title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: Initially, "Hysteria" was to be named "Animal Instinct" and produced by Lange, but he dropped out after pre-production sessions, citing exhaustion from a gruelling schedule from the past few years. Meat Loaf songwriter Jim Steinman was brought in, but Steinman's intention to make a raw-sounding record that captured the moment conflicted with the band's interest in creating a bigger, more pristine pop production. Joe Elliott later stated in an interview: "Todd Rundgren produced (Meat Loaf's) "Bat Out of Hell". Jim Steinman wrote it".


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: Sessions with Steinman began at Wisseloord Studios on 11 August 1984, with Neil Dorfsman as engineer. However, the social divide and conflict in visions of the album between both the band and Steinman became problematic during the sessions, the latter being more into theatrical ideas which did not sit well with the group. By mid-October 1984, Steinman was ousted from the project, along with Dorfsman. Dorfsman would go on to mention they “barely [had] drums and bass on seven songs” - he'd fly straight from Holland to Montserrat to produce Dire Straits' "Brothers in Arms" album.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: After parting ways with Steinman, the band tried to produce the album themselves with Lange's engineer Nigel Green with no success, and initial recording sessions were entirely scrapped.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: On 31 December 1984, Rick Allen lost his left arm when his Corvette flipped off a country road. Following the accident, the band stood by Allen's decision to return to the drum kit despite his disability, using a combination electronic/acoustic kit with a set of electronic pedals that triggered (via MIDI) the sounds that he would have played with his left arm. The band slowly continued production until Lange unexpectedly returned a year later, and Allen mastered his customised drum kit. However, the sessions were further delayed by Lange's own auto accident (sustaining leg injuries from which he quickly recovered) and a bout of the mumps suffered by singer Joe Elliott in 1986.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The final recording sessions took place in January 1987 for the song "Armageddon It" and a last-minute composition "Pour Some Sugar on Me", though Lange spent another three months mixing the tracks. The album was finally released worldwide on 3 August 1987, with "Animal" as the lead single in most countries except for the US and Canada where "Women" was the first single.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The album's goal, set out by Lange, was to be a hard rock version of Michael Jackson's "Thriller", in that every track was a potential hit single. Songs were therefore written with this concept in mind, disappointing heavy metal fans who clamoured for a straight sequel to "Pyromania". One song, "Love Bites", was already mostly written in the vein of a country ballad by Mutt Lange when he brought it to the band's attention.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: While "Pyromania" contained traces of Def Leppard's original traditional heavy metal sound found on their first two albums, "Hysteria" removed them in favour of the latest sonic technology available at the time (best displayed on "Rocket", "Love Bites", "Excitable", and "Gods of War"). As with "Pyromania", every song was recorded by every member in the studio separately instead of the whole band. The multiple vocal harmonies were enhanced by Lange's techniques, even pitching background vocals on all tracks. Guitar parts were now focused more on emphasising melody than hard rock's more basic and clichéd riffs.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The band used the Rockman amplifier, developed by guitarist Tom Scholz from the rock band Boston, to record the album. Engineer Mike Shipley described the Rockman as "a shitty little box" with "a godawful sound" that "had no real balls to it", but it was used because the other amplifiers used had an excessively "crunchy" sound ill-suited to layering guitars and which Lange did not think was "commercial" enough.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: In addition, all of the album's drum sounds were samples recorded by Lange and the engineers, then played from the Fairlight CMI. In a 1999 interview with Mix Magazine, Shipley noted, ""Pyromania" was done the same way, on cheesy 8-bit Fairlight technology where we had to figure out how to record everything at half speed into the Fairlight to make it sound like it had some tone to it, and we'd be stacking up a bunch of snares and bass drums." Shipley also noted that the drum sounds were dealt with last because each song's structure could change so radically, and because of technical difficulties. This unique approach sometimes led to painstaking lengths of time in the recording studio.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The smash single, "Pour Some Sugar on Me", was the last song written but was quickly finished within two weeks. In sharp contrast, the final version of "Animal" took almost a full three years to be developed but was not as successful as other singles despite reaching number 19 on the "Billboard" Hot 100.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: David Simone, managing director of Phonogram Records at the time, said the album might have been the most expensive record made in the U.K. According to guitarist Phil Collen, the album had to sell a minimum of 5 million copies to break even.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The popularity of Def Leppard in their homeland had significantly grown over the previous four years, and "Hysteria" topped the charts in Britain in its first week of release. The album was also a major success in other parts of Europe. In the US, however, the band initially struggled to regain the momentum of "Pyromania" that was lost from such a prolonged absence. The leadoff track, "Women", was selected as the first single for the US and Canada, instead of "Animal", in July 1987. Then-manager Cliff Burnstein reasoned that the band needed to reconnect with their hard rock audience first before issuing more Top 40-friendly singles. "Women" became a top 10 hit on the rock chart, peaking at number seven, but as predicted, did not make a large impact on the "Billboard" Hot 100, peaking at number 80.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: The success of the album's fourth single, "Pour Some Sugar on Me" would propel the album to the top of the US "Billboard" 200 albums chart on 23 July 1988, nearly a year after its release - topping the chart three separate times for a combined total of six weeks. Seven singles were eventually released in the United States, with "Love Bites" reaching number one, and three others reaching the top ten. The singles earned similar success in the United Kingdom. In the "Billboard" issue dated 8 October 1988, Def Leppard held the No. 1 spot on both the singles and album charts with "Love Bites" and "Hysteria", respectively.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: "Hysteria" went on to dominate album charts around the world for three years. It was certified 12× platinum by the RIAA in 2009. The album currently sits as the 51st best selling album of all time in the US. It spent 96 weeks in the US top 40, a record for the 1980s it ties with "Born in the U.S.A." The album has sold more than 20 million copies worldwide.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: For us the first album showed promise, the second showed the true reality of where we were going, the third album worked better in America than it did in England simply because there was no exposure radio-wise over here but by the time we did "Hysteria", everything had fallen into place. Airplay and hit singles were one aspect of it but there was also all the hard work we put into the album – we literally did slave over it to get every sound on it right. There was also Rick's accident, of course, and to be honest, I'm sure there was the initial wave of sympathy but I'm equally sure the album would have still worked anyway. None of the other stuff – the touring, the promotion, the videos – none of that would have meant anything if the songs hadn't been there and I'm still really proud of all the songs on "Hysteria".


