Shape Up or Ship Out: The Effect of No Child Left Behind on the Teachers' Methods of Teaching

Ingrid Rodriguez

Shape Up or Ship Out:The Effect of No Child Left Behind on Teachers’

Methods of Teaching

Abstract:

In January of 2001, former President George W. Bush announced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), his groundbreaking education reform. Bush hoped that by increasing teacher accountability for student success on state exams, NCLB could ensure that all of America’s children receive quality educations. With the incessant pressure on schools to raise test scores, however, NCLB has greatly impacted teachers’ methods of teaching. Many educators have now resorted to new strategies of “gaming” the system, such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, and in some cases, cheating, to inflate test scores. As a result, though test scores have improved under NCLB, with teachers increasingly adopting such strategies, many now question whether high test scores accurately reflect gains in student learning.

This paper examines the effect of NCLB on teachers’ modes of teaching, hypothesizing that the act’s focus on high-stakes testing has pressured teachers to turn to ethically questionable teaching methods to ensure higher scores. It focuses on the act’s implementation under the Bush Administration, from 2001 to 2008, using academic journals and articles to analyze how teaching methodologies have shifted under the act. Finally, this paper offers recommendations on how to improve America’s public education system to better ensure students gain the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce.

Ingrid RodriguezFall 2012

Center for American Politics and Public Policy

Political Science M191DCProfessor James DesveauxTeaching Assistant Olivia Garcia-Quinones

1

Ingrid Rodriguez

Table of Contents

Introduction and Significance……………………………………………………………………3

Question, Hypothesis, and Theory……………………………………………………………….4

Methodology……………………………………………………………………………………..5

The Origins of NCLB: “the Texas Miracle”……………………………………………………..7

The Rationale Behind NCLB: High Standards and Increased Accountability…………………..8

NCLB Defined: Provisions and Requirements…………………………………………………..9

Findings and Analysis…………………………………………………………………………...10

Gaming the System………………………………………………………………………11

Teaching to the Test……………………………………………………………………...11

Narrowing the Curriculum……………………………………………………………….14

Exclusion and Exemption Practices……………………………………………………...15

Cheating………………………………………………………………………………….17

Administrative Manipulation…………………………………………………………….17

Implications for the Future: NCLB vs. the Demands of a 21st Century Workforce……………..18

Living NCLB: Teachers’ Sentiments Towards the Act………………………………………….19

Delving Deeper: Survey Findings………………………………………………………………..21

Recommendations………………………………………………………………………………..23

Research Limitations…………………………………………………………………………….25

The Opposing Side: The Benefits of NCLB……………………………………………………..26

Conclusion……………………………………………………………………………………….27

Endnotes………………………………………………………………………………………….28

Works Cited……………………………………………………………………………………...33

2

Ingrid Rodriguez

Introduction and Significance

For years, state governments have attempted to find strategies to improve the quality of

education for children. Though many initiatives have been taken, few have succeeded. George

W. Bush hoped to change this. Three days after taking office in January of 2001 as the 43rd

President of the United States, George W. Bush announced No Child Left Behind (NCLB), his

framework for bipartisan education reform. Describing it as the cornerstone of his

administration, Bush stated: “These reforms express my deep belief in our public schools and

their mission to build the mind and character of every child, from every background, in every

part of America.”1 Although he was optimistic U.S. public schools could provide quality

education if adequately funded, Bush worried that “too many of our neediest children are being

left behind.”2 Thus, he hoped by increasing teacher accountability for student success on state

exams, NCLB could solve the educational dilemma at hand.

Despite his noble intentions, however, with the incessant pressure on schools to raise test

scores, the act has had a negative impact on teachers’ methods of teaching. As a result of its

focus on high-stakes testing, many educators have resorted to new strategies of “gaming” the

system in order to raise scores, such as teaching to the test and narrowing the curriculum, which

in turn has resulted in many children no longer receiving the well-rounded education once

attained by students of previous generations.3 In addition, with scarce funding in many districts,

creative avenues, such as the arts and music, are sorely lacking in many schools. This in turn is

problematic, for many theorists argue that in order to succeed today, individuals must now be

more innovative, forward thinking, and more easily adaptable to the ever-changing workforce.

Thus, the lack of creative outlets combined with the narrowed curriculum that have arisen as a

result of NCLB will undoubtedly affect the future success of students both in higher education

and in the modern day workforce. As such, it is of the utmost importance we study the

3

Ingrid Rodriguez

effectiveness of NCLB’s focus on standardized testing, for if test performance is proven an

inadequate representation of student learning, appropriate measures can then be taken to either

reform or replace the legislation altogether.

Question, Hypothesis, and Theory

The principal research question I am asking is how has NCLB during the Bush

Administration affected teachers’ methods of teaching? I expect my answer to this question to be

that NCLB’s focus on test scores has had a negative impact on teachers’ modes of instruction. I

believe the requirements to improve test scores within a timely manner have placed

extraordinary pressure on students, educators, and school administrators alike. From the

newspaper articles and scholarly journals I have read thus far, I do believe that instructors,

desperately working to achieve the high test standards set by the act, have in fact resorted to new

teaching strategies to “game” the system. According to many publications, these new strategies

of teaching through “drill and kill” have in turn resulted in misleading test score gains unrelated

to actual advancements in student learning.4

Additionally, as a sister to a current elementary school teacher in California, I have heard

many firsthand accounts of the negative effects of this reform. Over the five years she has served

as a primary educator, my sister has witnessed many of her colleagues focusing nearly all of their

lessons on improving class test scores, hence sacrificing art, music, and individual student

attention. Consequently, for many students, art and music are no longer present in their daily

instruction. As a result, many children today are less innovative and creative, which may in turn

impair their future ability to adapt to the rapidly evolving workforce of today’s society. With the

feedback I have received from both my sister and other educators with whom I am acquainted, I

feel my research will reflect these negative consequences of NCLB.

