Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 125School Choice and PerformanceEducational Assessment and ImprovementPolitics, Economics, and Education Policy

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 34 of the 34 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Gauging Growth: How to Judge No Child Left Behind?

Fuller, Bruce, Wright, Joseph, Gesicki, Kathryn, Kang, Erin·2007·Educational Researcher
DOI 10.3102/0013189x07306556
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Many policymakers feel pressure to claim that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is boosting student performance, as Congress reconsiders the federal government’s role in school reform. But how should politicians and activists gauge NCLB’s effects? The authors offer evidence on three barometers of student performance, drawing from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) and state data spanning the 1992–2006 period. Focusing on the performance of fourth graders, where gains have been strongest since the early 1970s, the authors find that earlier test score growth has largely faded since enactment of NCLB in 2002. Gains in math achievement have persisted in the post-NCLB period, albeit at a slower rate of growth. Performance in many states continues to apparently climb. But the bar defining proficiency is set much lower in most states, compared with the NAEP definition, and the disparity between state and federal results has grown since 2001. Progress seen in the 1990s in narrowing achievement gaps has largely disappeared in the post-NCLB era.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3102/0013189x07306556

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 34 references

Research works printed but not linked: 21

  1. Brown W, 2000, Student performance standards on the National Assessment of Educational Progress: Affirmation and improvements, 11
  2. Bush GW, 2004, President’s radio address
  3. Catterall J, 1998, Kentucky Instructional Results Information System: A technical review
  4. Congressional Budget Office, 1986, Trends in educational achievement
  5. Fuller B, 2007, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
  6. Goertz M, 2001, Assessment and accountability systems in 50 states: 1999–2000 (No. RR-046)
  7. Hernandez R, 2004, New York Times, 23
  8. Koretz D, Uses and misuses of data in accountability testing
  9. Koretz D, 1991, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association
  10. Linn R, 2001, The design and evaluation of educational assessment and accountability systems (UCLA Technical Report No. 539)
  11. Linn R, 2006, You can’t get there from here (Research and Policy Notes)
  12. Loveless T, 2003, How well are American students learning?
  13. Mathews J, 2006, Washington Post, A1
  14. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2006, National trends in reading/mathematics by average scale scores
  15. National Assessment of Educational Progress, 2006, NAEP data explorer (customized data run)
  16. No small change: Targeting money toward student performance, 2005, Education Week, 84
  17. Skinner R, 2005, Education Week, 77
  18. Smith M, 2006, Standards-based reform: The next generation (manuscript)
  19. Smith M, 1991, The politics of curriculum and testing: The 1990 yearbook of the politics of education association, 233
  20. Treisman U, 2005, Building instructional capacity in large urban districts
  21. Zilbert E, 2006, Paper presented at the American Educational Research Association

Cited by

Items 101–125 of 125

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Fuller, B., Wright, J., Gesicki, K., & Kang, E.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • Served as a research assistant at the Berkeley–Stanford Center, Policy Analysis for California Education, before leaving for a teaching post in South Korea. She currently works on early childhood programs with the First 5 California Children and Families Commission; .
ORCID
Fuller, Bruce
Venue
Educational Researcher
Publisher
American Educational Research Association (AERA)
Published
2007-06
Volume
36
Issue
5
Pages
268-278
ISSN
  • 0013-189X (ISSN-L)
  • 1935-102X
DOI
10.3102/0013189x07306556
OpenAlex
W2107063766
Cited by
124
References
34
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 10 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 8
FWCI
54.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
Educational Researcher (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › School Choice and Performance
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Politics, Economics, and Education Policy
Keywords
No Child Left Behind Act, academic performance, National Assessment of Educational Progress, fourth grade, mathematics achievement, federal education policy, achievement gap, educational reform, federal role in education

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.