This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Fuller, B. Articles by Kang, E. Search for Related Content Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?

Professor of education and public policy at the University of California, Berkeley, Tolman Hall 3659, Berkeley, CA 94720; b_fuller{at}berkeley.edu. His new book is Standardized Childhood, published by Stanford University Press

Joseph Wright

Recently graduated from Berkeley’s Graduate School of Public Policy. He works on education and housing policy from New York City; josephcoton{at}yahoo.com

Kathryn Gesicki

Served as a research assistant at the Berkeley–Stanford Center, Policy Analysis for California Education. She is currently pursuing her master’s degree in public health at the University of California, Berkeley, with an emphasis in health policy and management; kgesicki{at}gmail.com

Erin Kang

Served as a research assistant at the Berkeley–Stanford Center, Policy Analysis for California Education, before leaving for a teaching post in South Korea. She currently works on early childhood programs with the First 5 California Children and Families Commission; erinhkang{at}gmail.com.

Many policymakers feel pressure to claim that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is boosting student performance, as Congress reconsiders the federal government’s role in school reform. But how should politicians and activists gauge NCLB’s effects? The authors offer evidence on three barometers of student performance, drawing from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state data spanning the 1992–2006 period. 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 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.

Key Words: accountability policy • No Child Left Behind

Educational Researcher, Vol. 36, No. 5, 268-278 (2007)
DOI: 10.3102/0013189X07306556


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?

This article has been cited by other articles:

				H. Mintrop and G. L. Sunderman Predictable Failure of Federal Sanctions-Driven Accountability for School Improvement--And Why We May Retain It Anyway Educational Researcher, June 1, 2009; 38(5): 353 - 364. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. J. McCarthey The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Teachers' Writing Instruction Written Communication, October 1, 2008; 25(4): 462 - 505. [Abstract] [PDF]

				A. D. Ho The Problem With "Proficiency": Limitations of Statistics and Policy Under No Child Left Behind Educational Researcher, August 1, 2008; 37(6): 351 - 360. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Cummins Pedagogies for the Poor? Realigning Reading Instruction for Low-Income Students With Scientifically Based Reading Research Educational Researcher, December 1, 2007; 36(9): 564 - 572. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]