4

Ingrid Rodriguez

Methodology

My method for researching and answering my question is comprised primarily of policy

research using literary articles and academic journals. I first plan to read the history of NCLB to

better understand not only why it was implemented, but why the legislation was shaped in the

manner it was. In other words, I want to understand why Bush and the writers of the legislation

believed focusing on standardized test scores and increasing teacher accountability would most

effectively improve our public education system. At this early stage, I also plan to refer directly

to the U.S. Department of Education’s website for a full copy of the legislation so as to gain a

better grasp on the actual language and provisions of the act itself. Furthermore, my research will

focus on NCLB under the Bush Administration, more specifically from 2001 through 2008, so I

will be focusing on publications from that period, though I may refer to more recent articles if I

encounter newer teaching methods that have arisen due to the act. Therefore, although NCLB’s

accountability provisions have become more flexible in recent years, I have chosen to focus

solely on the act’s implementation under the Bush Administration because the new reforms

President Obama has made are ongoing and continuously changing.

Once I more fully understand the history and rationale behind NCLB, I plan to delve

directly into the effect the reform has had on teachers’ modes of teaching. I plan to do this in a

number of ways. First and foremost, I plan to read scholarly journals from such reputable sources

as The International Journal of Education Policy and Leadership, The Clearing House Journal,

and The Educational Researcher, the official journal of the American Educational Research

Association. I have also found many relevant articles in The Reading Teacher Journal as well as

publications from The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, and the

National Education Policy Center respectively. These academic journals will hence form the

5

Ingrid Rodriguez

crux of my paper, for many of the articles I have encountered thus far focus specifically on the

different teaching strategies adopted since the act’s implementation.

Once I have covered in great detail the different teaching strategies that have resulted

from the act’s focus on high-stakes testing, I plan to focus on teachers’ sentiments towards the

act. In order to gain a deeper understanding of how educators feel about the law, I am going to

provide my sister with several questions she plans to circulate to her colleagues. I have also

circulated this questionnaire to a number of individuals I personally know who are now teachers

across the United States. These educators are located in such areas as: Rowland Heights,

California; Baltimore, Maryland; Los Angeles, California; Boston, Massachusetts; and Las

Vegas, Nevada. Because I want to encourage complete honesty, I am keeping the questions

vague so as to invite a diversity of responses. By circulating this survey with all of the teachers I

know across the country, I hope to receive a wider range of opinions and experiences in relation

to the act’s impact on teachers. Thus, because my paper’s main focus is on NCLB’s effect on

teachers’ methods of teaching, I feel it would be advantageous to gauge directly what educators

are saying about the act rather than relying solely on policy analysts to explain this.

Finally, I will explore the future implications of NCLB’s focus on

standardized testing. I will do this by analyzing several journal articles gathered from the UCLA

database. These articles do not focus on teaching strategies, but rather on the problems created

by NCLB’s emphasis on high-stakes testing. I will then use these findings to make

recommendations on how to best alleviate some of these immediate and future problems.

Overall, I chose these methods because they will provide me with both a variety of qualitative

data, scholarly research, and first hand opinions from educators currently working under the act’s

provisions. Following these methods will hence provide me with a solid, coherent structure in

6

Ingrid Rodriguez

which to answer my question. The Origins of NCLB: “the Texas Miracle”

The rationale upon which NCLB is based can be

attributed to the work Bush accomplished during his time as Governor of Texas. When the

governor of the Lone Star State first ran for the presidency in 2000, he brought with him what he

claimed was “the proof that standards linked to accountability mechanisms increase student

learning and achievement.”5 In Texas, large gains in National Assessment of Educational

Progress (NAEP) scores under Governor Bush were praised as evidence that these accountability

policies undoubtedly improved student learning, for before these state policies were

implemented, student achievement levels in Texas were far below the national average. After

implementation, however, Texas’ test scores surpassed those of the rest of the nation.6

Sensationally hailed “the Texas Miracle,”7 former Governor Bush’s high standards and

accountability policies were deemed a huge success. Building off this momentum, he reasoned

with the American people that he had the knowledge and expertise needed to increase the

performance of all schools throughout the nation. It was on this premise that he justified his

proposed education policies during the 2000 presidential campaign, leading to his eventual

reputation as the “Education President.”8 Despite public

admiration, researchers reexamining these miraculous gains in student achievement soon

discovered that at the same time children in Texas were posting phenomenal gains, the

percentage of students excluded from participating in the NAEP had grown at extraordinary

rates.9 Walt Haney, author of “The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education,” called it an

“illusion arising from exclusion,” arguing a significantly higher number of students with

disabilities and non-English speakers were excluded from participating in the Texas NAEP than

any other students.10 Consequently, to this day, many researchers cannot agree whether the

7

Ingrid Rodriguez

phenomenal gains posted in Texas were a product of authentic learning or should be attributed to

fewer low-performing students participating in the exams. Nonetheless, it was this supposed

“breakthrough” in the Texas education system that would inspire the groundbreaking legislation

now known as No Child Left Behind.

The Rationale Behind NCLB: High Standards and Increased Accountability

Responding to the poor performance of children in U.S. public schools, former President

Bush called for a bipartisan solution based on accountability, flexibility, and choice in federal

education programs.11 With NCLB, he promised “every child in America would read on grade

level and compute high-level mathematical problems, every teacher would be highly qualified to

educate [the country’s] students, and every school would make adequate yearly progress (AYP)

to prove these outcomes were legitimate.”12 That being said, Bush and educational leaders

believed setting high standards and holding educators accountable for meeting such standards

was the best foundation for educational reform. By attaching incentives to learning and sanctions

to poor performance, Bush reasoned, student achievement would increase, for students would be

motivated to learn more, teachers would be motivated to teach more effectively, and

administrators would be motivated to implement better educational programs.13 This line of logic

served as the basis for NCLB, which went into effect in January of 2002.14 As a result, the

initiative was shaped around the reasoning that the most effective way to promote student

learning and achievement was to reward and penalize students, teachers, administrators, schools,

and school districts based on student performance on standardized tests.15

For several years now, standardized testing has served as a key vehicle for measuring

student and teacher performances, with states relying on the results to determine student

promotion and placement, teacher salary, district funding, school accreditation, and graduation

8

Ingrid Rodriguez

opportunity.16 This method of testing is widely known as “high-stakes testing,” and refers to

“tests with important consequences for the test taker.”17 Under NCLB, however, high-stakes

testing is used not only to assess students, but to increase teacher accountability as well.18 Thus,

the consequences for failure now apply at the student, teacher, school, and district levels. For

example, at the student level, high performance can lead to scholarships and academic awards,

while low scores may result in retention. For teachers, salary inducements and job security are

often predicated on student success on the exams. Similarly for administrators, high test scores

may warrant promotions or salary bonuses, while low scores may lead to administrative

transfers, contract termination, or job loss. Finally, consistently low-performing schools must

face public humiliation of being labeled “failing,” and incompetent, while also facing the risk of

enrollment losses and state intervention, including school closure or reconstitution.19 High

scores, however, can result in public praise, higher enrollment, and increased funding.20

