Psychology Wiki

Assessment | Biopsychology | Comparative | Cognitive | Developmental | Language | Individual differences | Personality | Philosophy | Social |
Methods | Statistics | Clinical | Educational | Industrial | Professional items | World psychology |

Educational Psychology: Assessment · Issues · Theory & research · Techniques · Techniques X subject · Special Ed. · Pastoral

No Child Left Behind Act

President Bush signing the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), often abbreviated in print as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nickelbee"[1], is a controversial United States federal law (Act of Congress) that was originally proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001, immediately after taking office.[2] Congress based its legislation on this "blueprint" proposed by the President. The legislation was co-Authored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and signed by President Bush. The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act, introduced as HR 1 during the 107th Congress, [3] was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001[4], United States Senate on June 14, 2001[5] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools and in order to comply with the Tenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which specifies that powers not granted to the federal government nor forbidden to state governments are reserved powers of the individual states.

The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters and institutions of higher education, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.[6]

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.[7]

Over the time of this law, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. This equates to an increase which outpaced inflation by 5%. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion. [8] A 2008 study from the Department of Ed, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” analyzes the performance of students in 12 states who were in grades one to three during the 2004-5 and 2005-6 school years and concluded that the Reading First Program, a major billion dollar a year NCLB effort, had proven "ineffective." A final report on the impacts from 2004-2007 (three school years with Reading First funding) and on the relationships between changes in instructional practice and student reading comprehension is expected in late 2008.[9]

Summary of the act[]

No Child Left Behind requires all public schools administer a state-wide standardized test annually to all students. Schools which receive Title I funding must make Adequate Yearly Progress in test scores (e.g. each year, its fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous years).

If a Title I school fails to make Adequate Yearly Progress, it is put on a list of "failing schools" published in the local paper and parents are given the option to transfer to another school. Its Title I funding is cut and it must provide special tutoring for its students.

Claims made in favor of the act[]

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Improved test scores (NAEP)[]

The Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:[10]

  • More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
  • America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
  • Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
  • Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
  • Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).

Critics argue that these statistics are misleading. They compare 2005 with 2000, when No Child Left Behind didn't even take effect until 2003. They point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 was roughly the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which calls into question how any increase can be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some of the subgroups are cherry-picked -- that in other subgroups scores remained flat or actually fell.[11]

Improvement over local standards[]

Many argue that local government had failed students, necessitating federal intervention to remedy issues like teachers teaching outside their areas of expertise, and complacency in the face of continually failing schools.[12] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, because local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).[13] States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as a result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states and the District of Columbia at ninety-eight percent of its schools achieving the No Child Left Behind Standards. [14]

Increased accountability[]

Supporters of NCLB claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools, offers parents greater educational options for their children, and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students.[15] NCLB aims to show achievement toward these goals through federally mandated standardized testing.

In addition to and in support of the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:

  • Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
  • Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
  • Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
  • Establishes the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly enhance parental involvement and improved administration through the use of the assessment data to drive decisions on instruction, curriculum and business practices.

Attention to minority populations[]

  • Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
  • Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".[16] Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself.[16] Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.

Quality of education[]

  • Ideally, increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance[How to reference and link to summary or text]
  • Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
  • Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative [1].
  • Emphasizes reading, writing, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects".

School choice[]

  • Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
  • Gives school districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.


One important aspect to consider for EETT is funding. Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states in turn reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004-05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and math, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs. [17]

Public perception of public education[]

  • Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

Criticisms of the Act[]

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

'Gaming' the system[]

The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ "creative reclassification" of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[18]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations. The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.[19] Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[20] A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.[21]

Problems with standardized tests[]

Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.[22] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition (e.g., story problems) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."

Moreover, many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" actually misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State and Michigan) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two-thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two points.[23] Wiggins and McTighe blamed the low success rate on teachers who correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present rote knowledge/skill items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.

The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students[24]. For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers to speak[25].

The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[26]

Incentives against low-performing students[]

Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher[27] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether.[28]

Under the NCLB act schools that do not meet certain established standards are given additional funds in an attempt to boost scores. Critics argue that schools have less of an incentive to do better if they are already receiving more funds. However, schools are also given bonuses for meeting yearly requirements. Since these requirements are given each year, schools are less likely to rapidly increase their scores, as a slow and gradual improvement would be financially better. Another part of the NCLB act gives schools that perform well awards and special recognition that opponents argue would encourage schools already doing well to push out disadvantaged students even more.[How to reference and link to summary or text]

Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students[]

Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. In other words, NCLB forces school programs to ration education in such a manner as to only guarantee mandated skill levels in reading, writing, and arithmetic to all students. All other programs not essential to providing mandated skills to regular students or remedial special education students are being gutted by those districts. [29] While Federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement.

State refusal to produce non-English assessments[]

All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis. In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[30]

Narrow curriculum[]

NCLB's focus on math and English language skills (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students lose the benefits of a broad education.[31]

A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contends that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to rising levels of childhood obesity.[32]

Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 71% believe instructional time has increased for reading, writing, and math (subjects tested under the law), and decreased for the arts, elementary social studies, and foreign languages.[33][34][35]

In some places, the implementation of NCLB during a time of budget restraints has been blamed for the elimination of classes and activities which are outside of NCLB's focus area.[36] "It hurts me to give up art, but it hurts me even more to have kids who can't read," said school Principal Kathy Deck in Indianapolis, Indiana.[37] These restraints may have affected humanities and social studies curricula as well. Common Core, a group that encourages a broad inclusive curriculum, recently found that many American high school students lack basic knowledge in history, civics, and literature. The group blamed NCLB for not including these topics in its focus.[38]

Narrow definition of research[]

Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, anecdotes, personal experience, or other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.[39]

Limitations on local control[]

Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it.[40]

Facilitates military recruitment[]

NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.[41][42] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military.

