Child Left Behind Research Articles

Performance Information and Personnel Decisions in the Public Sector

Firms and other organizations establish the criteria under which employees will be judged and the performance measures made available to supervisors, the board of directors and other stakeholders, and these structures almost certainly influence behavior and organization outcomes. Any divergence of the chosen performance metric from an ideal measurement of productivity may lead to suboptimal outcomes, particularly in the public sector where outside interest groups may rely more heavily on easily accessible ratings than better-informed insiders. In the case of public education, federal and state accountability systems provide considerable information about student outcomes and rate schools on that basis. However, the No Child Left Behind accountability legislation’s focus on pass rates rather than learning and achievement growth introduces the possibility that inadequate information and a flawed structure each compromise public school quality. This study of school principal labor market outcomes investigates the relationship between principal labor market success and a set of performance measures that differ on the basis of accessibility to stakeholders and link with true principal productivity. The results from the empirical analysis provide evidence that information and design deficiencies introduce a lack of alignment between incentives and principal productivity and adversely affect the quality of education in Texas public schools.

“Smart Power” in Standards Implementation after No Child Left Behind

Purpose: As the federal government has retreated from taking a dominant role in encouraging implementation of common K–12 standards, states and districts have moved to fill this education policy va...

Note from the Editor

Note from the Editor

A Comprehensive Application of Kingdon's Multiple Streams Framework: An Analysis of the Obama Administration's No Child Left Behind Waiver Policy

Kingdon's multiple streams framework (MSF) is very influential, but problems exist with its application. Most applications neither fully use the MSF's problem stream, policy stream, politics stream, policy entrepreneur, and policy window concepts nor all their subcomponents. These trends indicate a lack of shared language and understanding of the policy process necessary for the MSF's theoretical development. Most applications employing the concepts identify subcomponents but disregard their operationalizations. Moreover, research overwhelmingly cites Kingdon's 1984 publication while neglecting studies contributing to new MSF understandings. Using the Obama administration's No Child Left Behind waiver policy, this article applies the MSF concentrating on its contemporary understandings, the focus concepts, and the concepts' subcomponents while operationalizing them. This allows an enhanced analysis and MSF's policy process understanding, identifies the MSF's strengths and weaknesses, notes nuances, offers new insights, and recommends future research.Related ArticlesDavid, Charles‐Philippe. 2015. “Policy Entrepreneurs and the Reorientation of National Security Policy under the G. W. Bush Administration (2001‐04).” Politics & Policy 43 (1): 163‐195. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12106Rawat, Pragati, and John Charles Morris. 2016. “Kingdon's ‘Streams’ Model at Thirty: Still Relevant in the 21st Century?” Politics & Policy 44 (4): 608‐638. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12168Tanaka, Yugo, Andrew Chapman, Tetsuo Tezuka, and Shigeki Sakurai. 2020. “Multiple Streams and Power Sector Policy Change: Evidence from the Feed‐In Tariff Policy Process in Japan.” Politics & Policy 48 (3): 464‐489. https://doi.org/10.1111/polp.12357

HISTORICAL OVERVIEW OF U.S. INCLUSIVE EDUCATION FEDERAL LEGISLATION

The relevance of the research problem tackling the inclusive education evolution in the United States is explained by the fact that it the USA has been a leader in developing a rights-based model of inclusive education. The research is conditioned by the current stage of national education that undergoes modernization, the steady course of Ukraine to create an inclusive school, and government’s request to implement its initiatives. The purpose of this article is to present a reconsidered historical analysis of the inclusive education in the USA that represents an expansion of earlier research conducted by the author. Methods applied include historical and comparative research. The author’s periodization that describes the phases in the inclusive education development in the USA is presented. This is based on the chronologically arranged U.S. federal legislation related to ensuring equal rights and opportunities. It is stated that some court decisions and federal legislation that incorporated court decisions clearly marked the phases in inclusive education development. These legislative milestones beginning each phase include the U.S. Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka (1954), the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), the Education of the Handicapped Students Act Amendments (1986), No Child Left Behind Act (2001), and Every Student Succeeds Act (2015). Consequently, there are five phases in the inclusive education development and each phase reflects the general trend in the U.S. inclusive education. The initial phase is referred to as the active social movement for the right to education (1954–1974). In the second phase, children with disabilities were integrated into regular schools through mainstreaming (1975–1985). Then comes the so-called Regular Education Initiative phase or full inclusion (1986–2000), followed by the accountable inclusive education phase (2001–2014). Finally, the phase of the high-quality inclusive education started in 2015 and continues today.

