The no child left behind act of 2001: The federal government's role in strengthening accountability for student performance

Review of Research in Education

Volumn 29, Issue , 2005, Pages 151-165

  Shaul, Marnie S ^a   Ganson, And Harriet C ^a  

^a U S Government Accountability Office

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33645768913     PISSN: 0091732X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/0091732X029001151     Document Type: Review

References (28)

1. Carey, K. (2004, Winter). The real value of teachers: Thinking K-16. Education Trust, pp. 3-32.
2. Center on Education Policy. (2004). From the capital to the classroom: Year 3 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Author.
3. Education Commission of the States. (2004). ECS Report to the Nation: State Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Denver, CO: Author.
4. Education Trust. (2003). Telling the whole truth (or not) about highly qualified teachers. Washington, DC: Author.
5. Finn, C. E., Jr., & Hess, F. M. (2004, Fall). On leaving no child behind. Public Interest, pp. 35-56.
6. Goertz, M. E., & Duffy, M. C. (2001). Assessment and accountability systems in the 50 states, 1999-2000. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
7. Haycock, K. (1998, Summer). Good teaching matters ... a lot: Thinking K-16. Education Trust, pp. 3-14.
8. Howell, W. (2004). Fumbling for an exit key: Parents, choice, and the future of NCLB. In F. M. Hess & C. E. Finn Jr. (Eds.), Leaving No Child Left Behind? Options for kids in failing schools (pp. 161-190). New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
9. Linn, R. L. (2001) Assessments and accountability [condensed version]. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation, 7(11), 1-5.
10. National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The condition of education 2002. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education.
11. Peterson, P. E., & Hess, F. M. (2005, Summer). "Johnny can read . . .": Assessing the rigor of state assessment systems. Education Next, pp. 1-2.
12. Robelen, E. W. (2001, November 28). States sluggish on execution of 1994 ESEA. Education Week, pp. 1-9.
13. Rudalevige, A. (2003). No Child Left Behind: Forging a congressional compromise. In P. E. Peterson & M. R. West (Eds.), No child left behind? The politics and practice of school accountability (pp. 23-54). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
14. Sanders, W., & Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and residual effects of teachers on future student academic achievement. Knoxville: University of Tennessee Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
15. State of Connecticut v. Margaret Spellings in Her Official Role as Secretary of Education, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut (2005).
16. Texas State Auditor's Office. (2002). The status of state student assessment systems and the quality of Title I school accountability data (SAO Report 02-064). Austin, TX: Author.
17. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2000). Title I program: Stronger accountability needed for performance of disadvantaged students (GAO/HEHS Report 00-89). Washington, DC: Author.
18. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor states' scoring of assessments (GAO Report 02-393). Washington, DC: Author.
19. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003a). Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses: Information sharing may help states realize efficiencies (GAO Report 03-389). Washington, DC: Author.
20. U.S. General Accounting Office. (2003b). No Child Left Behind Act: More information would help states determine which teachers are highly qualified (GAO Report 03-361 ). Washington, DC: Author.
21. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004a). No Child Left Behind Act: Additional assistance and research on effective strategies would help small rural districts (GAO Report 04-909). Washington, DC: Author.
22. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004b). Special education: Additional assistance and better coordination needed among education offices to help states meet the NCLBA teacher requirements (GAO Report 04-659). Washington, DC: Author.
23. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004c). No Child Left Behind Act: Improvements needed in Education's process for tracking states' implementation of key provisions (GAO Report 04-734). Washington, DC: Author.
24. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2004d). No Child Left Behind Act: Education needs to provide additional technical assistance and conduct implementation studies for school choice provisions (GAO Report 05-7). Washington, DC: Author.
25. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (2005). No Child Left Behind Act: Most students with disabilities participated in statewide assessments, but inclusion options could be improved (GAO Report 05-618). Washington, DC: Author.
26. U.S. Government Accountability Office. (in press). No Child Left Behind Act: Improved accessibility to Education's information could help states implement teacher qualification requirements (GAO Report 05-25). Washington, DC: Author.
27. U.S. House of Representatives. (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Conference report to accompany H.R. I. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
28. Uzzell, L. A. (2005). No Child Left Behind: The dangers of centralized education policy. Washington, DC: Cato Institute.