Some students may not learn as well[]

Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.[43] While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of a student who has below-average capabilities.

100% compliance[]

The Act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. In fact, the "all" in NCLB means 95% of students.[44] Recent regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of students with disabilities proficient for the purposes of the Act."#cite_note-titleVDOE_" contains a listed "#" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid.


Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.

Various early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[46] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former assistant secretary for elementary and secondary education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association.[47]

" In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy."

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to fully fund the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[48] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is.[49] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006).

Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing.

Federal funding is claimed to be particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have sometimes led governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets.

State education budgets[]

Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.[How to reference and link to summary or text] The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenues and higher expenses.

Proposals for reform[]

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind[50] is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor and religious groups that have signed on to a statement calling for major changes to the federal education law. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) initiated and chaired the meetings that produced the statement, originally released in October 2004. The statement's central message is that "the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement." The number of organizations signing the statement has nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, as the law's scheduled reauthorization approaches.

Education critic Alfie Kohn argues that the NCLB law is "unredeemable" and should be scrapped. He is quoted saying "[I]ts main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills".[51]

In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.[52] The Commission is an independent, bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis and research, the Commission uncovered the successes of NCLB, as well as provisions which need to be changed or significantly modified.

The Commission's goals are summarized as follows:

  • Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities
  • Accelerating Progress and Closing Achievement Gaps Through Improved Accountability
  • Moving Beyond the Status Quo to Effective School Improvement and Student Options
  • Fair and Accurate Assessments of Student Progress
  • High Standards for Every Student in Every State
  • Ensuring High Schools Prepare Students for College and the Workplace
  • Driving Progress Through Reliable, Accurate Data
  • Parental involvement and empowerment

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal.[53] It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

See also[]


  1. "In an ideal world, if Nicklebee ideology dictated how things were, everyone across all demographics and in all nations would have easy access to a good education.", in a letter from the President of
     "The Federal Government's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB — dubbed 'nicklebee')", Sandra Nichols (April 26, 2003), When NCLB Standards Meet Reality,,, retrieved on 2008-11-17]] 
  3. To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind., Library of Congress, 3/22/2001,, retrieved on 2008-09-16 
  4. Final vote results for roll-call 145,, May 23, 2001,, retrieved on 2008-04-28 
  5. Senate roll call vote
  6. Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Section on Military recruitment (PDF - English). Retrieved 6/7/07.
  7. List of articles regarding NCLB debate
  8. U.S. Department of Education. "Press Releases", 2006-02-06. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
  9. Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report - Introduction
  10. (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  11. Linda Perlstein, Tested
  12. Mizell, H (2003). NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity?. URL accessed on 2007-06-07.
  13. (2005). Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005: No Child Left Behind Act. New York State Education Agency. URL accessed on 2007-06-07.
  14. Template:Cite
  15. (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  16. 16.0 16.1 Charting the Course: States Decide Major Provisions Under No Child Left Behind. U.S. Department of Education. URL accessed on 2008-04-09.
  17. Support the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program Restore Funding to $496 million FY 05 Level, Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA),, retrieved on 2008-07-06 
  18. (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  19. (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  20. (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved November 10th, 2008.
  21. (June 2007). "Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales". NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on 2007-06-08.
  22. (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  23. Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, 2nd Edition. ASCD. ISBN 9781416600350. p. 42-43
  24. Cohen, L. G. & Spenciner, L. J. (2007). Assessment of children & youth with special needs. (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
  25. Statement of Patti Ralabate, National Education Association, August 2, 2006,, retrieved on 2008-04-28 
  26. (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  27. (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  28. Ryan, J. (2004) The Perverse Incentives of No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  29. "The Genius Problem" by John Cloud, Time, July 27, 2007, pp 40-46
  30. Crawford, J. (nd) No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  31. (2003) Major NCLB Problems.
  32. Trickey, H. (2006) No child left out of the dodgeball game? Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  33. Trickey, H. (2006)
  34. Lynch, Robert L. (2007) No Child Left Behind Act wrongly left the arts behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  35. Associated Press (2007) Schools Boost Focus On Math And Reading. Retrieved September 15, 2007.
  36. National Education Association (2003) Cuts Leave More and More Public School Children Behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  37. Washington Post (2004) 'No Child' Law Leaves Schools' Old Ways Behind. Retrieved September 15, 2007.
  38. What High Schoolers Don't Know. Retrieved 4/24/08.
  39. Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  40. Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  42. (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
  43. website.
  44. Doing Your Homework: Answering Questions about Support for NCLB by Sue Heath - Wrightslaw. URL accessed on 2008-03-06.
  45. "#cite_ref-titleVDOE_" contains a listed "#" character as part of the property label and has therefore been classified as invalid. VDOE :: No Child Left Behind - NCLB, Understanding AYP. URL accessed on 2008-03-06.
  46. (nd) Leaving No Child Left Behind: States charged with implementing Bush’s national education plan balk at the cost of compliance. The American Conservative. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  47. (2004). Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. FactCheck. URL accessed on 2007-12-29.
  48. (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  49. Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.
  50. Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.
  51. NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  52. Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.
  53. Forum on Educational Accountability. URL accessed on 2008-01-03.

External links[]

Law and regulations

Administration comments

Interest groups

This page uses Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia (view authors).