Skip to main content

The Effect of the No Child Left Behind Accountability Mechanisms on Middle School Mathematics Teaching and Student Performance

  • Chapter
Learning and Doing Policy Analysis in Education

Part of the book series: Comparative and International Education ((CIEDV,volume 16))

Abstract

Reform efforts in education have increasingly emphasized standards and accountability as the pathway to achieve educational outcomes. The Obama Administration released a blueprint for the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary School Act (also known as the No Child Left Behind Act, also known as NCLB) as one of his first acts after assuming the presidency in 2008. The NCLB policy seeks to reform education using a standards-based model. It is based on the belief that setting uniformly high standards for all students will improve their performance. NCLB established the requirement for all states to create assessments aligned to challenging state standards in order to receive federal funding. This chapter focuses on the impact of NCLB accountability mechanisms on middle school mathematics teaching and learning. The ultimate purpose of NCLB is to promote improved student achievement and to reduce the achievement gap among student groups. The reform aims to achieve this goal through aligning curriculum and instructional practices with standards and assessments. A review of current academic research includes the impact of NCLB accountability mechanisms on student scores in middle school mathematics, on teaching, and on the alignment of curriculum content with the established standards. The findings show that it is difficult to determine the impact of NCLB on student learning, given the general rise in National Assessment of Educational Progress scores over time and the limited studies available. Studies surveyed indicate that there have been some changes in teaching practices; however, more specific evidence is presented on the importance of teacher knowledge and related proxies of teacher quality in improved student outcomes. Recommendations are provided for policy and further research on the influence of NCLB accountability mechanisms.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 49.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Aldeman, C. (2010). 12th Grade NAEP Results Show Little Progress, in Accountability. Education Sector. Retrieved from http://www.quickanded.com/2010/11/12th-grade-naep-results-show-little-progress.html

  • Beaton A, Mullis I, Martin M, Gonzalez E, Kelly D, Smith T. Mathematics chievement in the Middle Years: IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). Chestnut Hill, MA: Boston College; 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, D.K., and Ball, Deborah L. (2007). Educational Innovation and the Problem of Scale, in Schneider and McDonald (eds), Scale-Up In Education, Vol. 1. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield. Cohen, D, Hill, H (2000). Instructional Policy and Classroom Performance: The Mathematics Reform in California. Teachers College Record, 102(2), p. 294-343 Retrieved from http://www.tcrecord.org ID Number: 10377

  • Darling-Hammond, L (1994). Performanced-Based Assessment and Educational Equity. Harvard Education Review, Harvard Education Publishing, 64(1). Retrieved from http://her.hepg.org/content/j57n353226536276/

  • National Center for Educational Statistics (2006). Average SAT scores for 12th-grade SAT test-taking population, by race/ethnicity: 1996-2006, Status and Trends in the Education of Racial and Ethnic Minorities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2007/minoritytrends/tables/table_14_1b.asp National Council for Teaching Mathematics (2010). Professional Teaching Standards. Retrieved from http://toolkitforchange.org/toolkit/view.php?obj=1039&link=84

  • Newmann F, King M, Rigdon M. Accountability and school performance; Implications from Restructuring Schools. Harvard Educational Review. 1997;67:41–74.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peca, K. Critical Theory in Education: Philosophical, Research, Sociobehavioral, and Organizational Assumptions. Education Resource Information Center, Record Details: ED-450057. Retrieved from http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/search/detailmini.

  • Smith, T., Desimone, L., Ueno, K. (2005). Highly Qualified to Do What? The Relationship Between NCLB Teacher Quality Mandates and the Use of Reform-Oriented Instruction in Middle School Mathematics. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis. Washington: 27 (1) p. 75-109. Wright, W., Li, X. (2008). High-Stakes math tests: How No Child Left Behind leaves newcomer English language learners behind. Language Policy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Youngs, P., Holdgreve-Resendez, R., & Qian, H. (forthcoming). The role of instructional program coherence in beginning elementary teachers’ induction experiences. Elementary School Journal. Zhao, Y. (2006). Are we fixing the wrong things? Creativity- not standardization- may be the driving force behind an effective education system. Educational Leadership, Challenging the Status Quo, 63 (8) p. 28-31.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zucker A. Development and Testing of Math Insight Software. Journal of Educational Teachnology Systems. 2005;34(4).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2012 Sense Publishers

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kintz, T. (2012). The Effect of the No Child Left Behind Accountability Mechanisms on Middle School Mathematics Teaching and Student Performance. In: Tatto, M.T. (eds) Learning and Doing Policy Analysis in Education. Comparative and International Education, vol 16. SensePublishers, Rotterdam. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6091-933-6_6

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships