Do states have the capacity to meet the NCLB mandates?

Phi Delta Kappan

Volumn 89, Issue 2, 2007, Pages 137-139

  Sunderman, Gail L ^a   Orfield, Gary ^a,b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b and Urban Planning

^c HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 35649021863     PISSN: 00317217     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/003172170708900209     Document Type: Review

References (6)

1. Based on research reported in Gail L. Sunderman and Gary Orfield, "Domesticating a Revolution: No Child Left Behind Reforms and State Administrative Response," Harvard Educational Review, vol. 67, 2006, pp. 526-56.
2. No Child Left Behind, 2002, Sec. 1117(a)(1).
3. The other mechanism, a set-aside that allows states to reserve 1% of their Tide I funds for administration, is insufficient and reduces the funding that is available for other Title I activities.
4. See Heinrich Mintrop, "Low-Performing Schools Programs and State Capacity Requirements: Meeting the NCLB Educational Goals," paper presented at NCLB Key Issues: Reforming Adequate Yearly Progress and Evaluating State Capacity, a roundtable co-sponsored by the Civil Rights Project at Harvard University and the Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, and Diversity at the University of California, Berkeley, School of Law, Washington, D.C., November 2006.
5. An analysis by Education Week showed that 17% of schools nationwide were identified for improvement in 2005-06. State percentages ranged from a low of 2% of schools in Wisconsin to a high of 60% in the District of Columbia and 61% in Hawaii.
6. See Lynn Olson, "As AYP Bar Rises, More Schools Fail: Percent Missing NCLB Goal Climbs amid Greater Testing," Education Week, 26 September 2006, pp. 1, 20.