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: On 24 October 2006, a 2-CD "deluxe edition" of the album was released, including a remastering of the original B-sides and bonus tracks from the album's period. These songs include "Tear It Down", "I Wanna Be Your Hero", "Ride Into The Sun" (originally released in 1979 on "The Def Leppard E.P.") and "Ring of Fire". Many of these songs, alongside two other "Hysteria" compositions "Desert Song" and "Fractured Love", had been featured on "Retro Active", albeit with remixes, revamps, and new parts added. The deluxe edition "Hysteria" deluxe CD included the original B-side versions of these recordings without alterations.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: Another song, "Tonight" was originally recorded on 5 May 1988 during a break in the Hysteria World Tour as a possible B-side to one of the album's upcoming singles. The song was shelved and later re-recorded for the Adrenalize album. The 1988 demo version, which includes Steve Clark on guitar, was eventually released on various CD singles, album deluxe editions and box sets.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: Finally, a very tongue in cheek cover of "Release Me" which was made famous by Engelbert Humperdinck in 1967 was released as a B-side under the guise of Stumpus Maximus and the Good Ol' Boys. Stumpus Maximus was Malvin Mortimer, a member of the band's road crew and later became their tour manager. The Good Ol' Boys were the members of Def Leppard, singing backup on what is essentially a parody version of the song.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: During their 22 March to 10 April 2013 residency at The Joint, Def Leppard performed the album in its entirety, from start to finish. This was followed up with a live album "Viva! Hysteria", recorded during the residency and released on 22 October 2013, which includes all of band's fourth studio album being played live.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: This would be followed up seven years later as "Hysteria: Live at the O2" was released on 29 May 2020, as part of the "London to Vegas" box set. The live concert was filmed at The O2 Arena in London, England on 6 December 2018, as the band once again played the album in its entirety. Various releases have included a stand-alone edition of this concert have featured combinations of audio, DVD and blu-ray discs.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: In the liner notes to the album, the band apologized for the long wait between albums, and promised to never force fans to wait that long between albums again. However, later events, particularly the death of lead guitarist Steve Clark, delayed the next album, "Adrenalize", by almost five years.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: "Hysteria" received generally positive reviews. AllMusic's Steve Huey awarded it five stars, stating, ""Pyromania"s slick, layered Mutt Lange production turned into a painstaking obsession with dense sonic detail on "Hysteria", with the result that some critics dismissed the record as a stiff, mechanized pop sell-out (perhaps due in part to Rick Allen's new, partially electronic drum kit)." Huey characterized the album as "pop metal" rather than heavy metal, with reference to the production of Mutt Lange, and called it "arguably the best pop-metal album ever recorded."


