This is the Education Department’s series finale on NCLB implementation. Utilizing data from two separate studies, it supplies broad descriptions of NCLB accountability efforts. At first blush, it highlights a lot of things we already knew. For example, states with lower standards don’t have to work as hard to get students up to the proficient level, while schools with more minority and low-income students tend to make adequate yearly progress less frequently. However, neatly tucked on page 139, the authors casually add in a sentence actually worth noting. While time-in-learning for reading and math increased during study years, “the time devoted to other subjects was virtually unchanged.” If true, this would throw a monkey wrench into the standard NCLB criticism that the legislation has unduly narrowed curriculum and open up the debate for more systemic issues with NCLB accountability. But other federal data, such as the Schools and Staffing Survey, have found the exact opposite, in elementary school at least. (See here, here, and here, too.) In the very least, this report won’t make us less vigilant about curriculum narrowing. You can download the report here.
James Taylor, Brian Stecher, Jennifer O’Day, Scott Naftel, Kerstin Carlson le Floch
RAND and American Institutes for Research
U.S. Department of Education Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development
January 2010
