documented that scripted and
skill-based programs adopted in an effort to raise scores for NCLB have
interfered with culturally relevant curriculum for Native American stu-
dents (Cleary, 2008; Patrick, 2008).
methods and programs for narrowing the achievement gap.
Another group of studies explored the effect on student achievement of
speciic methods and programs supported by NCLB (Biesinger & Crippen,
Husband & Hunt
228

2008; Burch, Steinberg, & Donovan, 2007; Burgin & Hughes, 2008; Chat-
terji, Kwon, & Sng, 2006; Evans, Baugh, & Sheffer, 2005; Heinrich, Meyer,
& Whitten, 2010; Muñoz, Potter, & Ross, 2008; Ross et al., 2008). Among
the reviewed studies, the most frequently examined program was Sup-
plemental Educational Services (SES) which the department of education
describes as free extra academic help, such as tutoring or remedial help,
that is provided to students in subjects such as reading, language arts, and
math. These services are available to the children of low-income families,
are offered outside of regular school hours, and can be provided by a vari-
ety of non-proit and for-proit entities.
Supplemental educational services. Several studies reported
mixed results for Supplemental Educational Services (Burgin & Hughes,
2008; Chatterji et al., 2006). For example, Chatterji et al. (2006) found that
supplemental services in a New York elementary school had positive ef-
fects on student achievement in reading and math only when the services
were closely aligned with the existing school curriculum. Other studies
found only small, insigniicant gains in student achievement (Heinrich, et
al., 2010; Ross, Paek, & McKay, 2008).
Researchers have tentatively attributed these limited effects to
several factors. For instance, Heinrich et al. (2010) observed SES tutoring
sessions and surveyed middle and high school students receiving services.
They found that there were signiicant problems with how time was spent
in tutoring sessions with students reporting that most of the time was spent
on self directed activities such as worksheets. Others have pointed to a
lack of communication between teachers and service providers (Muñoz, et
al., 2008), insuficient knowledge of appropriate instruction for students
with special needs (Burch et al., 2007), and limited measures of student
achievement (Ross et al., 2008).
Despite the lack of evidence to support the beneits of SES pro-
grams, mostly positive perceptions of supplemental services have been re-
ported by teachers and parents (Chatterji et al., 2006; Ross et al., 2008).
Ross et al. (2008) conducted a survey of a district SES coordinator, prin-
cipals, teachers and parents, which showed an overall positive reaction to
SES tutoring and to speciic providers. These positive perceptions persist-
ed even though an analysis of state assessment data showed that student
achievement gains were generally small for students receiving SES servic-
es. Students, however, were less positive about their experiences with SES
tutoring. Heinrich et al. (2010) interviewed students receiving supplemental
services and found that only 30% felt that the tutoring services helped them.
Scientiically based instruction. Other studies have examined the
effectiveness of “scientiically based” instruction on student achievement
(Altwerger et al., 2004; Dappen, Isernahage, & Anderson, 2008; Gamse,
Jacob, Horst, Boulay, & Unlu, 2008; Jackson et al., 2007; Lowther et al.,
2008; Shippen, Houchins, Calhoo, Furlow, & Sartor, 2006). The majority
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 229

of these studies have focused on the effectiveness of reading instructional
practices. For example, Altwerger et al. (2004) examined the effectiveness
of two common, commercially produced reading programs based on sci-
entiically based research as supported by NCLB. They found that second
grade students in these programs, when compared to students in literature-
based guided reading programs, were less likely to present cohesive retell-
ings of their readings. Across these studies, there is evidence for positive
effects from such scientiically based programs in alphabet recognition
(Jackson et al., 2007), and graphaphonics (Gamse et al., 2008), but there is
little to no evidence of positive effects on achievement in reading compre-
hension (Altweger et al., 2004; Gamse et al., 2008; Shippen et al., 2006).
Effects on Administrators and School Oficials
In this section, we outline our indings concerning the effect of
NCLB on administrators at the school and district level. First, we discuss
administrators’ perceptions of NCLB, which include both positive and
negative viewpoints of various components of the law. Next, we highlight
how administrators’ practices have changed as a result of NCLB.
Administrators’ perceptions of nclB. A number of studies have
used surveys and questionnaires to examine how principals and superinten-
dents perceive NCLB. Administrators in these studies viewed several com-
ponents of NCLB positively (Gardiner, Canield-Davis, & Anderson, 2009;
Lyons & Algozzine, 2006; Militello, Gajda, & Bowers, 2009; Rodriguez,
Murakami-Ramalho, & Ruff, 2009; Sherman, 2008). Administrators appre-
ciated high expectations for standards and student promotion (Lyons & Al-
gozzine, 2006; Sherman, 2008). Furthermore, they expressed a belief that
NCLB measures of accountability lead to increased student achievement
(Lyons & Algozzine., 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009) and encourage a critical
evaluation of the achievement gap (Gardiner et al., 2009). Administrators
view other aspects of NCLB unfavorably (Harris, Irons, & Crawford, 2006;
Lyons & Algozzine, 2006; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Sherman, 2008; Terry,
2010). For instance, Lyons & Algozzine (2006) interviewed 45 principals in
North Carolina who expressed frustration with the requirements for making
AYP and with NCLB’s punitive sanctions and school status designations.
Some administrators were concerned about the testing requirements for stu-
dents with special needs and limited English proiciency (Lyons & Algoz-
zine, 2006; Rodriguez, et al., 2009; Sherman, 2008). Other concerns includ-
ed inadequate funding (Sherman, 2008), limited school capacity (Hampton,
& Gruenert, 2008; Terry, 2010), lack of public understanding (Sherman,
2008), and insuficient training and support for administrators (Gardiner et
al., 2009; Harris et al., 2006; Militello et al., 2009).
effect on administrators’practices. Other researchers have exam-
ined how the implementation of NCLB has affected the practices of princi-
Husband & Hunt
230