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: In 2005, "Hysteria" was ranked number 464 in "Rock Hard" magazine's book "The 500 Greatest Rock & Metal Albums of All Time". "Hysteria" got the same placement on "Rolling Stone"s list of the 500 best albums of all time, the magazine also ranked the album atop its list of the 50 greatest hair metal albums, and they placed the album on their list of "50 Rock Albums Every Country Fan Should Own".


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: "Loudwire" placed the album at No. 2 on their list of the top 30 hair metal albums. "Hysteria" was also included in the book "1001 Albums You Must Hear Before You Die". "L.A. Weekly" and "Consequence of Sound" both ranked the album #8 on their Hair Metal album lists. "Metal Rules" put the album on their list of the Top 50 Glam Metal Albums, at #30. "The Ringer" called "Hysteria" "the greatest hair-metal album ever made".


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: "I can say objectively – because I wasn't in the band then – that "Hysteria" is one of the greatest records of all time," remarked Leppard guitarist Vivian Campbell.


title: Hysteria (Def Leppard album)

text: On 4 August 2017, the band released 30th Anniversary editions of the album. This included remasters of the original songs, B-sides and remixes from the albums era on two discs, the "Classic Albums" documentary episode of the making of the album, and an audio only version of the "" video, recorded in Denver, Colorado at McNichols Sports Arena on 12 and 13 February 1988. This release omits four songs from the concert: "Don't Shoot Shotgun", "Let It Go", "Tear It Down" and "Travelin' Band" (Creedence Clearwater Revival cover) as well as a Steve Clark guitar solo. Two songs, Armageddon It and Pour Some Sugar On Me, were performed twice in order to record music videos.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: Erik Ki La Salle (born July 23, 1962), professionally known as Eriq La Salle, is an American actor, director, writer and producer. La Salle is best known for his performance in the film "Coming to America" (1988) and especially as Dr. Peter Benton in the NBC medical drama "ER" (1994–2002; 2008–2009) which earned him three NAACP Image Awards and nominations for a Golden Globe Award and three Primetime Emmy Awards.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: La Salle, one of four children, was born and raised in Hartford, Connecticut, by his mother, Ada Haynes. He is an alumnus of Weaver High School and the Artists Collective, Inc. in Hartford. He attended the Juilliard School's Drama Division for two years as a member of Group 13 (1980–84), then attended New York University's Tisch School of the Arts, where he earned a Bachelor of Fine Arts degree from the Graduate Acting Program in 1984.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: At the time of his graduation from NYU, La Salle was cast in Joseph Papp's Shakespeare in the Park production of "Henry V". Soon after, he found continuous acting work on Broadway, off-Broadway, and on several daytime TV dramas including "One Life to Live", where he played the reporter Mike Rivers.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 1994, the medical drama "ER" premiered on NBC with La Salle starring as Dr. Peter Benton. He held the role until leaving during the eighth season. He returned to "ER" for three episodes during its 15th and final season, including an uncredited appearance as himself in the opening of "Heal Thyself" to tell the audience of the death of the show's creator Michael Crichton. During season 15, he returned to direct an episode.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: On January 31, 2003 he made a cameo appearance in "Biker Boyz" as Slick Will, a mechanic. He played a Jamaican gangster in the independent film "Johnny Was" opposite Vinnie Jones, Samantha Mumba, Lennox Lewis, and Roger Daltrey. La Salle lived in Belfast, for four weeks while filming the movie, which he supported at the premiere of the film during the 2006 American Black Film Festival in Miami.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: La Salle starred in the Hallmark Channel original movie, "Relative Stranger", which premiered on March 14, 2009. Also in the movie was Cicely Tyson, as well as La Salle's former "ER" castmates Michael Michele (Dr. Cleo Finch) and Michael Beach (Al Boulet).


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 2010, La Salle played the United Nations Secretary General in the series finale of "24," and guest-starred in an episode of "Covert Affairs" in August of the same year. In 2011, he played two recurring roles: first as a Caribbean community leader who rallied against the product Rasta Monsta in HBO's "How to Make it in America", the second as the neuropsychiatrist E-Mo in CBS' "A Gifted Man".


