Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 57Education in Rural ContextsIndigenous and Place-Based EducationEducational Assessment and Improvement

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 13 of the 13 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 21 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Impact of No Child Left Behind on Curriculum and Instruction in Rural Schools

Open access

Abstract

This article examines the influence of the No Child Left Behind Act on the decision making of rural principals and teachers about curriculum and instruction as well as the possible long-term effects on rural education. Data were gathered from 101 rural elementary school principals in Missouri and 76 rural elementary school teachers in Maine. Missouri principals were concerned about losing their autonomy and abilities to be instructional leaders. Maine teachers reported that NCLB benefited some groups of students more than others and that it has a negative effect on student motivation. There were significant changes in instructional time for some subjects and non-instructional time for recess and kindergarten nap time. The most important influence on principals’ educational vision for the future and the need for professional development was meeting AYP and raising test scores.

Overview

CoChat Summary

TL;DR

This article reports two studies on how No Child Left Behind affected curriculum and instruction in rural Missouri elementary schools and rural Maine elementary classrooms. It finds increased reading time, reduced science/recess/nap time, and strong pressure on principals and teachers to meet AYP and raise test scores.

Key findings

  • Missouri principals reported significant increases in daily reading instruction after NCLB: K–3 rose from 80.67 to 90.83 minutes, and grades 4–6 rose from 68.01 to 77.56 minutes. Science instruction in grades 4–6 significantly decreased from 50.23 to 43.26 minutes per day.
  • Non-instructional time declined significantly: recess fell from 37.04 to 32.26 minutes in K–2, 32.47 to 28.31 minutes in grades 3–4, and 27.63 to 24.94 minutes in grades 5–6; kindergarten nap time fell from 29.33 to 26.73 minutes.
  • Professional development was driven by AYP and test-score goals for 72% of responding rural principals; reading was the primary PD emphasis by a mean of 73% across 2002–2006, while social studies was emphasized by only a mean of 5.20% of schools.
  • Among Maine teachers, 64% said NCLB benefited some groups of students more than others, 58% reported a negative effect on student motivation, and 50% reported NCLB had a large effect and was “changing the entire curriculum.” Missouri principals’ top influence on educational vision was “Meeting AYP and raising test scores” (82%), and 42% either worried about keeping their jobs or worried a lot that meeting requirements seemed impossible.

Methods

  • Two studies were combined: a May 2006 survey of all 571 Missouri elementary public school principals, with 165 returned surveys (29% return rate) and 101 rural respondents included; and spring 2007 open-ended interviews with 76 certified elementary school teachers in rural Maine, drawn as a convenience sample from 14 of 16 rural counties.
  • Missouri principals responded to 105 survey items covering demographics, student achievement, time allocations, curricular/instructional/professional-development decisions, decision-making processes, and special education. Maine teachers responded to 8 demographic items and 8 open-ended questions about curriculum, instruction, student benefits, motivation, and opinions of NCLB.
  • Maine teacher responses were sorted into emergent categories; Missouri data were analyzed with descriptive frequencies and percents, and paired-samples t-tests were used for time allocations, with significance at the .05 alpha level and Cohen’s d for effect size.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: the Missouri time data are self-reported by administrators and likely represent allocated time rather than actual time spent on instruction or student engagement; the authors also state that principal results might have differed if the survey had been sent in spring 2008.
  • Paper-stated: the Maine teacher sample was a convenience sample, and the authors say they are not trying to generalize across a wide population; they also note uncertainty about whether Maine teachers’ references to music/theatre matched the specialist-taught art/music instruction Missouri principals reported.
  • Evident from the text: the two studies used different states, samples, instruments, and time points, with no comparison group and a 29% survey return rate, so cross-state comparisons are presented as emerging patterns rather than causal or nationally representative findings.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.35608/ruraled.v31i1.439

Cites

13 of 13 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

121 Own result · 15 Own interpretation · 11 Sources not found · 6 No basis given · 5 No full text of the sources · 3 Own method · 1 Not checked yet

92 more claims

Create a free account to see all 162 claims and every source verdict.

See all claims — free account
  • It may state two separate claims as one. 41
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 4
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 35

Create a free account to see these claims.

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Consistentt(89) = 3.63reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(89)=3.63,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(87) = 3.73reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(87)=3.73,p < .001”

  • Consistentt(85) = 3.61reported p < .01 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(85)=3.61,p < .01”

  • Consistentt(74) = 2.82reported p < .01 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(74)= 2.82, p < .01”

  • Consistentt(92) = 4.9reported p < .001 · recomputed p < .001

    “t(92) =4.90, p < .001”

5 of 7 · the rest aren’t loaded

2 more recomputed tests

Create a free account to see every test the Stats check recomputed.

See all tests — free account

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

5 of 5

Citations

Cites

Show all 12 references

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Burrington, D. (2004 May). Good-bye to nap time: Spurred by NCLB, elementary schools get serious. American School Board Journal, 6.
  2. Freed, A., Acheson, F., & Berger, R. (2008, January). Maine Teacher Reflections on No Child Left Behind. Paper presented at the Association for Science Teacher Education International Conference, St Louis, MO.
  3. National Conference of State Legislatures (2005). Delivering the promise: State recommendations for improving No Child Left Behind. Washington, D.C.

Cited by

See all 57

Metadata

Authors
Powell, D., Higgins, H. J., Aram, R., & Freed, A.
Affiliations
  • University of North Carolina Wilmington (US)
  • Missouri State University (US)
  • University of Maine at Farmington (US)
Venue
The Rural Educator
Published
2018-11-28
Volume
31
Issue
1
ISSN
  • 0273-446X (ISSN-L)
  • 2643-9662
OpenAlex
W1497057410
Cited by
56
References
12
Citations by year
2024: 1 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 6
FWCI
17.01
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • The rural educator (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • BearWorks (Missouri State University) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Education › Education in Rural Contexts
  • Social Sciences › Education › Indigenous and Place-Based Education
  • Social Sciences › Education › Educational Assessment and Improvement
Keywords
No Child Left Behind Act, rural schools, curriculum decision-making, instructional decision-making, school principals, teachers, educational autonomy, instructional leadership, student motivation, instructional time, recess, professional development, accountability, test scores, rural education policy

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.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-11-03, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-11-03 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Impact of No Child Left Behind on Curriculum and Instruction in Rural Schools. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.35608/ruraled.v31i1.439
The paper
Powell, D., Higgins, H. J., Aram, R., & Freed, A. (2018). Impact of No Child Left Behind on Curriculum and Instruction in Rural Schools. The Rural Educator. https://doi.org/10.35608/ruraled.v31i1.439

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.