pals and superintendents (Barnett, & Blankenship, 2005; Crum, Sherman, &
Myran, 2009; Graczewski, Rufin, Shambaugh, & Therriault, 2007; Lyons
& Algozzine, 2006; Park & Datnow, 2009; Sherman, 2008). These studies
indicate that many administrators have changed their practice in several key
ways in response to NCLB. For example, administrators have reported an
increased attention to data management in an effort to more carefully align
instruction with assessment goals (Crum et al., 2009; Lyons & Algozzine,
2006; Park & Datnow, 2009; Sherman, 2008). Superintendents and princi-
pals also reported a greater involvement in instructional decisions and in-
creased efforts at instructional leadership (Crum et al., 2009; Graczewski
et al., 2007; Lyons & Algozzine, 2006; Park & Datnow, 2009). Moreover,
administrators have responded to NCLB’s requirements concerning highly
qualiied teachers by increasing opportunities for professional development
(Park & Datnow, 2009; Sherman, 2008), encouraging collaboration among
teachers (Crum et al., 2009; Graczewski et al., 2007; Park & Datnow, 2009;
Sherman, 2008), and focusing efforts on hiring and retaining highly quali-
ied teachers (Barnett & Blankenship, 2005; Terry, 2010).
A few studies have highlighted administrators’ concerns about
maintaining their efforts for social justice and multiculturalism under the
requirements of NCLB (Gardiner et al., 2009; Rodriguez et al., 2009; Sher-
man, 2008). Administrators in these studies expressed an appreciation for
the emphasis that NCLB places on traditionally underserved groups. How-
ever, they believed that NCLB requirements often interfered with their com-
mitment to social justice. For example, Rodriguez et al., (2009) interviewed
16 urban elementary school principals who argued that the accountabili-
ty requirements of NCLB do not allow for accurate measures of student
growth and put undue pressure on certain student subgroups. These princi-
pals struggled to maintain student-centered curriculum and community rela-
tionships under the increasing, test-focused pressures of NCLB.
Furthermore, studies indicate that there is a need for administrator
training in order to meet the challenges of No Child Left Behind. For exam-
ple, Militello et al. (2009) interviewed principals about the training they re-
ceived about NCLB in certiication courses. They found that training about
NCLB has increased in principal preparation programs but practicing ad-
ministrators expressed a need for more training in assessment and account-
ability. Furthermore, the need for more training is a common theme through-
out research into administrators’perspectives and implementation of NCLB
(Harris et al., 2006; Militello et al., 2009; Sherman, 2008).
Effects on State Oficials and Organizations
In this section, we focus on indings concerning the implementation
of NCLB policies, mandates, and sanctions at the state level. While states
generally offered extensive support for underperforming schools, they also
struggled to interpret and appropriately implement components of the law.
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 231

providing supports. Studies found that many states provide ex-
tensive technical assistance and support for schools that have been classi-
ied as in need of improvement (Crane, Huang, Derby, Makkonen, & Goel,
2008; Davis, Krasnoff, Moilanen, Sather, & Kushman, 2007; Hergert,
Gleason, & Urbano, 2009; Mohammed, Pisapia, & Walker, 2009; Turn-
bull et al., 2010). For example, in a descriptive study involving semi-struc-
tured interviews and document analysis of content from various states’
web sites, Davis et al. (2007) found that Alaska, Idaho, Washington, Mon-
tana, and Oregon had intensive infrastructures for communicating NCLB
requirements to schools. The state departments of education provided tem-
plates on their websites for districts to communicate improvement status
to parents. In addition, the websites included school choice options, trans-
portation opportunities, school improvement planning and activities, and
supplemental educational services providers.
implementation issues. Several researchers found that many
state education departments, districts, and schools have experienced difi-
culty implementing various aspects of the law (Alexander, 2006; Casserly,
2004; Keedy & McDonald, 2007; Mabry & Margolis, 2006; Manna, 2006;
Palmer & Barley, 2008; Sunderman & Orield, 2006). For example, in a
case study involving high-ranking administrators from AZ, CA, GA, IL,
NY, and VA and analysis of state policy documents, Sunderman and Or-
ield (2006) found that the NCLB policy makers did not consider the ca-
pacity of each state when devising the act. Consequently, many states
focused on changing data collection strategies, testing, and teacher quali-
ications rather than on large-scale, systemic interventions. State adminis-
trators attributed this focus on small-scale changes to inadequate resources
for funding and stafing.
Moreover, studies found that NCLB often led to negative sanctions
for schools in both large and small states (Buckendahl, Huynh, Siskind
& Saunders, 2005; Flowers, Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006; Hazi &
Rucinski, 2009; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005).
For example, through a mixed methods investigation of nine state depart-
ments of education (KY, MD, NC, CA, FL, NY, TX, IL, PA), Mintrop and
Trujillo (2005) found that NCLB leads to negative sanctions for low per-
forming schools. In addition, the researchers found that there was no sin-
gle strategy that was universally successful across all of the districts and
states in the study. Each of the strategies (charter school development,
reconstitution, intervention teams, district takeover, educational manage-
ment organizations, external partners, and vouchers) used in conjunction
with NCLB produced varying outcomes across districts and states.
Finally, school choice provision under the NCLB law often con-
licted with previous school desegregation decrees (DeBray, 2005; DeBray-
Pelot, 2007; Eckes, 2006). For example, in an analysis of legal school
desegregation statutes, Eckes (2006) found that the NCLB law directly
conlicted with the desegregation decrees in Florida and Georgia. The
Husband & Hunt
232