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 1996, La Salle began his directoral career with his debut in the HBO made-for-TV movie "", starring Don Cheadle, James Earl Jones and Forest Whitaker. Shortly after that, La Salle directed the pilot for "" on Showtime.


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 2002, he produced the feature film "The Salton Sea". That same year, he produced, directed and starred in the movie "Crazy as Hell". In 2003 he wrote, directed and starred in "Memphis", an episode of "The Twilight Zone". He subsequently directed multiple episodes of "", "", and "Ringer" as well as the 2012 Hallmark Channel movie "Playing Father" and NBC’s spinoff "".


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 2015, La Salle returned to television with a role in "Under the Dome"s third season, after directing one episode of the second season. He also directed an episode in the third season. He both acted in and directed episodes of "." He performed in other series, such as "The Night Shift" and "Madam Secretary".


title: Eriq La Salle

text: In 2016, La Salle directed the episode "Wingman" in the Fox series "Lucifer" and the episode "Black and Blue" of TNT's "Murder in the First". He co-starred as Will Munson in the 2017 superhero film "Logan". La Salle also directed and produced multiple episodes of "Chicago P.D." throughout its many seasons.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The gospels of Matthew, Mark, and Luke are referred to as the synoptic Gospels because they include many of the same stories, often in a similar sequence and in similar or sometimes identical wording. They stand in contrast to John, whose content is largely distinct. The term "synoptic" (; ) comes via Latin from the Greek , "synopsis", i.e. "(a) seeing all together, synopsis"; the sense of the word in English, the one specifically applied to these three gospels, of "giving an account of the events from the same point of view or under the same general aspect" is a modern one.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: This strong parallelism among the three gospels in content, arrangement, and specific language is widely attributed to literary interdependence. The question of the precise nature of their literary relationship—the synoptic problem—has been a topic of lively debate for centuries and has been described as "the most fascinating literary enigma of all time". While no conclusive solution has been found yet, the longstanding majority view favors Marcan priority, in which both Matthew and Luke have made direct use of the Gospel of Mark as a source, and further holds that Matthew and Luke also drew from an additional hypothetical document, called "Q".


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Broadly speaking, the synoptic gospels are similar to John: all are composed in Koine Greek, have a similar length, and were completed within a century of Jesus' death. They also differ from non-canonical sources, such as the Gospel of Thomas, in that they belong to the ancient genre of biography, collecting not only Jesus' teachings, but recounting in an orderly way his origins, his ministry and miracles, and his passion and resurrection.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: In content and in wording, though, the synoptics diverge widely from John but have a great deal in common with each other. Though each gospel includes some unique material, the majority of Mark and roughly half of Matthew and Luke coincide in content, in much the same sequence, often nearly verbatim. This common material is termed the "triple tradition".


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The triple tradition, the material included by all three synoptic gospels, includes many stories and teachings:


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The triple tradition's pericopae (passages) tend to be arranged in much the same order in all three gospels. This stands in contrast to the material found in only two of the gospels, which is much more variable in order.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The classification of text as belonging to the triple tradition (or for that matter, double tradition) is not always definitive, depending rather on the degree of similarity demanded. Matthew and Mark report the cursing of the fig tree, a single incident, despite some substantial differences of wording and content. In Luke, the only parable of the barren fig tree, is in a different point of the narrative. Some would say that Luke has extensively adapted an element of the triple tradition, while others would regard it as a distinct pericope.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: More than half the wording in this passage is identical. Each gospel includes words absent in the other two and omits something included by the other two.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The triple tradition itself constitutes a complete gospel quite similar to the shortest gospel, Mark.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Mark, unlike Matthew and Luke, adds little to the triple tradition. Pericopae unique to Mark are scarce, notably two healings involving saliva and the naked runaway. Mark's additions within the triple tradition tend to be explanatory elaborations (e.g., "the stone was rolled back, ) or Aramaisms (e.g., ""Talitha kum"!"). The pericopae Mark shares with only Luke are also quite few: the Capernaum exorcism and departure from Capernaum, the strange exorcist, and the widow's mites. A greater number, but still not many, are shared with only Matthew, most notably the so-called "Great Omission" from Luke of .


