The Effects of No Child Left Behind on the Prevalence of Evidence-Based Drug Prevention Curricula in the Nation's Middle Schools

Journal of School Health

Volumn 81, Issue 5, 2011, Pages 265-272

  Ringwalt, Chris ^a   Hanley, Sean ^a   Ennett, Susan T ^b   Vincus, Amy A ^a   Bowling, J Michael ^b   Haws, Susan W ^b   Rohrbach, Louise A ^c  

^a PACIFIC INSTITUTE FOR RESEARCH AND EVALUATION   (United States)

^b University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill   (United States)

^c UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

Curriculum; Drugs; Policy

Indexed keywords

ADDICTION; ARTICLE; CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMAN; LEGAL ASPECT; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; POLICY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCHOOL; STATISTICS; UNITED STATES;

CURRICULUM; EDUCATION; EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE; HEALTH EDUCATION; HUMANS; LONGITUDINAL STUDIES; PUBLIC POLICY; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; SCHOOLS; SUBSTANCE-RELATED DISORDERS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 79955149696     PISSN: 00224391     EISSN: 17461561     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1746-1561.2011.00587.x     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Rose LC, Gallup AM. The 39th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll of the Public's Attitudes Toward the Public Schools. Princeton, NJ: Phi Delta Kappa International and The Gallup Poll; 2007.
2. Valli L, Buese D. The changing roles of teachers in an era of high-stakes accountability. Am Educ Res J. 2007;44(3): 519-558.
3. Abril CR, Gault BM. The state of music in the elementary school: the principal's perspective. J Res Music Educ. 2006;54: 6-20.
4. Center on Education Policy. From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy; 2006. Available at: Accessed September 28, 2009.
5. Herman J. Accountability and assessment: is public interest in K-12 education being served? In: Ryan K, Shepard L, eds. The Future of Test-Based Educational Accountability. New York, NY: Routledge; 2008:211-232.
6. Manzo K. Social studies losing out to reading, math. Educ Week. 2005;24(27):1, 16-17, 24-25.
7. Marx RW, Harris CJ. No Child Left Behind and science education: opportunities, challenges, and risks. Elementary Sch J. 2006;106(5):467-477.
8. National Association for Sport and Physical Education & American Heart Association. Shape of the Nation Report: Status of Physical Education in the USA. Reston, VA: National Association for Sport and Physical Education; 2006.
9. Ratner GM. Why the No Child Left Behind Act needs to be restructured to accomplish its goals and how to do it. Univer Dist Columbia Law Rev. 2007; 9: UDC/DCSL L. Rev. 1.
10. Rothstein R, Jacobsen R. A test of time: unchanged priorities for student outcomes. Sch Administrator. 2007;64:36-40.
11. von Zastrow C, Janc H. Academic Atrophy: The Condition of the Liberal Arts in America's Public Schools. Washington, DC: Council for Basic Education; 2004.
12. Bachman JG, O'Malley PM, Schulenberg JE, Johnston LD, Freedman-Doan P, Messersmith EE. The Education-Drug Use Connection: How Successes and Failures in School Relate to Adolescent Smoking, Drinking, Drug Use, and Delinquency. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis Group/Lawrence Erlbaum Associates; 2008.
13. King KM, Meehan BT, Trim RS, Chassin L. Substance use and academic outcomes: synthesizing findings and future directions. Addiction. 2006;101(12):1688-1689.
14. Newcomb MD, Bentler PM. Drug use, educational aspirations, and work force involvement: the transition from adolescence to young adulthood. Am J Community Psychol. 1986;14(3): 303-321.
15. US Department of Education. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 2001; Accessed June 6, 2009.
16. Hoff DJ. Schools struggling to meet key goal on accountability: number failing to make AYP rises 28 percent. Educ Week. 2009;28(16):1, 14-15.
17. Olson L. As AYP bar rises, more schools fail: percent missing NCLB goals climbs amid greater testing. Educ Week. 2006;26(4):1, 20.
18. Olsen B, Sexton D. Threat rigidity, school reform, and how teachers view their work inside current education policy contexts. Am Educ Res J. 2009;46(1):9-44.
19. Jacob BA. Getting inside accountability: lessons from Chicago. Brookings-Wharton Pap Urban Aff. 2003;2003(1):41-81.
20. Levine P, Marcelo KB, Lopez MH. Getting Narrower at the Base: The American Curriculum after NCLB. Medford, MA: Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning & Engagement (CIRCLE); 2008.
21. McMurrer J. Instructional Time in Elementary Schools: A Closer Look at Changes for Specific Subjects. Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy; 2008.
22. Kann L, Brener N, Allensworth D. Health education: results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2000. J Sch Health. 2001;71(7):266-278.
23. Kann L, Telljohann SK, Wooley SF. Health education: results from the School Health Policies and Programs Study 2006. J Sch Health. 2007;77(8):408-434.
24. Gandhi AG, Murphy-Graham E, Petrosino A, Chrismer SS, Weiss CH. The devil is in the details: examining the evidence for "proven" school-based drug abuse prevention programs. Eval Rev. 2007;31(1):43-74.
25. Cho H, Hallfors DD, Iritani BJ, Hartman S. The influence of "No Child Left Behind" legislation on drug prevention in U.S. schools. Eval Rev. 2009;33(5):446-463.
26. Hantman I, Crosse C. Progress in Prevention: National Study of Local Education Activities Under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities Act. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of the Under Secretary, Planning and Evaluation Service; 2000.
27. Ringwalt C, Vincus AA, Hanley S, Ennett ST, Bowling JM, Haws S. The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2008. Prev Sci. 2009;12(1):63-69.
28. Ringwalt C, Vincus A, Hanley S, Ennett S, Bowling J, Rohrbach L. The prevalence of evidence-based drug use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools in 2005. Prev Sci. 2009;10(1):33-40.
29. Quality Education Data Inc. QED National Education Database: Data Users Guide, Version 4.6. Denver, CO: Quality Education Data, Inc.; 1998.
30. Ringwalt CL, Ennett S, Vincus A, Thorne J, Rohrbach LA, Simons-Rudolph A. The prevalence of effective substance use prevention curricula in U.S. middle schools. Prev Sci. 2002;3(4):257-265.
31. National Center for Education Statistics. Public elementary/secondary school universe survey data, 2002-03. Available at: Accessed February 21, 2007.
32. National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices. SAMHSA model programs. Available at: Accessed June 4, 2004.
33. Center for the Study and Prevention of Violence. Blueprints for violence prevention overview [University of Colorado, Boulder (CO) Web site]. Available at: Accessed June 4, 2004.
34. Safe, Disciplined, and Drug-Free Schools Expert Panel. Exemplary Programs. Available at: and Accessed June 4, 2004.
35. National Center for Education Statistics. Public elementary/secondary school universe survey data, 2003-04. Available at: Accessed February 21, 2007.
36. Jones SM, Sutton BC, Boyle KE. Survey methodology for studying substance use prevention programs in schools. In: Chaubey YP, ed. Recent Advances in Statistical Methods. Proceedings of Statistics 2001 Canada. The 4th Conference in Applied Statistics. London: Imperial College Press; 2002:157-168.