state departments of education were sent letters from the courts stating
that they should enforce the desegregation decrees while still attending to
the school choice provision within NCLB. State oficials in these studies
found these conlicting legal demands confusing and were not always sure
how to proceed in regards to providing school choice while upholding pre-
viously existing laws.
discussion and Recommendations for future Research
In this paper we pursued the task of examining the empirical lit-
erature on the effects of NCLB on various parties (e.g. students, teachers,
state boards of education) within the ield of education. Our review yield-
ed a broad range of indings and implications for future research. In this
section, we point to some of the existing gaps in the research, pose ques-
tions related to our indings, and make recommendations for continued re-
search into NCLB and its continuing effects.
positive effects
There were several positive effects of NCLB highlighted within the
research literature. For instance, we found that NCLB was highly successful
at increasing the number of teachers and paraprofessionals who are “High-
ly Qualiied” in their primary areas of instruction. Consequently, schools
have more teachers and paraprofessionals who are considered to be “High-
ly Qualiied” by criteria outlined in the law (Abbate-Vaughn 2007a, 2007b;
Smith, 2008; Stullich et al., 2007; Wall et al., 2005). While these studies in-
dicate that NCLB has increased the quantity of qualiied teachers and para-
professionals in classrooms across the United States, little is known about
how these teachers and paraprofessionals think and perform in the class-
room and what it means qualitatively for teachers to be “Highly Qualiied”
over the course of a school year.
Future research is needed to examine how “Highly Qualiied” teach-
ers and paraprofessionals make daily pedagogical decisions within the class-
room as compared to teachers who have not attained “Highly Qualiied”
status. Furthermore, there is little information about how different routes
to “Highly Qualiied” certiication affect how paraprofessionals perform in
the classroom. Much can be gained from comparing and contrasting how
paraprofessionals, who pursued different options to achieving Highly Quali-
ied status, work with teachers and students in the classroom. Insights from
such research may aid policy makers in making decisions related to which
requirements for Highly Qualiied professionals should be maintained and
which requirements should be amended.
A second positive effect of NCLB concerns teachers’ sense of
self-eficacy. Studies indicate that many teachers who participated in
NCLB professional development activities experienced an increased sense
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 233

of self-eficacy with regard to teaching reading and mathematics (Chen et
al., 2004; Ciyer et al., 2010; Eaton, 2005; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008). What
is missing is an examination of the extent to which this increased self-ef-
icacy is sustained over time. Future research might examine how teach-
ers who participate in NCLB related professional development increase,
decrease, and/or stagnate over a sustained period of time. Such research
would allow for a clearer evaluation of the overall effectiveness of profes-
sional development projects and programs associated with NCLB.
negative effects
While professional development opportunities have increased self-
eficacy in many cases, our review revealed that many teachers across grade
levels were frustrated by what they viewed as negative consequences of
NCLB, including losses in professional freedom and instructional time (De-
ver & Carlston, 2009; Faulkner & Cook, 2006; Hines et al., 2007; Mabry &
Margolis, 2006; Pennington, 2007). What is absent within this body of schol-
arship is an examination of the extent to which speciic context shapes these
perceptions. In other words, how do teachers’ perceptions and experiences
differ across rural, urban, suburban, public and private educational contexts?
How are teachers affected by NCLB across different states? How do these
perceptions change or remain constant over extended periods of time?
decrease in morale. A decrease in morale was particularly evi-
dent among teachers in urban, rural, and “underperforming” contexts, who
were often dissatisied with their jobs due to the strict mandates and re-
quirements of the law (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010; Crocco & Costigan, 2007;
Floch et al., 2006; Gerstl-Pepin & Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Karl et al., 2007;
McQuillan & Salomon-Fernandez, 2008; Olsen & Sexton, 2009; Price,
2010). These studies occurred in schooling contexts that had not met the
AYP requirements of the law at the time of the study. Thus, it is unclear to
what extent these teachers’ perspectives can be separated from pressures
to meet AYP requirements in general.
Future research might examine and compare the experiences of
teachers in schools that have met these goals and schools that have not met
these goals. Such work may provide important insights into how closely
teacher morale and job satisfaction are consistent with AYP status in high
achieving urban schools. It is also worthwhile to explore teachers’ percep-
tions and student achievement within schools that were formerly designat-
ed as “underperforming” that have since improved their rating. Much can
be gained from scholarship that documents how underperforming schools
maintain teacher morale and improve their student achievement over time
while attending to the requirements of NCLB. Findings from this research
will provide more insight into which speciic aspects of the law are most
important for schools to adhere to in order to improve their achievement
outcomes.
Husband & Hunt
234