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Most scholars take these observations as a strong clue to the literary relationship among the synoptics and Mark's special place in that relationship. The hypothesis favored by most experts is "Marcan priority", whereby Mark was composed first, and Matthew and Luke each used Mark, incorporating much of it, with adaptations, into their own gospels. A leading alternative hypothesis is "Marcan posteriority", with Mark having been formed primarily by extracting what Matthew and Luke shared in common.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: An extensive set of material—some two hundred verses, or roughly half the length of the triple tradition—are the pericopae shared between Matthew and Luke, but absent in Mark. This is termed the "double tradition". Parables and other sayings predominate in the double tradition, but also included are narrative elements:


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Unlike triple-tradition material, double-tradition material is structured differently in the two gospels. Matthew's lengthy Sermon on the Mount, for example, is paralleled by Luke's shorter Sermon on the Plain, with the remainder of its content scattered throughout Luke. This is consistent with the general pattern of Matthew collecting sayings into large blocks, while Luke does the opposite and intersperses them with narrative.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Besides the double tradition proper, Matthew and Luke often agree against Mark within the triple tradition to varying extents, sometimes including several additional verses, sometimes differing by a single word. These are termed the "major and minor agreements" (the distinction is imprecise). One example is in the passion narrative, where Mark has simply, "Prophesy!" while Matthew and Luke both add, "Who is it that struck you?"


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termed "Q", for the German "Quelle", meaning "source".


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Matthew and Luke contain a large amount of material found in no other gospel. These materials are sometimes called "Special Matthew" or "M" and "Special Luke" or "L".


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Both Special Matthew and Special Luke include distinct opening infancy narratives and post-resurrection conclusions (with Luke continuing the story in his second book Acts). In between, Special Matthew includes mostly parables, while Special Luke includes both parables and healings.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Special Luke is notable for containing a greater concentration of Semitisms than any other gospel material.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Since many have undertaken to set down an orderly account of the events that have been fulfilled among us, just as they were handed on to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, I too decided, after investigating everything carefully from the very first, to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, so that you may know the truth concerning the things about which you have been instructed.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The "synoptic problem" is the question of the specific literary relationship among the three synoptic gospels—that is, the question as to the source or sources upon which each synoptic gospel depended when it was written.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The texts of the three synoptic gospels often agree very closely in wording and order, both in quotations and in narration. Most scholars ascribe this to "documentary dependence", direct or indirect, meaning the close agreements among synoptic gospels are due to one gospel's drawing from the text of another, or from some written source that another gospel also drew from.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Some theories try to explain the relation of the synoptic gospels to John; to non-canonical gospels such as Thomas, Peter, and Egerton; to the Didache; and to lost documents such as the Hebrew logia mentioned by Papias, the Jewish–Christian gospels, and the Gospel of Marcion.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Ancient sources virtually unanimously ascribe the synoptic gospels to the apostle Matthew, to Peter's interpreter Mark, and to Paul's companion Luke—hence their respective canonical names. The ancient authors, however, did not agree on which order the Gospels had been written. For example, Clement of Alexandria held that Matthew wrote first, Luke wrote second and Mark wrote third; on the other hand, Origen argued that Matthew wrote first, Mark wrote second and Luke wrote third; finally, Tertullian states that John and Matthew were published first and that Mark and Luke came later.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: A remark by Augustine of Hippo at the beginning of the fifth century presents the gospels as composed in their canonical order (Matthew, Mark, Luke, John), with each evangelist thoughtfully building upon and supplementing the work of his predecessors—the Augustinian hypothesis (Matthew–Mark).


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: This view (when any model of dependence was considered at all) seldom came into question until the late eighteenth century, when Johann Jakob Griesbach published in 1776 a "synopsis" of the synoptic gospels. Instead of harmonizing them, he displayed their texts side by side, making both similarities and divergences apparent. Griesbach, noticing the special place of Mark in the synopsis, hypothesized Marcan posteriority and advanced (as Henry Owen had a few years earlier) the two-gospel hypothesis (Matthew–Luke).