It is on this incentive-based rationale that NCLB was constructed. Though this level

of reasoning seems plausible, the overwhelming burden NCLB places on teachers,

administrators, and schools is increasingly becoming of primary concern in the educational

sphere, for this pressure has resulted in a large number of educators resorting to dubious teaching

methods with the singular goal of raising scores. As Schoen and Fusarelli, two education

researchers, state: “high-stakes environments create a single-minded focus on avoiding sanctions,

accompanied by a fear to attempt anything new or untried.”21 This fear may become pervasive in

schools, ultimately dictating where educators are willing to invest their time and attention. To

fully understand the complexity of such issues, however, one must first understand the standards

and objectives implemented under this act.

NCLB Defined: Provisions and Requirements

9

Ingrid Rodriguez

Though NCLB is an extensive policy, I am most concerned with the act’s

accountability provisions. Under these provisions, all states are required to implement

accountability policies ensuring that 100 percent of elementary students in grades 3 through 8

and high school students in public schools achieve academic proficiency by the year 2014.22

“Proficiency” refers to the full mastery of the subject at grade level.23 These statewide

accountability systems, referred to as adequate yearly progress (AYP) objectives, are thus

developed to measure the achievement of students in all public schools. If schools fail to meet

these objectives two years in a row, however, they then become program improvement schools.

These low-performance schools may then become subject to corrective action and restructuring

measures implemented to get them back on track to meet state proficiency standards.24 If failure

to make AYP continues for five years, these schools then run the risk of reconstitution by the

state under a restructuring plan.25 Under reconstitution, most or all of a school’s staff are

replaced.26

Findings and Analysis

These requirements have created extraordinary pressure for educators to guarantee all

students reach the targets established by the act. Consequently, teachers and school

administrators have begun using a number of controversial teaching methods to help their

students, schools, and districts meet these high standards. Although these new methodologies,

including teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, and exempting and excluding lower

performing students, have generally increased test scores, they have each also sacrificed the

innovativeness once prevalent in classrooms. As such, rather than emphasizing the individual

development of every child, these new teaching methods are used more so to “game” the

education system. In many cases, these “gaming” methods have in turn resulted in spurious test

10

Ingrid Rodriguez

score gains unrelated to actual gains in student learning.27

Gaming the System

Individuals who game the system are those who “understand the rules, policies, and

procedures of the game and are equipped to manipulate and take advantage of loopholes in the

system.”28 As studies show, gaming the system is often easiest when rules, policies, and

procedures are ambiguous and imprecise; both of which permit the game to continue. As such,

the only manner in which to control this manipulation is by closing the actual loopholes

sustaining such gaming or by eliminating the practices causing gaming altogether.29 With states

setting their own standards and schools choosing their own methodologies to prepare students for

state tests, however, closing these loopholes is no simple task.

Since the act’s implementation, teachers and school administrators alike have begun

employing a plethora of teaching methods to ensure that their state’s students fulfill the act’s

requirements. These gaming practices, however, oftentimes artificially inflate gains in student

learning and achievement.30 Thus, although test scores have risen superficially under NCLB,

with student success at the forefront, many Americans are now questioning whether these new

methodologies are genuinely benefitting our public schools. For this change from teaching for

the sake of learning to “teaching to the test” has resulted in a narrowing of the curriculum, loss of

instructional time for teachers, and a loss of teacher creativity and autonomy, all of which have

raised serious concerns throughout the nation.31

Teaching to the Test

High-stakes testing has forced classroom instruction to transition from exploratory

learning to what some now call, “teaching to the test through drill and kill.”32 Teaching to the test

11

Ingrid Rodriguez

occurs “when teachers disproportionately teach students things they know will be on

accountability tests.”33 Oftentimes, after having administered many annual tests in the past and

gaining an understanding of what to expect, many educators will choose to teach students solely

those concepts they predict will be on future versions of the exam.34 This occurs in a number of

ways, whether it be a teacher drilling students using clone questions that directly mirror those on

previous forms of the test, or teachers having their students repeatedly write five-paragraph

essays knowing that only this essay style will be on the annual writing assessment, thus overtly

choosing to neglect other writing genres.

Similarly, it is now common practice for teachers to make copies of previous exams and

hand them out to their students in order to continuously rehearse them for the upcoming tests.

Caroline Rodriguez, a fifth grade teacher at Oswalt Elementary, a public elementary school in

Rowland Heights, California, recounts seeing this firsthand:

While I was student teaching, I saw my master teacher give her 3rd graders copies of old exams as class assignments she would call “study guides.” If her students got any of the questions wrong, she would simply mark them wrong, send them back to their desk, and make them do it over and over again until they got it right. Because the format of the test is the same every year, and because she would give them copies of every section of the exam, by the time her students took it themselves, they knew exactly what to expect.35

By relying heavily on repetition and drills, such a method of teaching can easily throw off

the accuracy of test scores. If these children are simply being drilled relentlessly on the same

material, it is unlikely the results can provide clear measurements of the student’s actual mastery

of the concepts.36 Furthermore, as the changing economy of the 21st century increases the

demand for complex communication and cognitive skills in the workplace, the use of “drill and

kill” instruction will not help students succeed in the long run, for it is simply trading long-term

benefits to students for short-term gains on standardized tests.37 Thus, continuing this impractical

teaching method will only leave children at a disadvantage when they enter the workforce later

12

Ingrid Rodriguez

in life, for they will lack the complex analytical skills now necessary for success in our high-

tech, knowledge-based society.

