Personal tools
You are here: Home Research K-12 Education NCLB / Title I

NCLB / Title I

Research on the civil rights implications of federal policies like the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, it's 2001 reauthorization known as No Child Left Behind, or Title I of ESEA.

 

Recent NCLB / Title I Research

 

Research Item NCLB Meets School Realities: Lessons From the Field
Based on data from 6 states and 11 districts, this essential resource helps educators understand the issues raised by NCLB and its implications for educating all children.
Research Item Teacher Quality: Equalizing Educational Opportunities and Outcomes
NCLB establishes the important goal of having a high quality teacher in every classroom, yet it does not provide the policies, support, or flexibility needed to meet this goal. By failing to recognize the local labor needs and differences in state policy context, some districts will have a more difficult time meeting these requirements than others. There is also the real potential that the negative consequences of the NCLB high stakes accountability policies will create a more negative teaching environment and contribute to teachers wanting to leave, either the profession or those schools serving the most disadvantaged students.
Research Item Limited English Proficient Students: Increased Accountability Under NCLB
This policy brief provides information for practitioners and policymakers on how the NCLB requirements affect LEP students and their schools and explores some of the unintended consequences of the legislation. Although both Title I3 and Title III4 of NCLB apply to LEP students, this brief focuses on the accountability provisions outlined in Title I, which have generated the most controversy. The brief is divided into three sections. The first section summarizes the NCLB Title I accountability requirements that specifically affect LEP students. The next section answers commonly asked questions about the legislation and LEP students. A final section defines issues that need to be considered as the conversation about NCLB and LEP students continues.
Research Item Listening to Teachers: Classroom Realities and No Child Left Behind
Teachers believed their schools have high standards and that the curriculum in their school was of high quality and linked to academic standards. They believed teachers in their schools were working hard to provide quality instruction, were dedicated to improving student achievement, and were accepting of accountability if it was based on a system that fairly measured instructional performance. They think their schools can improve more.
Research Item Does NCLB Provide Good Choices for Students in Low-Performing Schools?
We examine the number of students who requested transfers and were offered the opportunity to move to a different school; explore the actual schooling options available to students attending schools that were required to offer choice; and analyze the constraints districts faced in complying with the regulations governing the NCLB transfer option
Research Item Expansion of Federal Power in American Education: Federal-State Relationships Under the No Child Left Behind Act, Year One
The No Child Left Behind Act is a startling departure from this history, both in terms of its requirements and in terms of its sponsors. It requires specific large changes in the basic assessment systems of states, sets requirements for education progress in two specific subjects only, contains unusual and large sanctions, and commands many forms of specific state action. It clearly moves to the very heart of the educational process. When the fate of schools and faculties rests solely on achieving a nationally specified rate of progress on two tests, those tests will drive curriculum and instruction in the schools that are clearly at risk, and, in this way, the federal mandates will control the center of the educational process.
Research Item Large Mandates and Limited Resources: State Response to the No Child Left Behind Act and Implications for Accountability
We pay particular attention to the knowledge base and existence of suitable interventions for improving performance in low-performing schools that would allow state administrators to do what the law requires since the history of state failures on a much smaller scale make it difficult to understand how the states could meet these challenges and raise concern about the resulting policies and practices for minority schools and districts.
Document Actions

Copyright © 2010 UC Regents