Skip to main content

Mobile Navigation

  • National
    • Policy
      • High Expectations
      • Quality Choices
      • Personalized Pathways
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Gadfly Newsletter
      • Flypaper Blog
    • Events
    • Scholars Program
  • Ohio
    • Policy
      • Priorities
      • Media & Testimony
    • Research
    • Commentary
      • Ohio Education Gadfly Biweekly
      • Ohio Gadfly Daily
  • Charter Authorizing
    • Application
    • Sponsored Schools
    • Resources
  • About
    • Mission
    • Board
    • Staff
    • Career
Home
Home
Advancing Educational Excellence

Main Navigation

  • National
  • Ohio
  • Charter Authorizing
  • About

National Menu

  • Topics
    • Accountability & Testing
    • Advanced Education
    • Career & Technical Education
    • Charter Schools
    • Curriculum & Instruction
    • ESSA
    • Evidence-Based Learning
    • Facilities
    • Governance
    • Personalized Learning
    • Private School Choice
    • School Finance
    • Standards
    • Teachers & School Leaders
    • Think Again
  • Research
  • Commentary
    • Gadfly Newsletter
    • Flypaper Blog
    • Gadfly Podcast
  • Events
  • Scholars Program

Inspiring Vision, Disappointing Results: Four Studies on Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act

Chester E. Finn, Jr.
2.25.2004

Gail L. Sunderman and Jimmy Kim, Harvard Civil Rights Projects
February, 2004

Gail L. Sunderman and Jimmy Kim of the Harvard Civil Rights Project authored this quartet of early appraisals of NCLB, which come with an introduction by project co-director Gary Orfield. The first - "Expansion of Federal Power in American Education" - is spectacularly ironic. The Civil Rights Project having argued for years that Washington should play a larger and pushier role in American education, it's downright bizarre to see these folks arguing for flexibility. In "Large Mandates and Limited Resources," they argue, again, for a more flexible approach to accountability than NCLB sets forth. In "Does NCLB Provide Good Choices for Students in Low-Performing Schools?," they supply a fairly perceptive overview of the strengths and (mostly) weaknesses of NCLB's public-school choice program during its first year of implementation, but in "Increasing Bureaucracy of Increasing Opportunities?" they offer a stupid and ideological appraisal of the "supplemental services" program. Keep in mind that the Harvard name doesn't assure thoughtfulness or consistency! Nor, as it turns out, even competent copy editing. (E.g. "Supplemental educational services represents a major tenant [sic] of the law. . . .") You can find this lot at http://www.civilrightsproject.harvard.edu/news/pressreleases.php/record_id=44/.

Tags: Gary Orfield No Child Left Behind Act

Chester E. Finn, Jr., scholar, educator and public servant, has devoted his career to improving education in the United States. At Fordham, he is now Distinguished Senior Fellow and President Emeritus. He’s also a Volker Senior Fellow at…

View Full Bio
Fordham Logo

© 2026 The Thomas B. Fordham Institute
Privacy Policy
Usage Agreement

National

P.O. Box 110
Burke, VA 22009

202.223.5452

[email protected]

Ohio

P.O. Box 82291
Columbus, OH 43202

614.223.1580

[email protected]

Sponsorship

130 West Second Street, Suite 410
Dayton, Ohio 45402

937.227.3368

[email protected]