research paper on no child left behind

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

No Child Left Behind and education outcomes: Research roundup

Studies analyzing the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on student and school performance.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Margaret Weigel, The Journalist's Resource August 25, 2011

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/politics-and-government/nclb-no-child-left-behind-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was intended to promote higher levels of performance in U.S. public education by tying a school’s federal funding directly to student achievement as measured by standardized test scores. Ten years after its implementation, however, research on NCLB suggests that the achievement levels of the nation’s students, teachers and school districts remain significantly below established benchmarks. In August 2011, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, describing the Act as “a slow-motion train wreck,” suspended the requirement that all students be proficient in math and reading by 2014, and invited states to apply for a waiver of NCLB’s proficiency requirements.

The following studies analyze issues related to NCLB, and look at the law’s effects on student and school performance.

“The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement”

Journal of Policy Analysis and Management , 2011

Findings: “Our results indicate that NCLB generated statistically significant increases in the average math performance of fourth graders … as well as improvements at the lower and top percentiles. There is also evidence of improvements in eighth-grade math achievement, particularly among traditionally low-achieving groups and at the lower percentiles. However, we find no evidence that NCLB increased fourth-grade reading achievement.”

“Incentives and Test-Based Accountability in Education”

U.S. National Research Council, 2011

Findings: “Test-based incentive programs, as designed and implemented in the programs that have been carefully studied, have not increased student achievement enough to bring the United States close to the levels of the highest achieving countries. When evaluated using relevant low-stakes tests, which are less likely to be inflated by the incentives themselves, the overall effects on achievement tend to be small and are effectively zero for a number of programs. Even when evaluated using the tests attached to the incentives, a number of programs show only small effects.”

“Performance Effects of Failure to Make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): Evidence from a Regression Discontinuity Framework”

Economics of Education Review , 2011

Findings: “Using panel data on Maryland elementary and middle schools from 2003 through 2009, I find that the scope of failure matters: Academic performance suffers in the short run in response to school-wide failure. However, schools that meet achievement targets for the aggregate student group, yet fail to meet at least one demographic subgroup’s target see between 3 and 6 percent more students in the failing subgroup score proficiently in the following year, compared to if no accountability pressure were in place.”

“Exacerbating Inequality: The Failed Promise of the No Child Left Behind Act” (PDF)

Race Ethnicity and Education, 2007

Findings: “ NCLB received and continues to receive support, in part because it promises to improve student learning and to close the achievement gap between White students and students of color. However, NCLB has failed to live up to its promises and may exacerbate inequality. Furthermore, by focusing on education as the solution to social and economic inequality, it diverts the public’s attention away from the issues such as poverty, lack of decent paying jobs and health care, that need to be confronted if inequality is to be reduced.”

“The No Child Left Behind Act: Have Federal Funds Been Left Behind? ” (PDF)

Public Finance Review, 2008

Findings: “We find that new federal funding is sufficient to support very low standards for student performance, but cannot come close to funding high standards without implausibly large increases in school-district efficiency… [S]tates have a strong incentive to keep their standards low.”

“Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?” (PDF)

Educational Researcher , 2007

Findings: “Focusing on the performance of fourth graders, where gains have been strongest since the early 1970s, the authors find that earlier test score growth has largely faded since enactment of NCLB in 2002. Gains in math achievement have persisted in the post-NCLB period, albeit at a slower rate of growth. Performance in many states continues to apparently climb. But the bar defining proficiency is set much lower in most states, compared with the NAEP [National Assessment of Educational Progress] definition, and the disparity between state and federal results has grown since 2001. Progress seen in the 1990s in narrowing achievement gaps has largely disappeared in the post-NCLB era.”

Tags: children, schools, research roundup, campaign issue, youth

About The Author

Margaret Weigel

The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools [with Comments and Discussion]

• The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools [with Comments and Discussion] (Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2010, No. 2)
• Data and programs

Subscribe to the Economic Studies Bulletin

Brian a. jacob and brian a. jacob walter h. annenberg professor of education policy; professor of economics, and professor of education - university of michigan, former brookings expert thomas s. dee tsd thomas s. dee professor - stanford university discussants: caroline m. hoxby and cmh caroline m. hoxby stanford university helen f. ladd helen f. ladd former brookings expert, susan b. king professor emeritus of public policy, samford school of public policy - duke university.

The controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) brought test-based school accountability to scale across the United States. This study draws together results from multiple data sources to identify how the new accountability systems developed in response to NCLB have influenced student achievement, school-district finances, and measures of school and teacher practices. Our results indicate that NCLB brought about targeted gains in the mathematics achievement of younger students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, we find no evidence that NCLB improved student achievement in reading. School-district expenditure increased significantly in response to NCLB, and these increases were not matched by federal revenue. Our results suggest that NCLB led to increases in teacher compensation and the share of teachers with graduate degrees. We find evidence that NCLB shifted the allocation of instructional time toward math and reading, the subjects targeted by the new accountability systems.

Economic Studies

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

Katharine Meyer

May 7, 2024

Jamie Klinenberg, Jon Valant, Nicolas Zerbino

Thinley Choden

May 3, 2024

The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools

• Download Brookings paper

The controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) brought test-based school accountability to scale across the United States. This study draws together results from multiple data sources to identify how the new accountability systems developed in response to NCLB have influenced student achievement, school-district finances, and measures of school and teacher practices. Our results indicate that NCLB brought about targeted gains in the mathematics achievement of younger students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, we find no evidence that NCLB improved student achievement in reading. School-district expenditure increased significantly in response to NCLB, and these increases were not matched by federal revenue. Our results suggest that NCLB led to increases in teacher compensation and the share of teachers with graduate degrees. We find evidence that NCLB shifted the allocation of instructional time toward math and reading, the subjects targeted by the new accountability systems.

We would like to thank Rob Garlick, Elias Walsh, Nathaniel Schwartz, and Erica Johnson for their research assistance. We would also like to thank Kerwin Charles, Robert Kaestner, Ioana Marinescu, and seminar participants at the Brookings Panel conference, a conference at the Harris School of Public Policy Studies at the University of Chicago, and at the NCLB: Emerging Findings Research Conference at the CALDER Center of the Urban Institute for helpful comments. An earlier version of this work was presented by Brian Jacob as the David N. Kershaw Lecture at the annual meeting of the Association of Public Policy Analysis and Management, November 2008. All errors are our own. The authors report no relevant conflicts of interest.

Download the paper →

• Brian Jacob
• No Child Left Behind
• school accountability
• adequate yearly progress
• teacher compensation
• Student Achievement
• disadvantaged students
• federal role in education

The implications of No Child Left Behind for students with developmental disabilities

Affiliation.

• 1 Department of Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina at Charlotte, Charlotte, North Carolina 28223, USA. [email protected]
• PMID: 17563897
• DOI: 10.1002/mrdd.20147

In a review of current research and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation, this paper focuses on two specific issues: (a) how students with developmental disabilities show adequate yearly progress, including a description of the assessments in which this population may participate, and (b) the policy issues surrounding NCLB including technical requirements of alternate assessments, alignment of content standards, assessments, and instruction, the requirement of all teachers to be highly qualified, and the relationship between NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). Areas for future research are identified through a review of relevant literature.

(c) 2007 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Publication types

• Developmental Disabilities*
• Education, Special*
• Public Policy
• Social Support*
• Teaching / standards
• United States

The Impact of No Child Left Behind's Accountability Sanctions on School Performance: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from North Carolina

Comparisons of schools that barely meet or miss criteria for adequate yearly progress (AYP) reveal that some sanctions built into the No Child Left Behind accountability regime exert positive impacts on students. Estimates indicate that the strongest positive effects associate with the ultimate sanction: leadership and management changes associated with school restructuring. We find suggestive incentive effects in schools first entering the NCLB sanction regime, but no significant effects of intermediate sanctions. Further analysis shows that gains in sanctioned schools are concentrated among low-performing students, with the exception of gains from restructuring which are pervasive. We find no evidence that schools achieve gains among low-performing students by depriving high-performing students of resources.