Using Integrative Implementation Theory to Understand New Jersey's 2015 Opt-Out Movement

Background/ContextIn the spring of 2015, about 135,000 New Jersey students—almost 20% of the test-eligible children—did not take the state's test. Opposition of this magnitude directly contradicted a central stipulation of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), which required states to test 95% of their eligible students to receive federal education funding. This article examines what happened in New Jersey in 2015 to produce such a large change in the implementation of state testing policy.Purpose/Objective/Research Question/Focus of StudyIn this article, I use Richard Matland's integrative policy implementation theory to explain the circumstances that produced such a large change in the enactment of New Jersey testing policy in 2015. More specifically, I focus on two research questions: (1) What were the major national, state, and local factors that contributed to parent and student opt-out decisions in New Jersey in 2015? (2) How does integrative implementation theory help us to understand the different circumstances contributing to the opt-out movement in New Jersey in 2015?Population/Participants/SubjectsThe article is based upon extensive document review and 33 interviews with New Jersey state policymakers, professional education association representatives, advocacy group leaders, school administrators, teachers, parents, and students. Intervention/Program/Practice: Since the 1990s, testing has become an increasingly important function of state education policy. High-stakes state testing policies were further expanded under the NCLB, which required states to test 95% of their eligible students to receive streams of federal education funding. The opt-out movement across the nation in 2015 was a major departure from this well-established policy.Research DesignThis study employs qualitative interpretive research to examine how multiple actors at different levels of the New Jersey education system understood and interpreted the 2015 opt-out movement. Using Matland's ambiguity-conflict model of policy implementation I interpret the interactions between the policy design and local implementers’ beliefs and goals.Findings/ResultsThe findings illuminate the shifting national, state, and local factors that contributed to district opt-out rates as well as variation across school levels and districts with different socioeconomic conditions. The combination of increased federal press on states, New Jersey's fast timelines for new standards and assessment adoption even as it ratcheted up accountability, and inconsistent state policy signals all contributed to backlash from teachers, community members, and anti-testing advocates. These factors illuminate many of the changing circumstances in New Jersey that fueled the dramatic opt-out movement in 2015.Conclusions/RecommendationsWhile Matland's integrative implementation model helps to explain the dynamics of the 2015 New Jersey opt-out movement, it does not account for additional contributing factors including changes over time, dynamics at different system levels, and consideration of a broader range of actors beyond policymakers and policy targets. Incorporating these factors can help make integrative implementation theories even more robust.

The Opt-Out Movement in New York: A Grassroots Movement to Eliminate High-Stakes Testing and Promote Whole Child Public Schooling

Purpose Over the last five years, approximately 50% of the students in Nassau and Suffolk counties on Long Island and 20% across New York State have opted out of the yearly standardized tests for third through eighth grade. This article focuses on two grassroots organizations, New York State Allies for Public Education (NYSAPE) and Long Island Opt Out (LIOO), the two parents who have been central to the organizations’ success, and the strategies and tactics that the two organizations have adopted to achieve such a high opt-out rate in New York. Context Since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), third through eighth grade public school students have been required to take yearly standardized tests. The most recent version of the exams focused on assessing students, their teachers, and schools based on the Common Core State Standards. Many educators and parents have argued that the standards and assessments negatively affect student learning. In response, educators, parents, teachers, and students have lobbied and publicly testified in an effort to reduce the length of the exams, if not eliminate them. However, the testimonies have had almost no impact on the policymakers. Consequently, some parents concluded that the only way to influence policymakers is to get enough students to opt out of the tests so that the scores were not valid and thus could no longer be used to compare students and teachers within and across schools for accountability purposes. Research Design This study is drawn from a qualitative research project in which we conducted interviews to understand how the opt-out movement developed and the strategies it adopted in relation to high-stakes testing in New York. The interviews with two parent leaders from NYSAPE and LIOO are the main data source for this article. Findings NYSAPE and LIOO can be characterized as real grassroots social movements in that all members have input in the goals and organizing strategies, and unpaid leaders emerge from the membership. Further, because the organizations lack permanent funding, they have to be innovative in using media. By motivating and empowering others and using social media such as Facebook and Twitter, they built a large network and a strong base so that they could influence policymakers and respond quickly at the local and state levels. Conclusion Their organizing strategies exemplified the participatory and grassroots nature of the new social movements as theorized by McAlevey. The opt-out movement is pushing back not only against high-stakes testing but also against the larger neoliberal construction of parents as simply consumers of schooling, rather than as active, informed citizens. The movement also supports whole-child schooling.

