¶ … No Child Left Behind Act Analysis of articles that focus on the impact of "No Child Left Behind Act" on key stakeholders of education in the United States.

January 8, 2002 was the date the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President Bush; this bill reauthorized ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the fundamental federal law for grades one through twelve. ESEA, which includes Title 1, the United States government program for the aid of students considered 'disadvantaged', dates to 1965 and subsequent reenactment in 1994. At the time the NCLB act was signed there was considerable national concern about public education; this bill established new requirements for all public schools, expanding the government's educational role with a focus on underprivileged students.

Within NCLB, new measures held both schools and states to higher levels of responsibility for educational progress and the law included goals to improve student achievement, significantly altering education (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The four key precepts of NCLB include: (a) school instructional plans must be research-based; (b) parents are to be informed concerning educational options; (c) schools and states should establish growth targets; and (d) schools are accountable both for teacher qualifications and performance of students (Byrnes, 2009). In this literature review, we will analyze articles that focus on the impact of "No Child Left Behind Act" on key stakeholders of education in the United States. Specifically, this literature review focuses on the impact on state education, schools, teachers and students, and examines the best and worst articles published recently on this subject.

Body of the literature review

Impact of NCLB on teachers

To study the impact of NCLB on teachers we have chosen two articles. Out of the two, the more flawed study is "Literature review: Has the No Child Left Behind law produced more qualified teachers," which is carried out by Lyttle. This article has endeavored to find the effect of NCLB has had on teachers. However, it has drawn inferences based on presumptions and the data in the articles it has referred to do not fully support the conclusions drawn. The aim of the NCLB to provide to a good value to teachers and an improvement in their levels on one hand and overall improvement in quality of life sought by education on the other hand has been explored in the article. The results, according to the article have been disappointing. While it is true that teachers have been able to reach much better standards in mathematics, reading and literacy, there has been an absence of effect of the this improvement on the overall from a professional outlook as long as the teachers are concerned. This paper is written coherently and there aren't apparent grammatical mistakes. However, academic qualifications of the author, Lyttle were missing, though the work seemed to follow the rigor required of normal coursework. I took up this article because of its critical analysis on the disconnect between the literacy levels and education value NCLB aims to achieve (as regards its impact on teachers), however it rates only a poor second to the other article as it fails to support its facts with data from the articles to draw its conclusions that it has referred to while doing this work. It is hence not advised as a first preference to be referred to in rigorous research study

The second study that does a better job is, "Using multiple evaluation measures to improve teacher effectiveness: State strategies from round 2 of No Child Left Behind waivers." The article is written by Partee. There are many results sought by NCLB through its program on all the stakeholders. The improvements sought on the teachers is sought to be measured by a series of tests that seek to evaluate the teachers' improvement in many areas. This article has taken the pains to uncover the fact that the standardized tests that have sought to evaluate the teachers are not possibly the best reflection of their improvement. There are far too many parameters that go into making of good teacher than can be assessed solely through standardized tests that the students undergo. The effect that a teacher has had on a students learning capacity is in turn assessed through standardized tests that cannot be a final marker of the overall influence the teacher has had on the student. Partee is Associate Director for Teacher Quality at the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research...

This article can be rated highly according to me on this topic under study because it studies the metrics across many states and through in-depth evaluation points out the inadequacy of standardized tests to serve as an appropriate measure of NCLB on teacher's improvement both academically as well as in overall professional development and quality of life.
Impact of NCLB on Schools

To study the impact of NCLB on schools we have chosen two articles. Out of the two, the more flawed study is carried out by Center on Education Policy in 2010. The study is titled, "How many schools have not made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act?" The NCLB calls for an assessment called AYP (adequate yearly progress). Overall, the improvement sought in the schools was poor as reflected in this article. At least thirty percent of the schools failed to make the grades sought by AYP. Even as the results varied vastly across states, about one fourth of the schools in thirty five states had failed to live up to AYP markers. In D.C. And nine other states as many as half of them failed to reach these yearly desired levels. In the study no specific reasoning has been accounted for this outcome, though variation in states' laws has been stated as one of the possible reasons causing this huge disparity in results. The inferences are rather cursory; there is a lack of strong connect between the results and the data approached for the study, though a lot of data has been accessed. Hence in my opinion this study, carried out by Center on Education Policy, is comprehensive, however, lacks depth and rated lower than the other study taken up for assessing the impact of NCLB on schools. This study can still be of importance when discussing NCLB as it gives important statistics and hence understanding about possible effect of state laws on the effect NCLB has on schools.

The second study that does a better job is, "School restructuring under No Child Left Behind: What works when?" carried out by Hassel and his colleges in 2006. This article has studied failing schools comprehensively and assessed reasons thereof. This probably why it offers five ways of bringing those schools back into the mainstream and passing the criterion laid down by the NCLB. The suggested ways are turnarounds, chartering, state takeovers, contracting, and a generic category known as "other." The article also discusses the steps to bring about the desired course correction. It calls for a four-step affirmative strategy to resolve issues faced by failing schools, those are to take charge and choose the appropriate path for change followed by implementation of the plan and hence improve on the failures encountered. The authors worked for Public Impact, a firm that worked in the pursuit of education policy and management. They have undertaken to prepare this study for Learning Point Associates and The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, with the aim of helping the failing schools perform better. This is a better article compared to the article discussed above as it concentrates on the proper courses and corrective steps that ought to be taken to help schools pass the NCLB criterion. The emphasis is on overall improvement rather than solely passing the NCLB tests. This article rises above the discussions on NCLB to offer suggestions for those that fail to meet the standards and aims of NCLB.

Impact of NCLB on Students

To study the impact of NCLB on schools we have chosen four articles. Out of the four, the more flawed study is, "Is No Child Left Behind effective for all students," which is carried out by Randolph and Wilson-Younger in 2012. This study has discussed many points offered as views from parents and teachers on the role of NCLB on Students. The complaints blame the NCLB most eloquently on the following points- the goals desired by the NCLB of the students are unattainable, lofty; in order to reach these scores through tests, schools are cutting down on the syllabus; subjects other than math's, literacy and reading, like science, social studies, foreign languages and health are gaining lesser importance and this is leading to poorer quality of overall education and knowledge; the last concern is that, whereas the law seeks to improve the grades of the students, adequate support in the form of…