The authors gratefully acknowledge support from the Institute for Education Sciences, grant #R305A090019. A nontechnical summary of this research appeared as a policy brief released by the American Enterprise Institute, which provided financial support for the brief. We thank Erika Martinez, Sarah Crittenden Fuller, James Riddlesperger, and John Holbein for outstanding research assistance. We also thank Mike Lovenheim, Scott Imberman, participants at the 2013 AEA meetings, and seminar participants at the University of Virginia, University of Kentucky, and Michigan State University for helpful comments on previous drafts. Any opinions expressed in this paper are those of the authors and not of any affiliated institution. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Bureau of Economic Research.

MARC RIS BibTeΧ

Download Citation Data

Non-Technical Summaries

• The Impact on School Performance of No Child Left Behind Program Sanctions Author(s): Thomas Ahn Jacob L. Vigdor A study of poorly-performing North Carolina schools shows that replacing administration and staff improves student test score performance...

More from NBER

In addition to working papers , the NBER disseminates affiliates’ latest findings through a range of free periodicals — the NBER Reporter , the NBER Digest , the Bulletin on Retirement and Disability , the Bulletin on Health , and the Bulletin on Entrepreneurship  — as well as online conference reports , video lectures , and interviews .

No child left behind Research Paper

Introduction, impact of the law, works cited.

As one of the federal government’s most sweeping changes to education in a generation, the No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. This bill provides nearly $1 billion a year over the next five years to strengthen public schools (FDOE 1).

This research paper explores the Act, answering questions that are aimed at gathering sufficient and relevant information within the context of the research topic. Some of the issues covered in include an explanation of the law, the impact of the law and adaptation of various systems to accommodate the law.

Abbreviated as NCLB, No Child Left Behind is an Act of Congress in the United States which revolves around the accessibility and quality of education by children in public schools around the country. Although the bill was ratified by President Obama, it is important to note that it was initially proposed when George W. Bush became the President of the United States (Bagley 1).

At the time of its proposal, the bill received an overwhelming majority support in the Congress, probably because of the expected impact it was to have in transforming the education sector.

Principally, NCLB encourages reforms, which are based on high standards that are viewed as fundamental requirements of improving the outcomes of the education system. The bill further emphasizes the need of developing basic skills among students in public schools. As a result, states are supposed to have ways of assessing these skills among students in every grade for them to qualify for state funding (Bagley 1).

However, the act does not set expected national standards and allows states to set their own standards based on a wide range of factors that may vary from one state to another. Because of the implications of the bill to the entire education system, funding allocation has continuously been rising since 2001. Another important point notable from the bill is its recognition of good performance among students as a proof of the work done by individual teachers in different schools.

As a result, Adequate Yearly Progress is essential, especially for those schools around the country that are recognized under title “I” as defined in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. If a school experience recurring poor results yearly, the act recommends several steps to be implemented in improving the standards of the school to a reasonable level recognized by the state (NEA 1).

In line with Adequate Yearly Progress, schools which experience poor performance in two years consecutively are considered to be in need of improvement and are expected to come up with an improvement plan that would run for two years for those subjects which the schools seem not to be teaching well.

Additionally, students are given an option of seeking to transfer to another better school as long as the school does exist in his or her district (NEA 1). In the event the school does not realize AYP for the third year, the act recommends that such schools should establish free tutoring programmes with an aim of helping poor-performing students.

On the other hand, a “correction” is recommended for a school that fails to attain the AYP for the fourth year. This action may include overall replacement of teachers, replacement of the existing curriculum and an allowance to have affected students spend more time in class.