Test-Based Accountability and the Effectiveness of School Finance Reforms

A recent literature provides new evidence that school resources are important for student outcomes. This paper examines whether school accountability systems that incentivize performance (such as No Child Left Behind) raise the efficiency with which additional resources get spent. We leverage the timing of school finance reforms to compare funding impacts on student test scores between states that had accountability in place at the time of the reform and states that did not. The results show that finance-reform-induced increases in student performance are driven by those states where the reform was accompanied by the presence of test-based accountability.

Thinking About Art: The Role of Single-Visit Art Museum Field Trip Programs in Visual Arts Education

The 2015 passing of Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) to replace No Child Left Behind was celebrated within the arts community (Arts Education Partnership, 2017; National Art Education Association,...

The Science of Reading: Four Forces That Modified, Distorted, or Ignored the Research Finding on Reading Comprehension

ABSTRACTThe science of reading is the latest version of the reading wars brought to national attention by the popular press. Although most of the popular press has focused on phonics and early reading, in this article, we chose to study what happened to the research on reading comprehension. By the beginning of the 21st century, there had emerged a mainstream view of reading comprehension and comprehension instruction. However, four factors distorted, impeded, and swamped the research findings. (1) Commercial publishers fit comprehension instruction into a curricular format that distorted the intent of the research. (2) The No Child Left Behind Act, with its high‐stakes testing and concomitant interim assessments, moved the focus in schools from developing comprehension to passing tests. (3) The publishers’ criteria for the Common Core State Standards promoted instruction that ran contrary to research findings. (4) Problems with the educational research, publication, development, and dissemination process itself further weakened the effect of research on practice. We conclude with suggestions for researchers to better communicate their results and procedures to other educators, suggestions for how the research community can have a greater impact on the development and review of commercial reading materials and policy initiatives, and suggestions for improving the education of future researchers, administrators, and teachers.

Accelerated Reader and Information Policy, Information Literacy, and Knowledge Management: U.S. and International Implications

Qualitative and quantitative analyses of the relationship between the Accelerated Reader (AR), a computerized reading management program, and information policy, information literacy, and knowledge management are drawn from data collected in the U.S., Scotland, and England. A study of 632 of the poorest U.S. schools shows a strong relationship between national information policy regarding achievement in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and local decisions to use AR, expectations for literacy, and library collection development. Investigation in the U.K. schools finds that (a) motivational style interacts with gender in relation to the competitive and social aspects of the AR program, (b) the level of program implementation does not correlate with breadth of reading, and (c) management aspects of the program are not utilized effectively. Results suggest that how the AR program relates to information policy, information literacy, and knowledge management has importance for school librarians and libraries

Which Came First: Literacy or Social Studies? How Primary Sources Can Bridge the Divide

Due to the implementation of No Child Left Behind and the Common Core State Standards, disciplinary literacy has become a vital component of social studies instruction in middle and secondary classrooms. This paper determines the degree to which nine middle and high school social studies teachers were successful in designing integrated learning experiences for their students after attending professional development. Data from semi-structured interviews, teachers’ instructional units, workshop surveys and field notes were collected and analyzed for the qualitative study. The study considers how teachers’ instructional units incorporated primary sources to support students’ foundational literacy skills, scaffolded disciplinary understanding, historical analysis, and highlighted community issues that connected their lived experiences to broader social concerns.

Review

Review

A call for radical over reductionist approaches to ‘inclusive’ reform in neoliberal times: an analysis of position statements in the United States

ABSTRACT The term ‘inclusive education’ has evolved to connote various meanings and recently, neoliberalism has impacted how ‘inclusion’ is understood and enacted. In this paper, we use a disability studies in education framework to compare and contrast radical against incrementalist and reductionist approaches to educational reform related to students with disabilities. In order to accomplish this, we completed a systematic review of 37 position statement documents from education and disability advocacy organisations published in the United States from 2000 to 2019, which is the time period after the No Child Left Behind Act was enacted. We analysed the statements using a priori codes, which include: high-stakes testing, standards-based reform, and accountability. Additionally, we inductively coded the statements for emergent sub-codes and additional themes. Our findings examine how these organisations describe how students with disabilities should fit into neoliberal reform priorities as connected to our theoretical framings. We found that most professional advocacy organisations in the US recommend reductionist approaches to educational reform, and many reframe the very meaning of inclusive education.

