No Child Left Behind

Cuban, L. (2004, March 17). The contentious “no child” law I: Who will fix it? And how? Education Week. Retreived November 20, 2004, from www.edwk.org/ew/articles/2004/03/17/27cuban.h23.html

Darling-Hammond, L. (2004). From “separate but equal” to “no child left behind”: The collision of new standards and old inequalities. In D. Meier & G. Wood (Eds.), Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools (pp. 3-32). Boston: Beacon.

Earley, P. (2004). Searching for the common good in federal policy: The missing essence in NCLB and HEA: Title II. In N. Michelli & D. Keiser (Eds.), Teacher education for diversity and social justice (pp. 57-76). New York: Routledge/Taylor & Francis.

Education Commission of the States . (2004). ECS report to the nation: State implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, respecting diversity among states. Denver, CO: Author.

Elmore, R. (2002). The testing trap. Harvard Magazine, 105(1), 35-35.

Hearings on No Child Left Behind. (2004). Washington, DC: U.S. House of Representatives.

Hess, F. , & Finn, C. (Eds.). (2004). Leaving no child behind? Options for kids in failing schools. New York: Palgrave/ Macmillan.

Linn, R. (2004, July). Rethinking the no child left behind accountability system. Paper presented at the Center on Education Policy forum on ideas to improve the accountability provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, DC.

McCluskey, N. (2004). Alesson in waste: Where does all the federal education money go? Washington, DC: CATO Institute.

Meier, M. , & Wood, G. (Eds.). (2004). Many children left behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is damaging our children and our schools. Boston: Beacon.

Novak, J. ,& Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores but different students bring federal sanctions. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Oakes, J. (2004). Investigating the claims inWilliams v. State of California: An unconstitutional denial of education’s basic tools? Teachers College Record, 106(10), 1889-1906.

Olson, L. (2004a, August 11). Critics float ‘no child’ revisions. Education Week, pp. 1-1, 33-33.

Olson, L. (2004b, December 8). Taking root. Education Week, pp. S1-S1, S3-S3, S7-S7. Retreived November 20, 2004, from www.edwk.org/ew/articles/2004/08/11/44alth23.htm

Orfield, G. , Losen, D. , & Wald, J. (2004). Losing our future: How minority youth are being left behind by the graduation rate crisis. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University, The Civil Rights Project; contributors: Advocates for Children of New York, The Civil Society Institute.

Packer, J. (2004, July). No child left behind and adequate yearly progress fundamental flaws: A forecast for failure. Paper presented at the Center on Education Policy forum on ideas to improve the accountability provisions under the No Child Left Behind Act, Washington, DC.

Southeast Center for Teaching Quality . (2004). Unfulfilled promise: Ensuring high quality teachers for our nation’s schools: No Child Left Behind: A status report from southeastern schools. Chapel Hill, NC: Author.

The Teaching Commission . (2004). Teaching at risk: Acall to action. New York: Author.

Toppo, G. (2002, January 7). Bush to sign education bill, but the debate over required testing goes on. The Washington Post. Available from www.washingtonpost.com

U.S. Congress . (2001). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Conference report to accompany H.R. 1, report 107-334. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.

U.S. Department of Education . (2002). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.

U.S. Department of Education . (2003). Meeting the highly qualified teachers challenge: The secretary’s second annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary Education.

U.S. Department of Education . (2004). The secretary’s third annual report on teacher quality. Washington, DC: Author.