Similarly, rather than focusing on meaningful learning experiences, many schools now

spend an inordinate amount of time engaging students in test-like activities.38 An increasing

number of teachers may have their students spend hours memorizing facts, learning test-taking

strategies, learning how to bubble score sheets accurately, learning how to make educated

guesses, and learning how to use multiple choice answers to solve mathematical problems

backwards.39 Although each of these methods can be used to increase test scores, each tactic also

serves as a threat to the score’s validity, for it soon becomes a question of how skilled of a test

taker the child is, not necessarily how much he or she has grasped the required material of that

grade level. Nonetheless, because teaching to the test may artificially raise test scores, it is a

popular practice among instructors. When school composite statistics are at risk, such practices

are at times even encouraged by local school administrators. Studies have shown, however, that

score gains attained this way do not last, and are likewise not reflected in other measures of

student learning and achievement.40 Thus, instead of ensuring students are effectively learning,

these misguided practices oftentimes merely help students game the tests in order to pass.

Teaching to the test has dramatically hurt the ingenuity of instruction as well. Not only

has it eliminated the opportunity for teachers to teach students higher-order thinking skills, it has

also reduced “teacher creativity, innovative instruction, the use of varied teaching strategies for

diverse students, and teacher and student motivation.”41 This limited decision-making power has

left many teachers feeling frustrated, for the lack of autonomy inevitably limits their ability to

meet individual student needs. This sentiment has consequently resulted in many educators

making the move from low-performing schools to high-performing schools, hence leaving

13

Ingrid Rodriguez

behind those students with the greatest need.42 Teaching to the test, however, is not the only

issue.

Narrowing the Curriculum

Because test scores can ultimately determine a teacher’s salary, school funding, and

enrollment rates, the tests have become the objective of classroom instruction rather than a

simple measure of teaching and learning.43 Thus, in order to ensure their students meet AYP

objectives, instructors have also begun relying on a practice known as “narrowing the

curriculum.” This mode of instruction occurs when educators deliberately choose not to teach

select topics within subject areas or avoid teaching parts of the required state standards, knowing

that what they omit from their lessons will not be covered on accountability tests, and therefore,

is not pertinent to high test scores.44 According to a 2006 study conducted by the Center on

Education Policy, 71% of elementary school districts reported reducing classroom time spent on

non-tested subjects, such as social studies and physical education, in order to find additional time

for reading and math, the two subjects predominantly tested.45

This form of teaching is unethical for several reasons. First, it misrepresents how

much students have truly learned about a topic, for if instructors simply cover material in the

manner the test will cover it, the students more than likely have not actually grasped the

concepts.46 In addition, many parents and educators worry about the effect such a method has on

the curriculum and classroom instruction itself.47 Not only do classrooms lose a week of

instruction to the actual test, they also lose those weeks spent in preparation prior to it. Thus, this

new strategy has also resulted in a loss of instructional time for teachers, for that crucial time is

now being spent practicing for the test, while vital and challenging topics and activities are

dropped from the curriculum.48 As a result, the material students now see every year is severely

14

Ingrid Rodriguez

limited. Though this practice of narrowing the curriculum is commonplace in

many schools, it is not, however, limited to teachers. School administrators often contribute to

this at the local level as well. For example, two months before high-stakes exams are

administered, some school principles have been known to eliminate recess, music, art, or

physical education to focus solely on the test. Other administrators have pressured teachers to

replace science with math and social studies with language arts as a way to intensify math,

reading, and writing instruction in order to provide amplified opportunities for students to

rehearse these basic subject areas covered in the exam.49 By denying students of the arts, schools

are inevitably denying them of the many aesthetic skills that can only be obtained and nourished

through creative outlets, hence impairing the development of their critical thinking skills.50

Exclusion and Exemption Practices

Although finding ways to exclude or exempt

low-performing students is not a method of instruction per se, it is certainly a technique used

more often in recent years to ensure high-test performance. In some schools, students with

histories of poor academic performance may be encouraged to stay home and miss the tests so

their scores will not be included in composite test score calculations. In some extreme cases,

low-performing students may even be suspended, expelled, or encouraged to drop out just days

before the tests are administered.51 In addition to such deliberate exclusions, some teachers also

choose to falsely exempt English language learners (ELLs) from taking accountability tests, even

if they speak English fluently enough to participate.52

Such discrimination against ELL students,

who are often minority members from economically disadvantaged backgrounds, is also seen in

the treatment of students with special needs. Many teachers are reluctant to have a large

15

Ingrid Rodriguez

percentage of special education or limited English learners in their class because they fear their

scores will likely suffer.53 In the past, school administrators have purposely labeled low-

performing students as severely handicapped in the hopes it will exempt them from the test. This

practice, however, has no grounds for legitimacy, for the law states that a child’s disability

should not prevent him or her from participating in state tests.54 This intentional exemption and

exclusion, however, does not end here. Teachers may also choose to retain low-performing

students in grade levels before crucial testing years so they may be drilled more intensively on

the tested material, or even more commonly, to prevent them from “taint[ing] the pool of test

takers by negatively skewing test score distributions.”55 If these students participated,

administrators reason, they would more than likely dampen the school’s average scores, hence

placing the school, district, teachers, and ultimately themselves, at risk. Other students may be

retained in order to raise the composite scores of that grade level. Many instances have been

reported of scores for a specific grade level increasing dramatically when a large number of

children are retained from the previous year.56 As such, many schools prefer to simply exclude

low-performing students, ELLs, and those with special needs, to protect the school’s composite

scores.57 Though federal and state provisions have been enacted to minimize these false

exemptions, they are still quite common today. This reasoning has also led

school personnel to focus their energies on “bubble students,” also known as borderline students;

those select students on the threshold of passing or failing the state tests.58 Because these students

are more likely than lower-performing students to improve their test scores through added

support and tutoring, teachers often focus inordinately on them so as to help them pass the

exams. Since each passing score posted by a borderline student translates to an overall increase

in test averages and thus, in student proficiency percentages, many school administrators view

16

Ingrid Rodriguez

bubble students as “the kids that count.”59 As such, students above the borderline who are

guaranteed to score high are left alone, while students below the borderline, for whom schools

have the least amount of hope, are neglected and forgotten since they are least likely to

contribute to increased averages and proficiency percentages.60 Therefore, in many cases, NCLB,

which was designed with the intent to ensure that all children receive quality educations, has

actually created incentives for teachers to neglect the very students who need the most help.

Thus, No Child Left Behind is indeed leaving many children behind.61 Cheating

The

pressures associated with stronger accountability tests have driven teachers not only to adopt

questionable teaching methods, but to cheat as well. Like exclusionary practices, cheating is not

a teaching method, but rather, a strategy used at times to inflate scores. Oftentimes, as tests

become more consequential and the penalties for failure more severe, the likelihood schools will

cheat increases.62 Some manners in which this has been accomplished include teachers giving

their students more time to complete the test than allowed. Others have been caught providing

students with hints, definitions, clarifications, or even answers while walking around the

classroom monitoring the exam. Other instructors have been discovered advising students to

“rethink” particular questions if they see incorrect answers. Even more shocking, some educators

have been caught manually correcting their students’ answers on the test score sheets.63 This

disturbing and misleading behavior not only compromises student learning, but also artificially

promotes increases in test scores as the other teaching methodologies do.

Administrative Manipulation

The incessant pressure felt by teachers to

raise scores is often further amplified by the added pressure school administrators place on them.

17

Ingrid Rodriguez

In many cases, administrators will brief teachers on the material covered on upcoming

accountability tests in order to encourage them to structure their lesson plans around the tested

curriculum. Furthermore, some school officials have been caught making copies of secure tests

and distributing them to teachers before the official tests are administered so they can prep their

students accordingly. In more extreme cases, administrators may alter low-scoring students’

identification numbers so as to make their score sheets invalid, in turn resulting in the exclusion

of their scores. In addition to manipulating teachers, with rising pressure falling on them,

administrators may even manipulate the actual students, oftentimes encouraging high-performing

students to participate in the exams every year to boost the schools’ overall averages, while

encouraging low performers to drop out.64 Implications for the Future: NCLB vs. the

Demands of a 21st Century Workforce As the economy of the 21st century changes,

the demand for complex communication and cognitive skills in the workplace will continue to

grow. In order to meet the rising needs of this information-based society, schools must prepare

students with 21st century skills, such as adaptability, creativity, and the ability to think critically.

This is best done by schools that advocate for innovative learning experiences. However, the

strict provisions of NCLB have created great tension among school leaders and teachers, both of

whom now feel as though they are “being pulled in opposite directions,” as they attempt to be

“simultaneously responsive to calls for innovation, critical thinking skills, and adaptability,”

while still meeting the demands and AYP testing targets of NCLB.65 As the ever-present threat of

failing to make AYP becomes more severe, an increasingly high number of educators have

begun sacrificing their focus on 21st century skills to instead focus on raising test scores.66 This

will surely prove problematic in the future, for as many scholars argue, this shift has resulted in

many students no longer developing the practical problem solving skills so necessary for success

18

Ingrid Rodriguez

in today’s diverse, global economy. As such, if educators continue adopting teaching

strategies focused solely on improving test scores, NCLB will be unable to satisfy the demands

of the ever-changing world. Moreover, the well majority of higher-paying jobs now require at

least a bachelor’s degree. If children, however, do not acquire essential critical thinking and

analytical skills at an early age, the likelihood of them succeeding in higher education and in the

workforce will surely fall. Additionally, because active learning has diminished in so many

schools, a large number of students are no longer learning how to use knowledge and skills to

solve real-life challenges. Instead, they are merely learning how to master a particular

curriculum, a skill unlikely to be of use later in life. As Schoen and Fusarelli argue: “in this

century, society needs a new kind of graduate who is more creative and innovative than was

required of graduates in the past.”67 Therefore, it is clear that the next generation of leaders must

be creative thinkers and real-world problem solvers, not skilled test takers. We must hence take

caution, for if the public education system continues implementing standardized, routinized high-

stakes testing, the next generation of students will sorely be lacking in flexibility, innovativeness,

and resourcefulness, all of which may sacrifice their future success in the workforce.68

Living NCLB: Teachers’ Sentiments Towards the Act

Although many scholars have written about the effects of NCLB,

nothing compares to the actual thoughts and feelings of those who endure the impact of the act’s

requirements everyday: our nation’s educators. For some teachers, the extraordinary pressure

inflicted upon them is simply too much to bear. One New York Times article perfectly expressed

the tension rampant in New York City elementary schools. The article described the increasingly

high number of teachers seeking class grade reassignment, all of whom said they could no longer

endure the pressure of administering the high-stakes tests. In a number of interviews conducted,

19

Ingrid Rodriguez

many teachers continuously questioned why they should stay in a profession that merely

revolved around preparation for new state exams in reading, mathematics, and science. As the

educators lamented, “school administrators were holding them responsible for poor results, even

though the tests measure skills that student should have been learning since kindergarten.”69

More disheartening, the teachers, most of whom taught fourth grade—the

grade level administering arguably the most crucial exam in rating elementary schools and

deciding whether they are added to the state’s list of low-performing schools—explained how

the “intense, sometimes single-minded focus on testing was taking an emotional toll on [the

students],” increasing their stress levels in a manner the teachers said they could not abide.70 It is

for this reason that many educators have chosen to request reassignment to lower grade levels,

often to those grades not yet tested, such as first grade. Only in lower-levels, they reason, can

they be free to truly teach the curriculum as they see fit. As one such teacher explained: “the test-

prep books have basically become our curriculum.”71

In addition to losing teacher autonomy, many teachers also feel the

pressure high-stakes testing places on not only them, but the children as well, is frankly not

worth it. Referring to the psychological impact the test culture inflicts, one instructor stated: “It

is all around you, it is constant, it never lets up.”72 In such instances, this uneasiness often leads

to not only teacher turnover, but also results in the most experienced teachers leaving the tested

grade levels for the less stressful grades. With new teachers then placed in high-pressure

classrooms with no experience under their belts, overall test scores inevitably suffer, which in

turn reflects poorly not only on the children, but on the teachers, school, and ultimately the state

as well.73 More importantly, loss of experienced teachers prevents students from receiving

instruction from instructors who may know not only what teaching methods are most innovative,

20

Ingrid Rodriguez

but most effective as well. Thus, like many of the aforementioned teaching methods that have

arisen as a result of accountability tests, student learning and development is once again

sacrificed. Delving Deeper: Survey Findings

In an attempt to further gauge teachers’ sentiments towards the act, I

circulated a brief survey to several teachers I am acquainted with across the country. These

instructors, who include individuals teaching in areas ranging from Baltimore, Maryland to Las

Vegas, Nevada, have all worked under NCLB’s accountability provisions. Many have likewise

taught before and after the act’s implementation, giving them even more insight into the impact

this act has had, for they can recall a time when the pressure to raise test scores was not as

prevalent. Of the eleven responses received, all of which remained

anonymous, 100 percent of the teachers used the words “pressure” and “stress” at least once in

his or her responses. In addition, the phrase, “teaching to the test,” arose multiple times, as did

the idea of “target students,” equivalent to the idea of “bubble students” discussed previously. Of

the answers I received, a common thread throughout was also the idea of NCLB severely

limiting teacher autonomy and creativity, some even stating that teachers had lost their freedom

in the classroom. Below, I analyze several responses to determine whether the teaching strategies

discussed earlier have indeed arisen in classrooms across the nation, and whether or not teachers

themselves view this as problematic.