Did consequential accountability policies decrease the share of visual and performing arts education in U.S. public secondary schools during the No Child Left Behind era?

It has been asserted that the test-based accountability of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) increased instruction in tested subject areas reading and math, leading to reductions in arts education. We tested this using two waves of data, before and after NCLB implementation, in a difference-in-differences design. The analyses indicated that the total teacher workforce increased substantially during this time period, while the percentage of reading and math educators remained constant, leading to an overall increase in the teacher corps for these subjects. In contrast, the percentage of music and visual arts educators decreased during this period, leading to a decrease in their numbers. Average subject-specific teaching loads increased across all of these subjects. The result was substantial increases in the number of reading and math courses taught, combined with overall stability in the number of arts courses. However, comparisons across states with varying implementation of test-based school accountability prior to NCLB failed to show a relationship between such accountability and changes in the percentages and teaching loads of reading, math, and arts educators. Thus, at least in terms of cross-state comparisons, changes in these outcomes cannot be attributed to state-specific changes in accountability brought on by the introduction of NCLB.

Evaluating Panelists’ Understanding of Standard Setting Data

AbstractSince the No Child Left Behind Act (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2001) was enacted, the Bookmark method has been used in many state standard setting studies (Karantonis and Sireci; Zieky, Perie, and Livingston). The purpose of the current study is to evaluate the criticism that when panelists are presented with data during the Bookmark standard setting process, these data are often misunderstood. We collected survey responses from eight panels of teachers who worked on an alternate assessment standard setting workshop. We found that although many panelists understood these data, others misunderstood them. For example, when panelists reviewed panel judgment statistics, some extrapolated beyond what these data represent. Our results include themes describing the types of misconceptions we observed, and the need for training and evaluation related to understanding and use of data used in standard setting. We share some suggestions for consideration when implementing the Bookmark method.

Special Education Considerations Of Ethical Leaders During The Turnaround Process

Education has entered an era of accountability with measures and school rating based largely on overall student performance on high-stakes assessments. Schools identified as at-risk or underperforming are mandated under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) to take a course of action to improve student achievement. This has led the charge for schools to adopt improvement initiatives or models across the country. The focus of education has therefore become one of achievement rather than one of learning. In design these improvement efforts, as Heward points out, are “focused on student outcomes, particularly helping all students, including students with disabilities, reach high academic and occupational skill standards” (as cited in Koh & Robertson, 2003, p. 422). Keywords: Special Education, Ethical Leadership, Ethics in Education

Possibilities and Challenges: Conditions Shaping Educators’ Use of Social–Emotional Learning Indicators