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: In the nineteenth century, researchers applied the tools of literary criticism to the synoptic problem in earnest, especially in German scholarship. Early work revolved around a hypothetical proto-gospel ("Ur-Gospel"), possibly in Aramaic, underlying the synoptics. From this line of inquiry, however, a consensus emerged that Mark itself served as the principal source for the other two gospels—Marcan priority.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: In a theory first proposed by Christian Hermann Weisse in 1838, the double tradition was explained by Matthew and Luke independently using two sources—thus, the two-source (Mark–Q) theory—which supplemented Mark with another hypothetical source consisting mostly of sayings. This additional source was at first seen as the "logia" (sayings) spoken of by Papias and thus called "Λ", but later it became more generally known as "Q", from the German "Quelle", meaning "source". This two-source theory eventually won wide acceptance and was seldom questioned until the late twentieth century; most scholars simply took this new orthodoxy for granted and directed their efforts toward Q itself, and this is largely the case.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: The theory is also well known in a more elaborate form set forth by Burnett Hillman Streeter in 1924, which additionally hypothesized written sources "M" and "L" (for "Special Matthew" and "Special Luke" respectively)—hence the influential four-document hypothesis. This exemplifies the prevailing scholarship of the time, which saw the canonical gospels as late products, dating from well into the second century, composed by unsophisticated cut-and-paste redactors out of a progression of written sources, and derived in turn from oral traditions and from folklore that had evolved in various communities. More recently, however, as this view has gradually fallen into disfavor, so too has the centrality of documentary interdependence and hypothetical documentary sources as an explanation for all aspects of the synoptic problem.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: In recent decades, weaknesses of the two-source theory have been more widely recognized, and debate has reignited. Many have independently argued that Luke did make some use of Matthew after all—the Common Sayings Source. British scholars went further and dispensed with Q entirely, ascribing the double tradition to Luke's direct use of Matthew—the Farrer hypothesis of 1955. New attention is also being given to the Wilke hypothesis of 1838 which, like Farrer, dispenses with Q but ascribes the double tradition to Matthew's direct use of Luke. Meanwhile, the Augustinian hypothesis has also made a comeback, especially in American scholarship. The Jerusalem school hypothesis has also attracted fresh advocates, as has the Independence hypothesis, which denies documentary relationships altogether.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: On this collapse of consensus, Wenham observed: "I found myself in the Synoptic Problem Seminar of the Society for New Testament Studies, whose members were in disagreement over every aspect of the subject. When this international group disbanded in 1982 they had sadly to confess that after twelve years' work they had not reached a common mind on a single issue."


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: More recently, Andris Abakuks applied a statistical time series approach to the Greek texts to determine the relative likelihood of these proposals. Models without Q fit reasonably well. Matthew and Luke were statistically dependent on their borrowings from Mark. This suggests at least one of Matthew and Luke had access to the other's work. The most likely synoptic gospel to be the last was Luke. The least likely was Mark. While this weighs against the Griesbach proposal and favors the Farrer, he does not claim any proposals are ruled out.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: No definitive solution to the Synoptic Problem has been found yet. The Two-source hypothesis, which was dominant throughout the 20th century, still enjoys the support of most New Testament scholars; however, it has come under substantial attack in recent years by a number of biblical scholars, who have attempted to relaunch the Augustinian hypothesis, the Griesbach hypothesis and the Farrer hypothesis.


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: In particular, the existence of the Q source has received harsh criticism in the first two decades of the 21st century: scholars such as Mark Goodacre and Brant Pitre have pointed out that no manuscript of Q has ever been found, nor is any reference to Q ever made in the writings of the Church Fathers (or any ancient writings, in fact). This has prompted E. P. Sanders and Margaret Davies to write that the Two-sources hypothesis, while still dominant, "is least satisfactory" and Joseph Fitzmyer to state that the Synoptic Problem is "practically insoluble".


title: Synoptic Gospels

text: Nearly every conceivable theory has been advanced as a solution to the synoptic problem. The most notable theories include:


title: Arapaima

text: The arapaima, pirarucu, or paiche is any large species of bonytongue in the genus Arapaima native to the Amazon and Essequibo basins of South America. "Arapaima" is the type genus of the subfamily Arapaiminae within the family Osteoglossidae. They are among the world's largest freshwater fish, reaching as much as in length. They are an important food fish. They have declined in the native range due to overfishing and habitat loss. In contrast, arapaima have been introduced to several tropical regions outside the native range (within South America and elsewhere), where they are sometimes considered invasive species. In Kerala, India, arapaima escaped from aquaculture ponds after floods in 2018. Its Portuguese name, "pirarucu", derives from the Tupi language words "pira" and "urucum", meaning "red fish".