Inluence on instructional time. Studies indicate that AYP re-
quirements have also inluenced how much instructional time teachers
spend in particular content areas. Researchers found that many teachers
spent much less time on social studies, science and arts instruction in ex-
change for spending more time on reading and mathematics instruction
(Amrein-Beardsley, 2009; Conway et al., 2005; Grifith & Scharmann,
2008; McIntyre et al., 2005; McMurrer, 2008; Pease-Alverz & Samway,
2008; Rock et al., 2006). This may be largely due to the fact that AYP tar-
gets are closely aligned to student performance on reading and mathemat-
ics assessments. What is missing within this scholarship is research into
exemplary classrooms where teachers adhere to the requirements of the
law while investing instructional time equitably between reading, math-
ematics, social studies, science, and other subjects. Future research might
examine classroom where teachers give equal time to these subjects while
still fulilling the mandates of NCLB.
Not only has NCLB affected the quantity of time teachers teach
speciic content areas, it also affects how teachers teach these subject ar-
eas. For instance, we found that many ESL teachers placed more emphasis
on reading instruction than on language acquisition in order to fulill vari-
ous mandates within the law (Harper et al, 2008; Lapayese, 2007) and that
NCLB encourages bilingual teachers to implement English exclusive ap-
proaches to bilingual education (Lapayese, 2007; Wright & Choi, 2006).
Similarly, we found that many teachers have been required to implement
scripted reading and writing programs in their classrooms in order to ful-
ill the “science” requirement of the law (Cleary, 2008; Gerstl-Pepin &
Woodside-Jiron, 2005; Powell et al., 2009; Wright & Choi, 2006). What
is implicit in this line of scholarship is that mandates within the law often
conlicted with what teachers considered to be effective practice. Thus, the
ield would beneit from more research into teachers’ thinking and deci-
sion making while implementing these programs and how various compo-
nents of the law effect these decisions.
Future research might examine how speciic content area teach-
ers (e.g., reading, writing, ESL, etc.) negotiate and navigate instructional
practices within the context of adhering to the requirements of the law. In
other words, how do teachers decide on which instructional practices to
maintain while increasing time spent on reading skill instruction? How do
they make decisions about implementation of instructional programs and
how does NCLB affect these decisions? Furthermore, research into how
components of the law affect the quality of instruction is warranted. For
instance, while it is clear that NCLB has affected the quantity of time al-
lotted for instruction in the arts (Amerin-Beardsley, 2009; Conway et al.,
2005; McMurrer, 2008; Spohn, 2008), it is less clear how NCLB affects
how arts teachers approach instruction in their respective areas.
increased use of technology. In contrast, NCLB seems to have en-
couraged an increased use of technology within classroom instruction. In
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 235

our review, we found that many teachers were open to the new technologies
that became available as a result of NCLB (Cullen et al., 2006; Lowther et
al., 2008; Overbaugh & Lu, 2008; Stevenson, 2008). However, some teach-
ers reported a lack of adequate training in effective use of technology in
the classroom (Cullen et al., 2006). Moreover, there have only been a small
number of studies examining the effectiveness of NCLB-supported technol-
ogy initiatives (Eaton, 2005; Lowther et al., 2008). Thus, it is essential for
schools and districts to carefully evaluate the quality of new technologies
and to provide quality professional development around their implemen-
tation. Follow up research may investigate the effectiveness and results of
technology initiatives and related professional development.
Student achievement gap. Considering the far-reaching effects of
NCLB requirements, there are surprisingly few studies that test claims that
NCLB provisions increase student achievement and close the achievement
gap. The scarcity of research addressing this question may be due to the
dificulty of identifying a causal relationship in such a complex education-
al system that varies from district to district and state to state. Nearly all of
the studies we reviewed used a narrow deinition of student achievement
as scores on statewide-standardized assessments. This is understandable
given that such assessments are the only form recognized by NCLB for
reporting school progress. However, it may be valuable to consider other
methods of assessment. One possibility is the use of growth models that
measure student achievement based on personal student growth over time
rather than on proiciency cut scores (Dunn & Allen, 2009). Other meth-
ods of tracking student achievement such as performance-based assess-
ments, portfolios, and curriculum-based measurements also have poten-
tial (Darling-Hammond, Noguera, Cobb & Meijer, 2007). Future research
could include comparisons between state and localized forms of assess-
ment. Such research may help educators to answer questions about which
assessments are the most valuable and how schools might use multiple
methods for documenting student progress.
Although many studies have examined the effects of NCLB on
speciic subgroups of students, some groups of students have remained un-
derrepresented in this body of research. For example, only one study spe-
ciically examined the achievement gap for students from low socioeco-
nomic backgrounds (Hampton & Gruenert, 2008) despite NCLB’s stated
commitment to improving education for children from low-income fami-
lies. African American students were often mentioned in studies of general
student achievement but none of the reviewed studies focused speciical-
ly on the effects of NCLB for this subgroup. Again, this is a curious gap
in the research considering the law’s emphasis on narrowing the Black-
white achievement gap. Other groups of students underrepresented in the
research on NCLB include gifted students, students with vision impair-
ments, and English proicient minority students. Moreover, achievement
scores have been more carefully scrutinized for elementary students and
Husband & Hunt
236

