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 Americas 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 acts focus on high-stakes testing has pressured teachers to turn to ethically questionable teaching methods to ensure higher scores. It focuses on the acts 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 Americas public education system to better ensure students gain the skills and knowledge necessary to succeed in a 21st century workforce.

Ingrid Rodriguez Fall 2012 Center for American Politics and Public Policy

Political Science M191DC Professor James Desveaux Teaching Assistant Olivia Garcia-Quinones

Ingrid Rodriguez Table of Contents Introduction and Significance3 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 System11 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

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

Ingrid Rodriguez effectiveness of NCLBs 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 NCLBs 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 todays 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.

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 Educations 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 NCLBs accountability provisions have become more flexible in recent years, I have chosen to focus solely on the acts 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

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 acts implementation.

Once I have covered in great detail the different teaching strategies that have resulted from the acts 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 acts impact on teachers. Thus, because my papers main focus is on NCLBs 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 NCLBs 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 NCLBs 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 acts provisions. Following these methods will hence provide me with a solid, coherent structure in which to answer my question.

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

Ingrid Rodriguez 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 countrys] 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 opportunity.16 This method of testing is widely known as high-stakes testing, and refers to

Ingrid Rodriguez 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 Though NCLB is an extensive policy, I am most concerned with the acts accountability

Ingrid Rodriguez 10 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 schools 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 score gains unrelated to actual gains in student learning.27

Ingrid Rodriguez 11 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 acts implementation, teachers and school administrators alike have begun employing a plethora of teaching methods to ensure that their states students fulfill the acts 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 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 12 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 students 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 in life, for they will lack the complex analytical skills now necessary for success in our hightech, knowledge-based society.

Ingrid Rodriguez 13 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 scores 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 behind those students with the greatest need.42 Teaching to the test, however, is not the only issue.

Ingrid Rodriguez 14 Narrowing the Curriculum Because test scores can ultimately determine a teachers 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 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 15 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 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 16 in the hopes it will exempt them from the test. This practice, however, has no grounds for legitimacy, for the law states that a childs 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 schools 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 schools 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 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 17 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. 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 18 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 in todays 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,

Ingrid Rodriguez 19 the well majority of higher-paying jobs now require at least a bachelors 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 acts requirements everyday: our nations 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, 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 20 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 gradethe grade level administering arguably the most crucial exam in rating elementary schools and deciding whether they are added to the states list of low-performing schoolsexplained 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, 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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 21 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 NCLBs accountability provisions. Many have likewise taught before and after the acts 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 Improvementthere 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 of teaching to the test. As one teacher stated: I feel pressured to teach to the test. My district has implemented an additional checkpointwe now test in language arts, math, and writing four

Ingrid Rodriguez 22 times a year, plus the state testing. That means twelve tests plus the big ones. Its 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 dont feel any freedom to deviate from a lesson plan.77 Thus, many teachers do feel the acts 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 childs mastery of the required curriculum. As such, the well majority agreed that scores do not effectively represent a childs success in that grade level. As one educator explained: No. No. No. Standardized tests give a snapshottests 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 dont 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 NCLBs provisions. When asked for any final comments, one passionate teacher wrote: 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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 23 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 NCLBs 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. Theres no way you can get them to do better if they dont 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 NCLBs 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 expression help encourage students to express themselves more openly, thus allowing them to develop the innovativeness now coveted in todays evolving society. Expanding the curriculum will also strengthen a students ability to adapt to new

Ingrid Rodriguez 24 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 schools 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 students 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 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 25 different factors that may affect a childs performance on standardized tests. As many scholars and educators argue, there are countless factors that can impede a childs 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 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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 26 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 acts 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 students learning and overall academic performance. Though teaching 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

Ingrid Rodriguez 27 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 surrounding Americas 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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 28 Endnotes

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.

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.
5

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, 2.
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): 1323. Print, 95.
11

"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>.
12

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, 133.
13

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, 1.
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.
15

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, 1.
16

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, 133.

Ingrid Rodriguez 29

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.

22

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, 4.
23

Gandara, Patricia C., and Frances Contreras. The Latino Education Crisis: The Consequences of Failed Social Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 2009. Print, 20.
24

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, 4.
25

"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>.
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.
27

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.
28

Ibid. Ibid.

29

30

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, 253.
31

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the TestNot! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 310.
32

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, 134.
33

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.
34

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

35 36

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, 134.

Ingrid Rodriguez 30

37

Jerald, Craig D. "'Teach to the Test'? Just Say No." The Center For Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement (2006): 1-6. Print, 3.
38

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the TestNot! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 310.
39

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.
40

Ibid.

41

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, 134.
42

Ibid. Ibid.

43

44

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.
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.

48

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the TestNot! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 310.
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.
50

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, 183.
51

Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. "Rationing Education In An Era Of Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan 87.10 (2006): 756-61. Print, 758.
52

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, 4.
53

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, 193.
54

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, 246.

Ingrid Rodriguez 31

55

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, 4.
56

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, 252.
57

Ibid.

58

Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. "Rationing Education In An Era Of Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan 87.10 (2006): 756-61. Print, 758.
59

Ibid, 757.

60

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, 4.
61

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.
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>.
63

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, 252.
64

Booher-Jennings, Jennifer. "Rationing Education In An Era Of Accountability." Phi Delta Kappan 87.10 (2006): 756-61. Print, 757.
65

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, 182.
66

Ibid, 184. Ibid, 186. Ibid.

67

68

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-fourthgrade-tests-drives-off-veteran-teachers.html?scp=1>.
70

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

71

72

73

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, 250.
74

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

75

Ingrid Rodriguez 32

76

Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid. Ibid.

77

78

79

80

81

82

83

84

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, 197.
85

Ibid, 198.

86

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, 250.
87

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, 197.
88

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, 256.
89

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, 197.
90

Ibid, 198.

91

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, 8.
92

Ibid.

93

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the TestNot! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 311.
94

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, 8.
95

Ibid.

96

Higgins, Betty, Melinda Miller, and Susan Wegmann. "Teaching to the TestNot! Balancing Best Practice and Testing Requirements in Writing." The Reading Teacher 60.4 (2006): 310-19. Print, 311.

Ingrid Rodriguez 33

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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 34

<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 TestNot! 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.

Ingrid Rodriguez 35

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.