Of the teachers surveyed, only one out of eleven stated that they had not

personally felt the effects of NCLB. One of the instructors who stated they had, explained: “our

district is in Program Improvement…there are a lot of hoops to jump through; a lot of meetings

our administration must attend (emphasis their own).”74 Additionally, when asked how the act

has affected their teaching methods, if at all, six out of the eleven teachers mentioned the notion

21

Ingrid Rodriguez

of “teaching to the test.” As one teacher stated: “I feel pressured to ‘teach to the test.’ My district

has implemented an additional checkpoint—we now test in language arts, math, and writing four

times a year, plus the state testing. That means twelve tests plus the big ones. It’s something you

never stop thinking about.”75 As another educator put it, “‘teaching to the test’ is in the back of

all teachers’ minds.”76 This, in turn, has left many instructors believing that NCLB undoubtedly

reduces the opportunities they are given to be innovative in the classroom. As one lamented,

“NCLB pushes us [teachers] to follow extremely strict guidelines that ultimately pertain to the

standardized tests. I don’t feel any freedom to deviate from a lesson plan.”77 Thus, many teachers

do feel the act’s emphasis on high-stakes testing has sacrificed their creativity in the classroom.

The idea of “narrowing the curriculum” was also prevalent in the teachers’

responses. As one educator explained, because of the added pressure to meet AYP objectives,

“art, physical education, poetry, and music have taken a backseat to the core academic

courses.”78 Of all my findings from this questionnaire, however, what I found most striking was

the fact that only one teacher believed that test scores are an adequate representation of a child’s

mastery of the required curriculum. As such, the well majority agreed that scores do not

effectively represent a child’s success in that grade level. As one educator explained: “No. No.

No. Standardized tests give a snapshot–tests taken over a couple of days do not represent the

other 178 days. If a student is sick, or having a bad day, or just fills in the bubbles wrong, their

score will negatively reflect that.”79 Another similarly argued: “Test scores don’t provide any

information about each particular student and whether or not he or she just doesn't feel like

trying on the test. That has nothing to do with how he or she performs in the classroom.”80

Overall, the responses I received clearly demonstrate the level of dissatisfaction teachers feel

towards NCLB’s provisions. When asked for any final comments, one passionate teacher wrote:

22

Ingrid Rodriguez

“NCLB needs to be revised to show a broader picture of a student's learning and progress. Filling

in the bubbles is not the way to do that.”81 Thus, it is evident scholars and teachers

overwhelmingly agree: NCLB must be reformed. Recommendations

When asked what educational

reforms they believed could best solve the current education crisis in America, one teacher

replied: “get the kids interested in what they are learning! When the students have ownership of

their learning, they work harder, think deeper and problem-solve. Spoon-feeding them facts is

boring and doesn't help them to grow up to be thinkers.”82 This argument is common among

scholars, who likewise believe NCLB’s stringent focus on test scores has resulted in many

students completing primary education without gaining the vital skills necessary to succeed in

the 21st century. As a result, several educators argue that schools need additional funding to

provide programs that will encourage creative thought amongst students. As one teacher stated:

“Kids need to want to learn. There’s no way you can get them to do better if they don’t care

about the material.”83 Thus, policy makers must encourage schools to support more independent

learning experiences so as to make learning more engaging and participatory, hence encouraging

the development of critical thinking skills and creative problem solving.84 Furthermore, if

children are passionate about what they are learning, test scores will more than likely improve

naturally. Encouraging instructors to find more interactive teaching methods will thus mitigate

the frequency of educators “teaching to the test,” and will ensure that student development is not

sacrificed for higher test scores. Many scholars have further argued that

because of NCLB’s rigid regulations, students today are increasingly lacking ingenuity. To

combat this, we must encourage teachers to expand their curriculum to include art, music,

physical education, and other creative outlets in their daily lessons. These forms of creative

23

Ingrid Rodriguez

expression help encourage students to express themselves more openly, thus allowing them to

develop the innovativeness now coveted in today’s evolving society. Expanding the curriculum

will also strengthen a student’s ability to adapt to new learning environments, which will be

undoubtedly beneficial in the workforce. Additionally, to discourage schools from

participating in exclusion and exemption practices, policy makers must lessen the pressure felt

by teachers to improve test scores. Removing some of the high stakes schools are held

accountable for can facilitate this. Because educators respond more to rewards than punishment,

policy makers should increase incentives for high test performance by offering teachers a range

of rewards, such as recognition or merit bonuses, rather than threatening them with sanctions.85

This will in turn increase motivation and promote innovation in the classroom, as teachers will

feel more inclined to try more creative teaching methods. The act must also differentiate between

able-bodied students and students with disabilities. Scholars and teachers alike agree that

students with learning incapacities should not be administered the same exams as normal-

performing students. This issue has created serious problems, for many schools now prefer to

have no special education classes for fear their low test performance will dampen the school’s

cumulative test scores.86 To the dismay of many, special education classes have been bounced

around as a result, leading many to question whether NCLB truly encourages equal education for

all. To remedy this, policy makers must thus measure the achievement of students with

disabilities separately from able-bodied students. Finally, state testing must be reworked to

more accurately measure 21st century skills.87 Policy makers should reform the current

assessment guidelines to embrace more learner-centered principles, such as a student’s cognitive

ability to apply basic skills to solve problems.88 Student achievement should then be measured

throughout the year to evaluate the progress of each student over time. Doing so allows for a