middle school students than for high school students. More research is
needed to determine how NCLB has effected these groups of students.
Research methods. Interviews and surveys were a common re-
search method for exploring the unintended effects of NCLB in the studies
we reviewed. Such qualitatively based research methods allow for a more
comprehensive view of the effect of NCLB than a narrow focus on student
achievement data. However, most of the existing research has been limited
in its use of qualitative research methods. For instance, many of the studies
that we reviewed on this topic relied on interviews with teachers and ad-
ministrators, but only one of the studies included interviews with students
(Cleary, 2008) and none of the researchers interviewed parents. Including
more voices in the research may provide a broader picture of the effect
of NCLB. Furthermore, there is a lack of research from an ethnographic
perspective. Only one of the studies on student subgroups included ob-
servations of students in classrooms (Nesselrodt, 2007). Further research
should include a wider array of qualitative methods such as observation in
order to more fully understand how contexts affect student achievement
and to gain insight into the lived experiences of students, teachers, and ad-
ministrators under NCLB.
There are many remaining questions for researchers exploring the
effect of Supplemental Educational Services (SES). For instance, why is
there such a mismatch between student achievement gains and perceptions
of SES? Do principals, teachers, and parents value speciic characteris-
tics of SES or are they merely pleased that students are getting extra help?
Are parents aware of their children’s eligibility for supplemental services?
What characteristics of SES programs make them more or less effective?
Are certain providers more effective at increasing student achievement
than others? Are state-approved SES providers highly qualiied to deliver
instruction to the students from target populations and are they being held
accountable to high standards of content and instruction?
These questions are important to ask considering that public ed-
ucational funds are being spent for private and religious organizations
(Stullich et al., 2007) to provide services that have not been proven ef-
fective at achieving the goal of increased student achievement for under-
served students (Muñoz et al., 2008; Ross et al., 2008). Despite NCLB’s
support of scientiically based research, we saw no signiicant evidence
that these skill-based reading programs were more effective than litera-
ture-based programs. More research into the effectiveness of early reading
programs and instructional practices supported by NCLB is needed so that
policy makers can make more informed decisions about Title I require-
ments. Research into the effects of NCLB sanctioned instruction in other
content areas besides reading is also warranted.
nclB effects on administrative practice. Questions also remain
concerning how NCLB has affected the practice and decision making of
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 237

administrators at the school and district levels. Research into administra-
tors’ perceptions is valuable because, as Harris et al. (2006) argued, ad-
ministrators with negative perceptions are less likely to meet the challeng-
es of NCLB or other continued reform efforts. Therefore, although several
studies have explored administrator perspectives (Lyons & Algozzine,
2006; Gardiner et al., 2009; Militello et al., 1009; Rodriguez et al., 2009;
Sherman, 2008), further exploration within a wider variety of settings is
necessary to better understand how school, district, and state contexts af-
fect administrators. Moreover, although studies show that administrators
have altered their practices in response to NCLB (Barnett & Blankenship,
2005; Crum et al., 2009; Graczewski et al., 2007; Lyons & Algozzine,
2006; Park & Datnow, 2009; Sherman, 2008), future research might also
ask which speciic administrative practices have been the most successful
in increasing student achievement and reducing the achievement gap. It is
also timely to explore how administrators are adjusting their practices and
decision-making in response to recent waivers of the law.
In our review, we found that NCLB affected state-level adminis-
trators and oficials as well. Many states provided extensive support for
schools that were identiied as in need of improvement (Crane et al., 2008;
Davis et al., 2007; Hergert et al., 2009; Mohammed et al., 2009; Turnbull
et al., 2010). However, there has been little examination of the extent to
which these resources contributed to the improvement of student achieve-
ment status for schools within these states. Furthermore, we found that,
despite an abundance of state-provided resources, many state departments
of education, school districts, and schools reported dificulty implement-
ing various aspects of the law (Alexander, 2006; Casserly, 2004; Keedy
& McDonald, 2007; Mabry & Margolis, 2006; Manna, 2006; Palmer et
al., 2008; Sunderman & Orield, 2006). What remains unclear is if or how
these dificulties have been resolved. Future research into these dificulties
will be useful in determining which speciic aspects of the law need to be
amended to decrease the implementation related dificulties in the future.
Additionally, our review revealed that state accountability sys-
tems associated with NCLB have disproportionately affected low-achieving
schools. For example, negative sanctions have been mostly applied to schools
with signiicant numbers of low achieving students (Buckendahl et al., 2005;
Flowers et al., 2006; Hazi & Rucinski, 2009; Mintrop & Trujillo, 2005; Por-
ter et al., 2005). Little is known about how state accountability systems have
affected schools with signiicant numbers of high-achieving students.
Future research is needed to determine how the law may be
amended in order to increase academic outcomes for students who are al-
ready performing at or above AYP goals. Furthermore, provisions within
NCLB such as school choice have interfered with desegregation decrees in
Florida and Georgia (DeBray, 2005; Eckes, 2006), and research is needed
in other states in order to explore how state oficials have negotiated such
conlicts. Also of interest is how state oficials have decided to apply or
Husband & Hunt
238

not apply for waivers from the NCLB sanctions and how states that have
not received waivers will cope with increasing negative sanctions as an
increasing number of schools fail to meet AYP as outlined within the law.
As mentioned previously, many states were granted waivers from
the key aspects of the original NCLB act. As small number of these states
(i.e., Florida, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Tennessee, and
Virginia) that were considered “on track” had the option of applying for
a four-year waiver extension by January 30, 2015. These states will go
through an expedited renewal process and keep their current waivers
through the 2018–2019 school year. The vast majority of the other states
who received waivers had until March 31st to apply for waiver renewals.
States will have to meet ive signiicant requirements to gain re-
newal status. First, states will now have to demonstrate that they have
plans in place to intervene in schools that are not meeting achievement tar-
gets in various “sub-groups” of students such as racial minorities, English-
language learners, disadvantages students, and special education students.
Second, states will now be required to describe in great detail the types
of rigorous interventions that are being implemented in schools with low
achievement outcomes and large achievement gaps. Third, states will have
to ensure that schools with large achievement gaps do not receive the high-
est rating possible on the state accountability system. Fourth, states will
have to clearly describe their plan for monitoring district implementation
of accountability systems. This also includes showing how they will make
continuous improvements to these systems. Fifth, states will have to dem-
onstrate that they have consulted with major groups (i.e., parents, teachers’
unions, community organizations, local districts) on waiver implementa-
tion to ensure students graduate from high school adequately prepared for
higher education or the workforce. Given these recent developments con-
cerning NCLB, subsequent research might examine how states are imple-
menting alternative accountability plans and interventions after receiving
a waiver. In addition, future research might also examine the effectiveness
of these post-waiver accountability systems and interventions relative to
student achievement outcomes.
conclusion
In short, No Child Left Behind was passed with the intent of im-
proving achievement outcomes for underrepresented students and ensuring
that all students receive a quality education. Our review of studies between
2001–2010 indicates that NCLB has been largely unsuccessful in achieving
these laudable goals. We found few studies that have explored the direct ef-
fect of the law on student achievement. The few studies that have attempt-
ed to assess the causal link between NCLB and student outcomes have re-
ported mixed results. There have, however, been a large number of studies
documenting the many unintended negative effects of the law. Furthermore,
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 239

a signiicant number of schools and school districts were labeled as failures
during the ten-year period of time emphasized in our review.
InApril 2015, Senator LamarAlexander (R-Tenn) and Senator Patti
Murray (D-Wa) announced a bipartisan agreement on the reauthorization of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (currently known as No Child
Left Behind). The new legislation is called “The Every Child Achieves Act
of 2015.” Like NCLB, the new act maintains annual testing and grants in-
dividual states the authority to decide how to use these scores. Notably, the
AYP component has been removed from the new act. In addition, the new
act prohibits the federal government from dictating how states will reform
low performing schools. Moreover, the new act grants individual states the
freedom to decide which academic standards it will adopt. Accordingly, the
new act prohibits the federal government from mandating or incentivizing
a speciic set of standards for adoption. Many of the core principles embed-
ded within this bill (e.g., high-stakes accountability and standardization) are
a signiicant part of the ever-changing educational landscape in the U.S.
(Sahlberg, 2010). Consequently, we believe the current review of empiri-
cal scholarship on NCLB can and will assist politicians, policy makers and
practitioners in making informed and effective decisions regarding educa-
tional reform now and for several years to come.
References
Abbate-Vaughn, J. (2007a). Paraprofessionals left behind? Urban parapro-
fessionals’ beliefs about their work in the midst of NCLB. Journal of
Poverty, 11(4), 143–164.
Abbate-Vaughn, J. (2007b). Para aqú today, para afuera tomorrow: Uncer-
tainty in urban bilingual paraprofessionals’ work in the age of NCLB.
Urban Review, 39(5), 567–588.
Alexander, N. A. (2006). Being on track for no child left behind. Educa-
tional Policy, 20(2), 399–428.
Altwerger, B., Arya, P., Jin, L., Jordan, N. L., Laster, B., Martens, P., &
Wiltz, N. (2004). When research and mandates collide: The challenges
and dilemmas of teacher education in the era of NCLB. English Edu-
cation, 36(2), 119–133.
Amrein-Beardsley, A. (2009). Twilight in the valley of the sun: Nonproit
arts and culture programs in Arizona’s public schools post-no child
left behind. Arts Education Policy Review, 110(3), 9–17.
Bailey,A. L., Butler, F.A., & Sato, E. (2007). Standards-to-Standards link-
age under Title III: Exploring common language demands in ELD and
science standards. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 53–78.
Biesinger, K., & Crippen, K. (2008). The impact of an online remediation
site on performance related to high school mathematics proiciency.
Journal of Computers in Mathematics and Science Teaching, 27(1),
5–17.
Husband & Hunt
240

