• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.

  • Stop wasting time looking for files and revisions. Connect your Gmail, DriveDropbox, and Slack accounts and in less than 2 minutes, Dokkio will automatically organize all your file attachments. Learn more and claim your free account.



Page history last edited by Rachel Luthringer 9 years, 1 month ago

No Child Left Behind

Accountability for Student Achievement

Presented by Rachel Luthringer

Historical Context of Work

Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act being passed in 2001, there was growing concern that students weren’t making adequate yearly progress, and teachers weren’t being held accountable for the achievement of students. The purpose of the Act was to have stronger accountability, increased flexibility at the local level, education choices for parents, and focusing on successful teaching methods. The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was signed into law on January 8, 2002 by President Bush. The Act significant changes to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) since it was enacted in 1965.

Education and Influences


In 1965, Congress passed the landmark Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was a major piece of civil rights legislation due to its focus on improving the educational opportunities of poor children


The publication of A Nation at Risk by the U.S. Department of Education in 1983 brought increased attention to education reform in the United States.


The standards-based reform movement began at the state level. By the 1994-1995 school year, virtually every state had developed explicit standards of achievement and had implemented tests that were aligned with those standards.


In 1994, Congress passed and President Clinton signed into law the Improving America's Schools Act. NCLB, signed into law by President George W, Bush after less than a year in office to improve failings of IASA's early effort at identifying problem schools.

Impact on Best Practices

NCLB required schools in every state to bring their students up to full proficiency in math and reading by 2014, but it allowed each state to come up with their own plan to accomplish the task.


Under NCLB, schools that fail to meet their goal for a given year have not made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Schools that do not make AYP are identified as needing improvement and are required to devise a plan to meet AYP goals.


For these low-performing schools, the interventions begin with school choice and supplemental tutoring for students. If a school continuously fails to make AYP for five years, it must develop a restructuring plan, which goes into action if the school fails to make AYP for a sixth year.


The restructuring options include: (1) closing and reopening as a charter; (2) replacing relevant staff; (3) tuning governance over to the state; (4) contracting with a private management company to operate the school; and (5) any other major restructuring of the school's governance designed to produce major reform.

Problems or Failures

Although a school is showing progress, students with disabilities also must pass standardized tests in order for a school to meet AYP goals even if the student is significantly below grade level due to his or her disability.

Other Interesting Facts

The U.S. Congress attempts to improve the educational results for students with disabilities with shared accountability of both general and special educators via NCLB and IDEA 04.

NCLB requires at least 95 percent of learning disabled (LD) and limited English proficient (LEP) students' scores on math, reading, and soon science, be included in the overall state yearly progress reports.

Impact on Others

“The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) reform aims to hold educational agencies and states accountable for improving the quality of education for all students” (Maleyko & Gawlik 2011).


“It seeks to identify and transform low-performing schools that have failed to provide a high quality education to their students into successful schools (Maleyko & Gawlik 2011).




Beth R Handler.  (2006). Two Acts, One Goal: Meeting the Shared Vision of No Child Left Behind and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. The Clearing House, 80(1), 5-8.  Retrieved July 1, 2011, from Research Library.


Harper, Liz. (2011). No Child Left Behind's Impact on Specialized Education. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/education/no_child/impact.html


Kress, S., Zechmann, S. & Schmitten, J. (2011). When Performance Matters: The Past, Present, and Future of Consequential Accountability in Public Education. Harvard Journal on Legislation, 48(1), 185-234. Retrieved July 1, 2011 from EBSCOhost.


Maleyko, G., & Gawlik, M.. (2011). No Child Left Behind: What We Know and What we Need to Know. Education, 131(3), 600-624.  Retrieved July 1, 2011, from Research Library.


NJ Department of Education. (2010). New Jersey No Child Left Behind. http://www.nj.gov/education/grants/nclb/



Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.