title: Arapaima

text: "Arapaima" was traditionally regarded as a monotypic genus, but later, several species were distinguished. As a consequence of this taxonomic confusion, most earlier studies were done using the name "A. gigas", but this species is only known from old museum specimens and the exact native range is unclear. The regularly seen and studied species is "A. arapaima", although a small number of "A. leptosoma" also have been recorded in the aquarium trade. The remaining species are virtually unknown: "A. agassizii" from old detailed drawings (the type specimen itself was lost during World War II bombings) and "A. mapae" from the type specimen.


title: Arapaima

text: FishBase recognizes four species in the genus. In addition to these, evidence suggests that a fifth species, "A. arapaima", should be recognized (this being the widespread, well-known species, otherwise included in "A. gigas").


title: Arapaima

text: These fish are widely dispersed and do not migrate, which leads scientists to suppose that more species are waiting to be discovered in the depths of the Amazon Basin harbors. Sites such as these offer the likelihood of diversity.


title: Arapaima

text: Arapaima can reach lengths more than , in some exceptional cases even exceeding and over . The maximum recorded weight for the species is , while the longest recorded length verified was 3.07 m (10 ft 1 in). Anecdotal reports suggest that specimens as long as 4.57 m (15 ft 0 in) exist, but verification is deemed impossible, and thus considered questionable. As a result of overfishing, arapaima more than are seldom found in the wild.


title: Arapaima

text: The arapaima is torpedo-shaped, with large, blackish-green scales and red markings. It is streamlined and sleek, with its dorsal and anal fins set near its tail.


title: Arapaima

text: Arapaima scales have a mineralised, hard, outer layer with a corrugated surface under which lie several layers of collagen fibres in a Bouligand-type arrangement. In a structure similar to plywood, the fibres in each successive layer are oriented at large angles to those in the previous layer, increasing toughness. The hard, corrugated surface of the outer layer, and the tough internal collagen layers work synergistically to contribute to their ability to flex and deform while providing strength and protection—a solution that allows the fish to remain mobile while heavily armored. The arapaima has a fundamental dependence on surface air to breathe. In addition to gills, it has a modified and enlarged swim bladder, composed of lung-like tissue, which enables it to extract oxygen from the air.


title: Arapaima

text: The diet of the arapaima consists of fish, crustaceans, fruits, seeds, insects, and small land animals that walk near the shore. The fish is an air breather, using its labyrinth organ, which is rich in blood vessels and opens into the fish's mouth, an advantage in oxygen-deprived water that is often found in the Amazon River. This fish is able to survive in oxbow lakes with dissolved oxygen as low as 0.5 ppm. In the wetlands of the Araguaia, one of the most important refuges for this species, it is the top predator in such lakes during the low-water season, when the lakes are isolated from the rivers and oxygen levels drop, rendering its prey lethargic and vulnerable.


title: Arapaima

text: Due to its geographic ranges, arapaima's lifecycle is greatly affected by seasonal flooding. Various pictures show slightly different coloring owing to colour changes when they reproduce. The arapaima lays its eggs when water levels are low or beginning to rise. They build a nest about wide and deep, usually in muddy-bottomed areas. As the water rises, the eggs hatch and the offspring have the flood season from May to August in which to prosper, such that yearly spawning is regulated seasonally.


title: Arapaima

text: The arapaima male is a mouthbrooder, like the related "Osteoglossum" genus, meaning the young are protected in his mouth until they are older. The female arapaima helps to protect the male and the young by circling them and fending off potential predators.


title: Arapaima

text: In his book, "Three Singles to Adventure", naturalist Gerald Durrell reported that in British Guyana, female arapaima had been seen secreting a white substance from a gland in the head, and that their young were seemingly feeding on the substance.


title: Arapaima

text: Some 23-million-year-old fossils of arapaima or a very similar species have been found in the Miocene Villavieja Formation of Colombia. Museum specimens are found in France, England, the United States, Brazil, Guyana, Ecuador and Perú. This makes them some of the oldest known species of freshwater fish.


title: Arapaima

text: Its tongue is thought to have medicinal qualities in South America. It is dried and combined with guarana bark, which is grated and mixed into water. Doses are given to kill intestinal worms.


title: Arapaima

text: The bony tongue is used to scrape cylinders of dried guarana, an ingredient in some beverages, and the bony scales are used as nail files.


