Learning from NCLB: School Responses to Accountability Pressure and Student Subgroup Performance

The Consortium for Policy Research in Education recently noted that “Much has been written in the last decade about the spotlight that the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) shines on school performance. Proponents and opponents alike are quick to discuss the law’s rigid definitions of school performance - exemplified by the classification of schools as making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) or not making AYP based largely on annual tests in reading and mathematics, disaggregating school performance by student subgroups, and requiring that all schools reach 100% proficiency. Yet for all its rigidity, the law has offered schools little guidance on how to make use of the performance data that the new systems provide or how to design improvement efforts.”

With this in mind, the Consortium recently offered a Policy Brief in which they examined the extent to which the assumptions in the law manifest themselves in the actions that school leaders take. This brief is designed to ask and answer the question: How do school leaders – administrators and teachers – respond to the results of state assessment systems and the pressure of performance-based accountability? And do those responses seem to matter to achievement outcomes?

To access a copy of this policy brief, please visit:

Consortium for Policy Research in Education Policy Brief: Learning from NCLB: School Responses to Accountability Pressure and Student Subgroup Performance (September 2012)

Background information:

U.S. Department of Education: No Child Left Behind (Elementary and Secondary Education Act [ESEA])

Consortium for Policy Research in Education