Barnett, J., & Blankenship, V. (2005). Superintendents speak out: A sur-
vey of superintendents’ opinions regarding recent school reforms in
Arkansas. Journal of Educational Research & Policy Studies, 5(1),
48–65.
Blank, R. K., Langesen, D., Laird, E., Toye, C., & de Mello, V. (2004).
Meeting NCLB goals for highly qualiied teachers: Estimates by state
from survey data. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 12(70), 1–25.
Boe, E. E., Sujie, S., & Cook, L. H. (2007). Does teacher preparation mat-
ter for beginning teachers in either special or general education? Jour-
nal of Special Education, 41(3), 158–170.
Boyatzis, R. E. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. Thematic
analysis and code development. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Buckendahl, C. W., Huynh, H., Siskind, T., & Saunders, J. (2005). A case
study of vertically moderated standard setting for a state science as-
sessment program. Applied Measurement in Education, 18(1), 83–98.
Burch, P., Steinberg, M., & Donovan, J. (2007). Supplemental educational
services and NCLB: Policy assumptions, market practices, emerging
issues. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 29(2), 115–133.
Burgin, J., & Hughes, G. (2008). Measuring the effectiveness of a sum-
mer literacy program for elementary students using writing samples.
Research In The Schools, 15(2), 55–64.
Byrd-Blake, M., Afolayan, M., Hunt, J., Fabunmi, M., Pryor, B., & Le-
ander, R. (2010). Morale of teachers in high poverty schools: A post-
NCLB mixed methods analysis. Education & Urban Society, 42(4),
450–472.
Casserly, M. (2004). Driving change. Education Next, 4(3), 32–37.
Cawthon, S. W. (2004). Schools for the deaf and the no child left behind
act. American Annals of the Deaf, 149(4), 314–323.
Cawthon, S. (2007). Hidden beneits and unintended consequences of the
no child left behind policies for students who are deaf are hard of hear-
ing. American Educational Research Journal, 44(3), 460–492.
Chatterji, M., Kwon, Y., & Sng, C. (2006). Gathering evidence on an af-
ter-school supplemental instruction program: Design challenges and
early indings in light of NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives,
14(12), 1–47.
Chen, I., Paige, S., & Bhattacharjee, M. (2004). The critical aspects of
no child left behind for an urban teacher education program. Teacher
Education and Practice, 17(2), p. 211–229.
Choi, D. S. (2010). The impact of competing deinitions of quality on
the geographical distribution of teachers. Educational Policy, 24(2),
359–397.
Ciyer, A., Nagasawa, M., Swadener, B. B., Patet, P. (2010). Impacts of the
Arizona system ready/child ready professional development project
on preschool teachers’ self-eficacy. Early Childhood Teacher Educa-
tion, 31(2), 129–145.
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 241

Cleary, L. (2008). The imperative of literacy motivation when native chil-
dren are begin left behind. Journal of American Indian Education,
47(1), 96–117.
Collins, B. C., Hawkins, S., Keramidas, C., McLaren, E. M., Schuster, J.
W., Slevin, B. N., & Spoelker, D. (2005). The effect of no child left
behind on rural students with low incidence disabilities. Rural Special
Education Quarterly, 24(1), 48–53.
Conway, C. M., Hibbard, S., Albert, D., & Hourigan, R. (2005). Profes-
sional development for arts teachers. Arts Education Policy Review,
107(1), 3–9.
Council of the American Educational Research Association. (2006). Stan-
dards for reporting empirical social science research in AERA publi-
cations. Educational Researcher, 36(6), 33–40.
Crane, E. W., Huang, C., Derby, K., Makkonen, R., & Goel, A. M. (2008).
Characteristics of Arizona school districts in improvement. (Issues &
Answers, REL 2008–No. 054). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Educa-
tion Evaluation and Regional Assistance, West Regional Educational
Laboratory.
Crocco, M. S., & Costigan, A. T. (2007). The narrowing of curriculum and
pedagogy in the age of accountability. Urban Education, 42(6), 512–535.
Crum, K. S., Sherman, W. H., & Myran, S. (2009). Best practices of suc-
cessful elementary school leaders. Journal of Educational Adminis-
tration, 48(1), 48–63.
Cullen, T. A., Brush, T. A., Frey, T. J., Hinshaw, R. S., & Warren, S. J.
(2006). NCLB technology and a rural school:Acase study. Rural Edu-
cator, 28(1), 9–16.
Dappen, L., Isernhagen, J., & Anderson, S. (2008). A statewide writing
assessment model: Student proiciency and future implications. As-
sessing Writing, 13(1), 45–60.
Darling-Hammond, L., Noguera, P., Cobb, V. L., & Meier, D. (2007).
Evaluating no child left behind. Nation, 284(20), 11.
Davis, D., Krasnoff, B., Moilanen, C., Sather, S., & Kushman, J. (2007).
How Northwest Region States Are Supporting Schools in Need of Im-
provement. (Issues & Answers, REL 2007–No. 009). Washington,
DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance,
Northwest Regional Educational Laboratory.
DeBray, E. H. (2005). NCLB accountability collides with court-ordered
desegregation: The case of Pinellas county, Florida. Peabody Journal
of Education ̧ 80(2), 170–188.
DeBray-Pelot, E. (2007). NCLB’s transfer policy and court-ordered de-
segregation: The conlict between two federal mandates in Richmond
county, Georgia, and Pinellas county, Florida. Educational Policy,
21(5), 717–746.
Husband & Hunt
242

