Did States Use Implementation Discretion to Reduce the Stringency of NCLB? Evidence From a Database of State Regulations

Abstract

When No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became law in 2002, it was viewed as an effort to create uniform standards for students and schools across the country. More than a decade later, we know surprisingly little about how states actually implemented NCLB and the extent to which state implementation decisions managed to undo the centralizing objectives of the law. This paper introduces a state-level measure of NCLB stringency that helps shed light on these issues. The measure is available for 49 states and the District of Columbia and covers most years under NCLB (2003–2011). Importantly, the measure does not depend on population characteristics of the state. It varies only because of state-level decisions about rule exemptions, standards, and proficiency trajectories. Overall, we find that while NCLB was successful in encouraging states to adopt higher and more consistent performance standards for schools, it also provided much more flexibility and customization in state-level accountability policies than is generally realized.

Use of Quasi-Experimental Research Designs in Education Research: Growth, Promise, and Challenges

“…But policy is often much more nuanced than that. For instance, NCLB was implemented differently in each state, essentially resulting in 50 versions of NCLB (Wong et al, 2018), but many studies treat it as a single homogeneous policy across states. Similarly, PBF policies for public colleges and universities vary from state to state, with some states tying as much as 85% of state appropriations for public colleges to institutional performance while others tie less than 5% to similar metrics.…”

Preparation and The Real World of Education: How Prospective Teachers Grapple with Using Culturally Responsive Teaching Practices in the Age of Standardized Testing

“…The practice of bargaining for funds makes state performance standards a greater implication for school funding. States compete for federal dollars by enacting certain education reforms, which aid schools through grants that serve over 22 million students, as well as influences the teachings of over 1.5 million teachers in more than 40,000 schools (Wong et al, 2018). States that show improvement in student performance are funded well.…”

“…Even though heavy concentration on standardized testing might improve student scores and afford schools the opportunity for increase school funding, standardized test scores as a measure of teachers’ effectiveness has discounted other areas of teachers’ competence and character, such as integrity. Throughout the years, several education officials have found ways to manipulate provisions in the NCLB system by lowering cutoff test scores for proficiency, removing students who would perform poorly, and/or by fudging results (Dixon, 2018; Wong et al, 2018), as evidenced by the indictment of multiple teachers, administrators, as well as the superintendent within the Atlanta Public Schools (APS) system accused of cheating on standardized test. The APS indictment scandal is just one reminder of the dangers of downgrading education to the new “teach to the test” phenomenon.…”

“…As a result, federal funding, as it pertains to the Race to the Top competition initiative, often depends on schools' performances and test results (Stotsky, 2016). To an extent, the performances of K-12 schools depend largely on their state's discretion and stringency of use and implementation of NCLB (Wong et al, 2018). If schools do ot meet certain performance criteria, they are subject to sanctions and possible closure.…”

“…While existing literature (see Burnette, 2016; Hart & Figlio, 2015; Ng, 2006; Wong, Wing, Martin, & Krishnamachari, 2018) has examined the underpinnings of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 in terms of measuring its implementation and stringency within each school district, the availability and use of school choice, and/or student performance based on school demographics, this article addresses concerns as it relates to preservice teachers’ ability to engage in culturally responsive mathematics teaching practices in assigned placement sites. The contents of this article stem from a study that chronicled the experiences and interactions of four novice teachers who, within standard based, high-stakes testing centered environments, worked on becoming culturally responsive pedagogues.…”