A Review of the Empirical Literature on No Child Left Behind from 2001 to 2010.

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 is arguably the most significant educational reform enacted in the United States in decades. It has greatly influenced the public discourse surrounding education and has had a major effect on the daily workings of students, teachers, and administrators. The intent of this legislation is to hold schools accountable for defined levels of student achievement each year. Further, NCLB required all students to be proficient in reading and mathematics by the year 2014.Since the onset of NCLB in 2001, much has been written in regards to its effect on students, teachers, curriculum, administrators and other stakeholders (e.g., Abbate-Vaughn, 2007a; Chen, Paige, & Bhattacharjee, 2004). The vast majority of this scholarship describes the negative effects of NCLB. In addition, a significant portion of the scholarship on NCLB exists as conceptual arguments based on previously conducted research in closely related areas (i.e., standardized testing, school reform, direct instruction, etc.). Given the fact that the deadline (2014) for all students to be proficient in reading and mathematics passed a year ago, an inevitable question arises: How has NCLB affected various groups within the field of education? The purpose of this paper is to review the empirical literature published from 2001-2010 related to NCLB and its effect on various groups within the field of education. To establish a contextual background for this review, we begin with a brief discussion of the history of the No Child Left Behind legislation. Next, we discuss our methods for selecting articles for inclusion in this literature review. Then, we discuss the effects of NCLB on teachers, student achievement, administrators, and states. Finally, we conclude with recommendations for future research into NCLB.It is important to note here that NCLB was not reauthorized in 2007. Instead, President Barack Obama's administration announced in September 2011 that it would grant waivers to states that did not meet the original NCLB requirements. Based on an approved application status, states that did not meet the original NCLB requirements were permitted to provide and implement an alternative accountability plan for student proficiency. Currently, more that half of the states in the U.S. have applied for and or received waivers from the original requirements of NCLB. Because many of the developments and realities surrounding these waivers and alternative accountability plans are currently in progress, we purposely chose to focus our literature review between the years of 2001-2010.History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was passed with wide bipartisan support as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. The overwhelming support, which included high ranking politicians from both parties such as Senator Ted Kennedy and Representative John Boehner, may have been due, in part, to lofty rhetoric (Mathis, 2003) for it is difficult to disagree with the law's laudable goals of ensuring a high quality education for all and leaving no child behind (Rentschler, 2005). President Bush appealed to this idealism in his proposal to Congress stating, "We have a genuine national crisis. More and more, we are divided into two nations. One that reads, and one that doesn't. One that dreams, and one that doesn't" (U.S. Department of Education, 2004, p. 1). This emotional appeal served as the basis for NCLB, which intended to repair a purportedly failing educational system through more targeted federal regulations of educational funding (Mathis, 2003).Despite the lofty goals of NCLB, there have been many obstacles to successful implementation and frequent criticisms of the law (Klein, 2007; Nichols & Berliner, 2007; Ravitch 2009; Rentschler, 2005). As such, when the law came up for reauthorization in 2007, bipartisan support for the legislation had waivered and there has yet to be an agreement for its reauthorization. …