Background/Context Researchers have amassed considerable evidence on the use of student performance data (e.g., benchmark and standardized state tests) to inform educational improvement, but few have examined the use of nonacademic indicators (e.g., indicators of social and emotional well-being) available to educators, and whether the factors shaping academic data use remain true for these newer types of data. While the field continues to advocate for greater attention to the social–emotional development of students, there remains little guidance on conditions supporting the use of data on these important mindsets, dispositions, beliefs, and behaviors. Purpose/Focus of the Study In this article, we use sensemaking theory, prior research on academic data use, and research from a study of “early adopter” California districts to develop a framework for understanding conditions likely to shape educators’ use of social–emotional learning (SEL) indicators to inform practice. Research Design We develop our findings and framework by drawing on prior research and theory, as well as data from a multiyear research–practice partnership with a consortium of California districts that began measuring SEL as part of the No Child Left Behind waiver they received from the U.S. Department of Education. We draw on more than 125 interviews with consortium leaders, central office administrators, leaders, teachers, and staff in 25 schools and six districts to understand how they made sense of SEL and SEL survey data, as well as the practices employed to support SEL. Findings We find that five categories of conditions appear to shape how educators interpret and respond to SEL indicators: policy context, organizational conditions, interpersonal relationships and interactions, data user characteristics, and data properties. Much like academic data use, we find: (1) the accountability policy context can convey a sense of importance, but may also lead to distortive responses; (2) district and school leaders are critical for allocating time and staff, and cultivating a data culture; (3) collaboration facilitates sensemaking; (4) individual-level knowledge and beliefs can shape interpretation; and (5) timeliness and perceived relevance of data matter. Some of these conditions, however, are uniquely relevant to the use of SEL data, which brings greater ambiguity, uncertainty, and a decoupling from the traditional academic role of educators. We find that including SEL indicators in multiple measure systems can lead to uncertainty and interpretive complexity, and divide educators’ attention. Deficit conceptions may also shape sensemaking and are especially germane in the SEL context given documented gaps by race/ethnicity on measures of SEL. Another condition especially relevant to SEL indicator usage is the lack of coherence or clarity around SEL. The frequent misunderstandings of and disagreement about SEL—sometimes shaped by disciplinary background—could lead to different interpretations and responses. All of these conditions suggest that sensemaking and response to SEL data indicators are complex processes that require multiple enabling factors. Conclusions and Implications Given the significant investments in supporting and measuring student social-emotional development, it behooves policymakers, education leaders and practitioners to better understand the conditions facilitating and inhibiting productive use of SEL indicators. The framework provided herein presents a set of concepts and conditions that may be useful in supporting this process. The findings also raise a cautionary flag that while sometimes consistent with the process of using academic data, the use of SEL indicators may present added challenges worthy of attention. We conclude with implications for policy, practice, and research. Notably, education leaders and practitioners may want to invest in building common understanding of SEL and capacity to interpret and act on these indicators, and consider how equity orientations shape understanding and usage of SEL indicators. Policymakers may want to consider more formative uses of SEL data that are provided to educators earlier in the year, and attend to the human capital needs that accompany SEL data usage. Finally, researchers might build on this work by further examining the relationship between SEL and culture/climate and the ways in which educators respond to data on both, and also investigate the outcomes of SEL data usage, such as actions that lead to meaningful improvements in SEL.

A Critical Review of 'Getting Tough? The Impact of High School Graduation Exams'

The highly-praised and influential study, “Getting Tough?,” was published in 2001. Briefly, while controlling for a host of student, school, state, and educator background variables, the study regressed 1988 to 1992 student-level achievement score gains onto a dummy variable for the presence (or not) of a high school graduation test at the student’s school. The 1992-1988 difference in scores on the embedded cognitive test in a US Educational Department longitudinal survey comprised the gain scores. The study was praised for its methodology, controlling for multiple baseline variables which previous researchers allegedly had not, and by some opposed to high-stakes standardized testing for its finding of no achievement gains. Indeed, some characterized the work as so far superior in method it justified dismissing all previous work on the topic. Moreover, the article was timely, its appearance in print coincident with congressional consideration of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) and its new federal mandate requiring annual testing in seven grades and three subjects in all U.S. public schools. The article also served as the foundation for a string of ensuing studies nominally showing that graduation exams bore few benefits and outsized costs (e.g., in dropout rates). Graduation exam opponents would employ these critical studies as evidence to political effect. From a high number of more than thirty states around the turn of the millennium, graduation tests are now administered in only seven or eight states. The multivariate analysis in “Getting Tough?” should have had the advantage of authenticity — an analysis of a phenomenon studied in its actual context. But that should mean that the context is understood and specified in the analysis, not ignored as if it couldn’t matter. And, it could have been understood and specified. Most of the relevant information left out of “Getting Tough?” — specific values for other factors that tend to affect test performance or student achievement — was available from the three contemporary surveys, and the rest could have been obtained from a more detailed evidence-gathering effort. The study could have been more insightful had it been done differently, perhaps with less emphasis on “more sophisticated” and “more rigorous” mathematical analysis, and more emphasis on understanding and specifying the context — how testing programs are organized, how tests are administered, the effective differences among the wide variety and forms of tests and how students respond differently to each, the legal context of testing in the late 1980s and early 1990s, and so on.

Reflections on Supervision in the Time of COVID-19

COVID-19 has completely disrupted the normal patterns and schedules of the American public school system. While schools have shifted to online teaching, an alarming amount of students have disengaged from the instruction provided by teachers. As educators consider the question of why upwards of 40% of students are choosing to not engage in regular instruction, supervisors and teachers across America will need to take long looks in the mirror and ask questions about how and in what ways we have failed our students over the past 20 years since the inception of the federal accountability movement and No Child Left Behind. The negative impact of COVID-19 has had on BIPOC students should be considered, specifically as it relates to income loss, digital connectedness, and current or impending housing insecurity, however educators also need to consider the importance of pedagogical practices used to engage BIPOC students in meaningful and transformative learning experiences.