24

Ingrid Rodriguez

relatively objective and comparable measure of success, while still allowing educators to

concentrate on developing the critical thinking skills of each student. 89 Furthermore, such testing

prevents deceiving test results, as it takes into account the different factors that may affect a

child’s performance on standardized tests. As many scholars and educators argue, there are

countless factors that can impede a child’s test performance. For example, a student may be

suffering familial issues, financial struggles, or even health problems, all of which will

undoubtedly affect how much time he or she can dedicate to school. Although educators are

aware of this, NCLB currently does not take such factors into account. Therefore, the act must

focus on measures of gradual student improvement, for it is unfair that a student, teacher, or

district may be penalized for factors over which they have no control. Implementing such

reforms may hence provide the best opportunity to shift our education system from the “present

level of marginal success to deeper, more substantial and lasting educational reform.”90

Research Limitations

I encountered several limitations throughout my research. First, it was very difficult to

find quantitative evidence supporting my hypothesis. Because the wide majority of numerical

data shows test scores improving, if one were to base their findings strictly off of numbers,

NCLB would appear effective. Unfortunately, I was unable to find numerical data reflecting the

effects of NCLB on teachers’ methods of teaching, as it is not easily quantifiable. I was hence

forced to rely primarily on qualitative research. Although I do not discount the significance and

validity of qualitative data, I do feel my argument would have been stronger had it been

supported by quantitative evidence. Secondly, there were limitations to my questionnaire.

Because of the limited number of teachers I have access to, my survey sample was very small. In

addition, because the educators who answered my survey are all acquainted with either my sister

25

Ingrid Rodriguez

or me, their responses may have been biased. Finally, because I chose to keep the survey

questions vague and open to interpretation, some teachers may not have provided as detailed an

answer as they would have had the questions been more specific and concrete.

The Opposing Side: The Benefits of NCLB

Although the emphasis on high-stakes testing has created overwhelming pressure for

teachers, administrators, and districts, hence resulting in many unintended, negative

consequences, the standards-based reform model of NCLB still provides some forms of

educational improvement. Supporters of NCLB argue that the act’s focus on standardized exams

has led to states revising, focusing, and ultimately raising their standards to meet those set by

professional teaching organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics.91

By doing this, the state makes sure to thoroughly cover the subject matter these organizations

find to be most essential. Furthermore, because educators are now held accountable for teaching

the content included in these standards, there is added pressure to provide “consistency across

subjects and better uniformity across classrooms, schools, and even state borders.”92 Although

increased standardization and uniformity has resulted in a decrease in professional autonomy for

teachers and school administrators, supporters of NCLB nonetheless agree that increased

accountability is beneficial, for it ensures that there is no room for teachers to slack off.93

Challenging the notion of “bubble kids,” NCLB advocates further argue that

implementing high-stakes testing policies has resulted in more federal funding being aimed at

children most in need of help. They claim this funding has been used to develop measures such

as remediation programs to help students who fail high-stakes exams gain the skills and

knowledge needed to pass the test.94 This, they argue, is undoubtedly a benefit, for such tools can

only serve to improve a student’s learning and overall academic performance. Though teaching

26

Ingrid Rodriguez

children how to effectively pass high-stakes tests is not the most principled way to improve their

education, these efforts are nevertheless being targeted toward students who, without NCLB,

could have possibly been neglected even more so. Thus, despite whatever motives may be

behind them, such remediation efforts have been a direct benefit of NCLB. Likewise,

standardized testing also serves as a diagnostic tool for teachers to gain a better understanding of

child learning problems so they may design effective strategies for individualized instruction.95

Thus, it is clear that despite its downsides, NCLB does provide several benefits to the

educational system as a whole.

Conclusion

Although President Bush passed NCLB with honorable intentions, the overwhelming

pressure the act has placed on teachers, schools, administrators, and districts has hindered

genuine academic achievement. Educators, faced with the strict accountability provisions, are

working diligently to ensure they meet the standards set by the act. Some, though certainly not

all, of these efforts, however, have ironically worked against the well-intentioned theory on

which the law was based. Though there are teachers who do follow ethical and professional

methods of teaching to improve scores, there are nonetheless those who resort to questionable

tactics to meet these demands. As such, if federal lawmakers continue to believe the most

effective way to improve the public education system is to focus on high-stakes testing, test

scores will improve, but student learning will not. With teachers resorting to methods such as

teaching to the test and narrowing the curriculum, it is impossible to determine precisely how

much or how well students are truly learning. In addition, the limited scope of material being

covered may in the long run leave students unprepared for the modern workplace. Thus, the

federal government must realize that the high-stakes, high-stress environment currently

27

Ingrid Rodriguez

surrounding America’s public schools is no more helpful than the system that existed before it,

and must keep in mind that “the goal of instruction is to produce lifelong learners, not test

takers.”96 With the current provisions in place, NCLB will never realize this goal.

28

Ingrid Rodriguez

Endnotes

29

1 "Archived: Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." U.S. Department of Education. 10 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Oct. 2012. <http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html>.

2 Ibid.

3 Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey. "The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences Of "Staying The Course" On The United States' No Child Left Behind Policy." International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership 4.6 (2009): 1-13. Print, 3.

4 Smyth, Theoni Soublis. "Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?" The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 81.3 (2008): 133-37. Print, 135.


6 Grissmer, David W., Ann Flanagan, Jennifer H. Kawata, and Stephanie Williamson. "Improving Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us." RAND Corporation. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR924.html>.

7 Bracey, Gerald W. "Kicked Down and out by the Texas Miracle." Phi Delta Kappan 89.9 (2008): 699-700. Print, 699.

8 Schrag, Peter. "Bush's Education Fraud." The American Prospect. N.p., 16 Jan. 2004. Web. 04 Nov. 2012. <http://prospect.org/article/bushs-education-fraud>.

9 Amrein, Audrey L., and David C. Berliner. "An Analysis of Some Unintended and Negative Consequences of High-Stakes Testing." Educational Policy Research Unit (2002): 1-59. Print, 38.

10 Haney, Walt. "The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education." Education Policy Analysis Archives 8.41 (2000): 1-323. Print, 95.




14 Linn, Robert L., Eva L. Baker, and Damian W. Betebenner. "Accountability Systems: Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Educational Researcher 31.6 (2002): 3-16. Print, 3.



17 Sutton, Rosemary, and Kelvin Seifert. "Chapter 1: The Changing Teaching Profession and You." Educational Psychology. 2nd ed. (2009): 1-14. Print, 14.

18 Ibid.

19 Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Race, Inequality and Educational Accountability: The Irony of 'No Child Left Behind'" Race Ethnicity and Education 10.3 (2007): 245-60. Print, 249.