In extreme and almost impossible case, schools failing for the sixth year are put under reconstruction as provided in the No Child Left Behind Act. In balancing, the bill with its practical applicability, it is the responsibility of the state to ensure that every school has qualified teachers. Additionally, a “one high standard” is supposed to be set for all students, and every state is mandated to decide this kind of standard. However, all outlined standards of the education curriculum have to be applied to all students equally around the state (NEA 1).

The law is believed to have a significant impact in the entire education sector. This impact has been felt by both teachers, students, districts and all education stakeholders. The first implication of the No Child Left Behind Bill is increased accountability required of all public schools and teachers around the country (NEA 1).

According to the bill, every school must show quantifiable improvement in the performance of students in order to prove its efforts throughout every fiscal year. This is accompanied by measures discussed above that mainly affect non-performing schools and teachers (U.S. Department of Education 1).

The law further supports reduction of funding in cases where schools do not show any performance progress. The main purpose of this action is to enable teachers and all stakeholders to understand the immense significance of the education system to the nation (U.S. Department of Education 1).

Additionally, the law makes it possible to have a link between students’ standards and state academic content. Furthermore, it insists that all schools should establish measuring mechanisms in order to tell the performance of students at every grade starting from the third up to the eighth (U.S. Department of Education 1).

Beyond this stage of learning, the performance of students in high schools has to be determined at least once. Another impact is that it allows access of academic information of students by their parents through issuance of report cards. These report cards clearly indicate the Adequate Yearly Performance to enable parents to understand the progress of their sons and daughters. In addition, the school is obligated to disclose the professional level of the teacher to the parent to win the confidence of parents.

Besides having set standards for schools and teachers around the country, the bill also impacts students in various ways. Unlike in cases where schools denied students opportunities to transfer to another school within the district, the No Child Left Behind bill allows bright students in schools that are unable to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress to transfer to better ones within the district (Bagley 1).

Otherwise, schools are supposed to execute performance strategies like free tutoring and increased time, especially for those students who have weak performance standards.

No Child Education Bill is one of the most praised bills that promise to transform the American education system and make it performance-oriented. By insisting on performance standards, the government acknowledges the need to link resources and performance. In other words, its funding of the public education system has to be reflected through good performance from students through the efforts of schools and teachers.

By holding schools and teachers accountable for the performance of students, the law echoes the role of a teacher that goes beyond class work teaching. However, in its continuous implementation, performance measuring parameters have to remain harmonized to promote fair gauging of students’ performance across states.

Bagley, Jennifer. “ No Child Left Behind .” Education Week . 2004. Web.

FDOE. “ No Child Left Behind Act .” Florida Department of Education, 2005. Web.

NEA. “No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB).” National Education Association , 2011. Web.

U.S. Department of Education. “ Elementary and Secondary Education Act. ” U.S. Department of Education, 2011. Web.

• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, January 26). No child left behind. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-child-left-behind/

"No child left behind." IvyPanda , 26 Jan. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/no-child-left-behind/.

IvyPanda . (2024) 'No child left behind'. 26 January.

IvyPanda . 2024. "No child left behind." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-child-left-behind/.

1. IvyPanda . "No child left behind." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-child-left-behind/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "No child left behind." January 26, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/no-child-left-behind/.

• Teachers’ Perceptions on the Effects of NCLB
• NCLB Improves Student’s Performance
• Federal/State Policy Influences: NCLB Act
• No Child Left Behind Act Review
• The No Child Left Behind Act Review
• No Child Left Behind: Aspects of Support and Critique
• Evaluating the No Child Left behind Act
• "No Child Left Behind" Act Challenges
• No Child Left Behind: The Need to Modify the Law
• Racism in American Schools
• A Critical Analysis of the Fair Labour Standards Act
• Capital Punishment and Deterrence of Crime
• Working in Japan, China, India and South Korea
• Medical Research on Animals Should be Forbidden by Law
• Crimes in the United States