Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?

By Bruce Fuller, Joseph G Wright, K. Gesicki, Erin Kang. 2007

160 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Teachers' Writing Instruction (2008, background): “In addition, Fuller, Wright, Gesiski, and Kang (2007) found that in a study of 12 states, progress made in the 1990s toward narrowing the achievement gap has disappeared in the wake of NCLB. Darling-Hammond (2007) identified several unintended consequences of NCLB including the finding that schools ”
The Problem With “Proficiency”: Limitations of Statistics and Policy Under No Child Left Behind (2008, methodology): “A Center on Education Policy analysis of post-NCLB trends noted that fewer than one half of the states had appropriate data readily available for state-level effect size analyses (Center on Education Policy, 2007), and cross-state analyses of trends and gap trends under NCLB have had to rely on PPS-”
The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Student Achievement. (2011, unknown): “For example, Fuller et al. (2007) are sharply critical of relying on trends in state assessments, arguing that they are misleading because states adjust their assessment systems over time.”
Early Math Matters: Kindergarten Number Competence and Later Mathematics Outcomes (2009, unknown): “No Child Left Behind Act (Fuller et al., 2007).”