20 Schoen, LaTefy, and Lance D. Fusarelli. "Innovation, NCLB, and the Fear Factor: The Challenge of Leading 21st-Century Schools in an Era of Accountability." Educational Policy 22.1 (2008): 181-203. Print, 192.

21 Ibid.


23 Gandara, Patricia C., and Frances Contreras. The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2009. Print, 20.



26 Spitser, Andrew. "School Reconstitution Under No Child Left Behind: Why School Officials Should Think Twice." UCLA Law Review 54 (2007): n. pag. UCLA Law Review. Web. 4 Dec. 2012.


28 Ibid.

29 Ibid.


31 Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the Test…Not! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 310.



34 Ibid.

35 Rodriguez, Caroline M. Telephone interview. 10 Oct. 2012.


37 Jerald, Craig D. "'Teach to the Test'? Just Say No." The Center For Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2006): 1-6. Print, 3.



40 Ibid.


42 Ibid.

43 Ibid.


45 Jennings, Jack, and Diane S. Rentner. "Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 88.2 (2006): 110-13. Print, 110.

46 Jerald, Craig D. "'Teach to the Test'? Just Say No." The Center For Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2006): 1-6. Print, 2.

47 Ibid.


49 Nichols, Sharon L., and David C. Berliner. "The Inevitable Corruption Of Indicators And Educators Through High-Stakes Testing." Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) (2005): 1-6. Print, 3.


51 Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. "Rationing Education In An Era Of Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan 87.10 (2006): 756-61. Print, 758.






57 Ibid.


59 Ibid, 757.



62 Schrag, Peter. "Bush's Education Fraud." The American Prospect. N.p., 16 Jan. 2004. Web. 04 Nov. 2012. <http://prospect.org/article/bushs-education-fraud>.




66 Ibid, 184.

67 Ibid, 186.

68 Ibid.

69 Goodnough, Abby. "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers." The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 June 2001. Web. 04 Nov. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/nyregion/strain-of-fourth-grade-tests-drives-off-veteran-teachers.html?scp=1>.

70 Ibid.

71 Ibid.

72 Ibid.


74 Rodriguez, Ingrid. “NCLB Questionnaire.” Survey. 30 Oct.-30 Nov. 2012.

75 Ibid.

76 Ibid.

77 Ibid.

78 Ibid.

79 Ibid.

80 Ibid.

81 Ibid.

82 Ibid.

83 Ibid.


85 Ibid, 198.





90 Ibid, 198.


92 Ibid.



95 Ibid.


Works Cited

Amrein, Audrey L., and David C. Berliner. "An Analysis of Some Unintended and Negative

Consequences of High-Stakes Testing." Educational Policy Research Unit (2002): 1-59.

Print.

Amrein-Beardsley, Audrey. "The Unintended, Pernicious Consequences Of "Staying The Course"

On The United States' No Child Left Behind Policy." International Journal of Education Policy

& Leadership 4.6 (2009): 1-13. Print.

"Archived: Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." U.S. Department of

Education. 10 Feb. 2004. Web. 10 Oct. 2012.

<http://ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html>.

Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. "Rationing Education In An Era Of Accountability." Phi Delta

Kappan 87.10 (2006): 756-61. Print.

Bracey, Gerald W. "Kicked Down and out by the Texas Miracle." Phi Delta Kappan 89.9

(2008): 699-700. Print.

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Race, Inequality and Educational Accountability: The Irony of 'No

Child Left Behind'" Race Ethnicity and Education 10.3 (2007): 245-60. Print.

Gandara, Patricia C., and Frances Contreras. The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of

Failed Social Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2009. Print.

Goodnough, Abby. "Strain of Fourth-Grade Tests Drives Off Veteran Teachers." The New York

Times. The New York Times, 14 June 2001. Web. 04 Nov. 2012.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/14/nyregion/strain-of-fourth-grade-tests-drives-off

veteran-teachers.html?scp=1>.

Grissmer, David W., Ann Flanagan, Jennifer H. Kawata, and Stephanie Williamson. "Improving

Student Achievement: What State NAEP Test Scores Tell Us." RAND Corporation. N.p.,

n.d. Web. 03 Nov. 2012. <http://www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR924.html>.

Haney, Walt. "The Myth of the Texas Miracle in Education." Education Policy Analysis Archives

8.41 (2000): 1-323. Print.

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the Test…Not! Balancing

Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006):

310-19. Print.

Jennings, Jack, and Diane S. Rentner. "Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on

Public Schools." Phi Delta Kappan 88.2 (2006): 110-13. Print.

Jerald, Craig D. "'Teach to the Test'? Just Say No." The Center For Comprehensive School

Reform and Improvement (2006): 1-6. Print.

Linn, Robert L., Eva L. Baker, and Damian W. Betebenner. "Accountability Systems:

Implications of Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Educational

Researcher 31.6 (2002): 3-16. Print.

Nichols, Sharon L., and David C. Berliner. "The Inevitable Corruption Of Indicators And Educators

Through High-Stakes Testing." Education Policy Research Unit (EPRU) (2005): 1-6. Print.

Rodriguez, Caroline M. Telephone interview. 10 Oct. 2012.

Rodriguez, Ingrid. “NCLB Questionnaire.” Survey. 30 Oct.-30 Nov. 2012.

Schoen, LaTefy, and Lance D. Fusarelli. "Innovation, NCLB, and the Fear Factor: The Challenge

of Leading 21st-Century Schools in an Era of Accountability." Educational Policy 22.1

(2008): 181-203. Print.

Schrag, Peter. "Bush's Education Fraud." The American Prospect. N.p., 16 Jan. 2004. Web. 04

Nov. 2012. <http://prospect.org/article/bushs-education-fraud>.

Smyth, Theoni Soublis. "Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?" The Clearing House: A

Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 81.3 (2008): 133-37. Print.

Spitser, Andrew. "School Reconstitution Under No Child Left Behind: Why School Officials

Should Think Twice." UCLA Law Review 54 (2007): n. pag. UCLA Law Review. Web. 4

Dec. 2012.

Sutton, Rosemary, and Kelvin Seifert. "Chapter 1: The Changing Teaching Profession and

You." Educational Psychology. 2nd ed. (2009): 1-14. Print.

Documents

Shape Up or Ship Out: The Effect of No Child Left Behind on the Teachers' Methods of Teaching