Were all those standardized tests for nothing? The lessons of No Child Left Behind

Standardized test by Shutterstock.com

Article Highlights

  • NCLB may not have been such a failure after all.

    Tweet This

  • Evidence indicates that school accountability systems have beneficial effects on standardized test scores.

    Tweet This

  • New findings & 4 recommendations for how policymakers can improve on #NCLB.

    Tweet This

  • Were all those tests taken for nothing?

    Tweet This

Subscribe to AEI's education emails
Articles and events on education policy. Published approximately weekly.

First Name:
Last Name:
Zip Code:

Executive Summary

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) introduced the first nationwide annual standardized testing requirement for students in grades 3 through 8. The law officially expired in 2007, and there is little or no legislative momentum to reauthorize it now. Should NCLB be thought of as a well-intentioned initiative that failed? Or did it make some progress in its stated goal of improving academic achievement, particularly for disadvantaged students?

This paper reviews the basic structure of the school incentives introduced by NCLB, as well as research and data from North Carolina public schools on the effect of these various sanctions on student learning. Among the main findings:

  • Evidence indicates that school accountability systems in general, and NCLB in particular, have beneficial systemic effects on standardized test scores. The overall effects are modest; however, accountability systems are complex policies that may entail a mix of beneficial and harmful elements. The most critical question is not whether NCLB worked, but which components worked.
  • Schools exposed to punitive NCLB sanctions, or the threat of sanctions, tend to outperform nearly identical schools that barely avoided them. Studies come to varying conclusions regarding differential effects by subject.
  • Most of the individual sanctions in the NCLB regime—including offering students transfers, tutoring, or modest “corrective actions”—appear to have had no effect.
  • Schools forced to undergo restructuring under NCLB posted significant improvements in both reading and math scores, suggesting that leadership change is an essential component of reform in persistently low-performing schools.
  • While a pure focus on proficiency can lead to scenarios where schools divert resources from higher- or lower-performing students, complementary policies focusing on those students appear to mitigate the risk substantially.
  • State and local initiatives have taught us much about promising strategies for offering schools incentives to improve student performance. NCLB encouraged a bottom-up approach to some extent, but in the final analysis did not go far enough. In imagining “accountability 2.0,” evidence indicates that a series of modifications to the NCLB approach would improve the system:

o    Focus on test-score gains, not levels. Many states have already moved toward implementing “value-added” systems that more directly measure the progress that students make while enrolled in a school. Value-added measurement is not a panacea; it is less transparent than simple proficiency measures and introduces tricky questions about what to expect from disadvantaged students. But the benefits of using it outweigh the costs.
o    Incentivize schools, not teachers. Teacher-level value added cannot be measured for most public school teachers today, and for elementary teachers it takes multiple years of test score data to form a reliable picture of performance. Rewarding teachers for value added introduces incentives to avoid cooperating and to engage in zero-sum competition for better students. School-level incentives avoid these problems and have been shown to be equally, if not more, powerful in shifting behavior.
o    Intervene with, rather than summarily fire, underperforming teachers. Recent studies have documented effective ways of delivering performance-improving feedback to teachers on the basis of classroom observations. Recent proposals to systematically fire underperforming teachers assume the existence of a “reserve army” of competent teachers; it is not clear that any such pool exists.
o    Move local autonomy even further. NCLB relied on schools to figure out how to improve performance on their own but retained a top-down incentive structure. States and districts can play a much greater—and potentially much more effective—role in crafting rewards or punishments for schools.

  • It has been six years since NCLB expired, and there appears to be little or no momentum to reauthorize it at this time. Nonetheless, the school accountability movement is alive and well, as evidenced by the federal Race to the Top initiative and countless other state and district initiatives to more carefully scrutinize the return on investments of public dollars in the K–12 education system. The lessons learned from NCLB and other first-generation accountability systems promise to make these new efforts more productive.
Also Visit
AEIdeas Blog The American Magazine
About the Author


  • Thomas Ahn is an assistant professor in the department of economics at the University of Kentucky. After serving as an officer in the South Korean army for three years, he returned to Duke University for a two-year postdoctorate position. He has taught at the University of Kentucky since 2009. Mr. Ahn's research interests are in examining general equilibrium implications (intended and unintended) of legislation and social structures, especially in the field of education policy and low-wage labor markets. His methodological focus is structural econometrics that uses theoretical modeling to guide statistical analysis. Mr. Ahn's articles have been published in scholarly journals such as the Journal of Econometrics, the Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, and the Journal of Urban Economics.

  • Phone: 859.257.5975
    Email: thomas.ahn@uky.edu


Jacob L.
  • Jacob Vigdor is a professor of public policy and economics at Duke University, a faculty research fellow at the National Bureau of Economic Research, and an adjunct fellow at the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research. His research interests are in the broad areas of education policy, housing policy, and political economy. Within those areas, Mr. Vigdor has published numerous scholarly articles on the topics of residential segregation, immigration, housing affordability, the consequences of gentrification, the determinants of student achievement in elementary school, the causes and consequences of delinquent behavior among adolescents, teacher turnover, civic participation and voting patterns, and racial inequality in the labor market. These articles have been published in outlets such as the Journal of Political Economy, the Review of Economics and Statistics, the Journal of Public Economics, the Journal of Human Resources, and the Journal of Policy Analysis and Management. Mr. Vigdor's scholarly activities have been supported by grants from the National Science Foundation, the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the Spencer Foundation, the Smith Richardson Foundation, the William T. Grant Foundation, and the Russell Sage Foundation. Mr. Vigdor has taught at Duke since 1999.

  • Phone: 919.613.9226
    Email: jacob.vigdor@duke.edu

What's new on AEI

image The money in banking: Comparing salaries of bank and bank regulatory employees
image What Obama should say about China in Japan
image A key to college success: Involved dads
image China takes the fight to space
AEI on Facebook
Events Calendar
  • 21
  • 22
  • 23
  • 24
  • 25
Wednesday, April 23, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Graduation day: How dads’ involvement impacts higher education success

Join a diverse group of panelists — including sociologists, education experts, and students — for a discussion of how public policy and culture can help families lay a firmer foundation for their children’s educational success, and of how the effects of paternal involvement vary by socioeconomic background.

Event Registration is Closed
Thursday, April 24, 2014 | 12:00 p.m. – 1:30 p.m.
Getting it right: A better strategy to defeat al Qaeda

This event will coincide with the release of a new report by AEI’s Mary Habeck, which analyzes why current national security policy is failing to stop the advancement of al Qaeda and its affiliates and what the US can do to develop a successful strategy to defeat this enemy.

Friday, April 25, 2014 | 9:15 a.m. – 1:15 p.m.
Obamacare’s rocky start and uncertain future

During this event, experts with many different views on the ACA will offer their predictions for the future.   

No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.
No events scheduled this day.