Dever, M. T., & Carlston, G. (2009). No child left behind: Giving voice to
teachers of young children. Journal of Educational Research & Policy
Studies, 9(1), 61–79.
Dunn, J., & Allen, J. (2009). Holding schools accountable for the growth
of nonproicient students: Coordinating measurement and account-
ability. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practice, 28(4), 27–41.
Eaton, C. (2005). Sparking a revolution in teaching and learning. T H E
Journal 33(1), 20–24.
Eckes, S. E. (2006). Desegregation decrees versus the NCLB choice provi-
sion: implications for resegregated schools. Journal of School Choice,
1 (3), 63.
Eckes, S. E., & Swando, J. (2009). Special education subgroups under
NCLB: Issues to consider. Teachers College Record, 11(11), 2479–2504.
Ehrlich, S., Buckley, K., Midouhas, E., & Brodesky, A., (2008). Perfor-
mance Patterns for Students with Disabilities in Grade 4 Mathematics
Education in Massachusetts. (Issues & Answers, REL 2008–No. 051).
Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education
Sciences, National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional As-
sistance, Northeast & Islands Regional Educational Laboratory.
Eppley, K. (2009). Rural schools and the highly qualiied teacher provi-
sion of no child left behind: A critical policy analysis. Journal of Re-
search in Rural Education, 24(4), 1–11.
Evans, W., Baugh, C., & Sheffer, J. (2005). A study of the sustained effects
of comprehensive school reform programs in Pennsylvania. School
Community Journal, 15(1), 15–28.
Faulkner, S., & Cook, C. (2006). Testing vs. teaching: The perceived im-
pact of assessment demands on middle grades instructional practices.
RMLE Online: Research in Middle Level Education, 29(7), 1–13.
Floch, K., Taylor, J., & Thomsen, K. (2006). Implications of NCLB ac-
countability for comprehensive school reform. Journal of Education
for Students Placed at Risk, 11(3/4), 353–366.
Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of
three states’ alignment between language arts and mathematics stan-
dards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 201– 215.
Foorman, B. R., & Nixon, S. M. (2006). The inluence of public policy on
reading research and practice. Topics in Language Disorders, 26(2),
157–171.
Gamse, B., Jacob, R., Horst, M., Boulay, B., & Unlu, F., (ED), N. (2008).
Reading irst impact study: Final report (NCEE 2009–4039). Washing-
ton, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences,
National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance.
Garcia, V., Agbemakplido, W., Abdella, H., Lopez, O. Jr., & Registe, R. T.
(2006). High school students’ perspectives on the 2001 no child left
behind act’s deinition of a highly qualiied teacher. Harvard Educa-
tional Review, 76(4), 698–724.
Vol. 46, No. 1/2, 2015, pp. 212–254 243

Garcia, D. (2008). Mixed messages: American Indian achievement before
and since the implementation of no child left behind. Journal of Amer-
ican Indian Education, 47(1), 136–154.
Gardiner, M., Canield-Davis, K., &Anderson, K. (2009). Urban school prin-
cipals and the no child left behind act. Urban Review, 41(2), 141–160.
Gerstl-Pepin, C., & Woodside-Jiron, H. (2005). Tensions between the sci-
ence of reading and a love of learning: One high-poverty school’s strug-
gle with NCLB. Equity & Excellence in Education, 38(3), 232–241.
Giambo, D. (2010). High-stakes testing, high school graduation and lim-
ited English proicient students: A case study. American Secondary
Education, 38 (2), 44–56.
Goetz, S. J. (2005). Random variation in student performance by class
size: Implication in rural Pennsylvania. Journal of Research in Rural
Education, 20(13), 1–8.
Graczewski, C., Rufin, M., Shambaugh, L., & Therriault, S. (2007). Se-
lecting and implementing whole school improvement models: A dis-
trict and school administrator perspective. Journal of Education for
Students Placed at Risk, 12(1), 75–90.
Grifith, G., & Scharmann, L. (2008). Initial impacts of no child left be-
hind on elementary science education. Journal of Elementary Science
Education, 20(3), 35–48.
Haifeng, Z., & Cowen, D. J. (2009). Mapping academic achievement and
public school choice under the no child left behind legislation. South-
eastern Geographer, 49(1), 24–40.
Hampton, E. M., & Gruenert, S. (2008). Social capital and school success:
Combining internal and external commitment with school function-
ing. Journal of Ethnographic & Qualitative Research, 2(3), 163–172.
Harper, C. A., de Jong, E. J., & Platt, E. J. (2008). Marginalizing English
as a second language teacher expertise: The exclusionary consequence
of no child left behind. Language Policy, 7(3), 267–284.
Harris, S., Irons, E. J., Crawford, C. (2006). Texas superintendents’ rat-
ings of standards/assessment/accountability programs. Planning and
Changing, 37(3/4), 190–204.
Hazi, H. M., & Rucinski, D. (2009). Teacher evaluation as a policy target for
improved student learning: A ifty-state review of statute and regulatory
action since NCLB. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 17(5), 1–22.
Hergert, L. F., Gleason, S., & Urbano, C. (2009). How eight state educa-
tion agencies in the northeast and islands region identify and support
low-performing schools and districts: A summary. (Issues & Answers,
REL 2009–No. 068). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education,
Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Evalua-
tion and RegionalAssistance, Regional Educational Laboratory North-
east & Islands.
Husband & Hunt
244

A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010

A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010

Similar to A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010 (20)

More from Jeff Nelson

More from Jeff Nelson (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

A Review Of The Empirical Literature On No Child Left Behind From 2001 To 2010