title: Arapaima

text: Arapaima produce boneless steaks and are considered a delicacy. In the Amazon region, locals often salt and dry the meat, rolling it into a cigar-style package that is then tied and can be stored without rotting, which is important in a region with little refrigeration. Arapaima are referred to as the "cod of the Amazon", and can be prepared in the same way as traditional salted cod.


title: Arapaima

text: Designers have begun using the skin of the arapaima as leather to make jackets, shoes, and handbags, and to cover furniture.


title: Arapaima

text: In July 2009, villagers around Kenyir Lake in Terengganu, Malaysia, reported sighting "A. gigas". The "Kenyir monster", or "dragon fish" as the locals call it, was claimed to be responsible for the mysterious drowning of two men on 17June.


title: Arapaima

text: In August 2018, "India Times" reported that arapaima has been spotted in the Chalakudy River, following floods in Kerala; their presence in India is attributed to illegal importation for fish farming.


title: Arapaima

text: Wild arapaima are harpooned or caught in large nets. Since the arapaima needs to surface to breathe air, traditional arapaima fishermen harpoon them and then club them to death. An individual fish can yield as much as of meat.


title: Arapaima

text: The arapaima was introduced for fishing in Thailand and Malaysia. Fishing in Thailand can be done in several lakes, where specimens over are often landed and then released.


title: Arapaima

text: On 14 May 2020, a 30 kg specimen was found floating in the river in Angkor Wat area, Krovanh village, Sangkat Norkor Thom, Siem Reap. The locals said it was a rare fish, and not commonly seen in this area.


title: Arapaima

text: With catch-and-release after the fish is landed, it must be held for 5 minutes until it takes a breath. The fish has a large blood vessel running down its spine, so lifting the fish clear of the water for trophy shots can rupture this vessel, causing death.


title: Arapaima

text: In 2013, Whole Foods began selling farm-raised arapaima in the United States as a cheaper alternative to halibut or Chilean sea bass.


title: Arapaima

text: In Thailand, the only legal breeding farm is located in Tambon Phrong Maduea, Amphoe Mueang Nakhon Pathom, Nakhon Pathom Province. This has been approved by both the Department of Fisheries and CITES since early 2018, and has been exporting them worldwide as an aquarium fish.


title: Arapaima

text: Arapaima are particularly vulnerable to overfishing because of their size and because they must surface periodically to breathe. Some 7000 tons per year were taken from 1918 to 1924, the height of commercial arapaima fishing; demand led to farming of the fish by native "ribeirinhos". As efforts at restricting catches were largely unsuccessful, arapaima fishing was banned outright in Brazil in 1996, due to declining populations. Indeed, a 2014 study found that the fish were depleted or overexploited at 93% of the sites examined and well-managed or unfished in only 7%; the fish appeared to be extirpated in 19% of these sites. The status of the arapaima population in the Amazon River Basin is unknown, hence it is listed on the IUCN red list as data deficient. Conducting a population census in so large an area is difficult, as is monitoring catches in a trade that was once largely unregulated. Since 1999, both subsistence and commercial fishing have been permitted in specially designated areas under a sophisticated sustainable management strategy. This approach has led to massive recovery of once-depleted stocks; in a sampling of 10 areas conducted using traditional counting methods, the population was found to have grown from 2,500 in 1999 to over 170,000 in 2017.


title: Arapaima

text: Colombia only bans fishing and consumption of the arapaima between October 1 and March 15, during breeding season.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was a U.S. Act of Congress that reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act; it included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It supported standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. The Act required states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, states had to give these assessments to all students at select grade levels.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act did not assert a national achievement standard—each state developed its own standards. NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through further emphasis on annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, and teacher qualifications, as well as significant changes in funding.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: While the bill faced challenges from both Democrats and Republicans, it passed in both chambers of the legislature with significant bipartisan support. By 2015, bipartisan criticism had accumulated so much that a bipartisan Congress stripped away the national features of No Child Left Behind. Its replacement, the Every Student Succeeds Act, turned the remnants over to the states.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Prior to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. Its goal was to provide additional resources to low-income students, but following its enactment, the nation repeatedly fell short of meeting the law's goal of providing full educational opportunities to students. Fears concerning the American education system culminated with the 1983 release of a report entitled "A Nation At Risk", written by President Ronald Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education. This report suggested that America's economic security would be severely compromised unless there were a complete reorientation of the education system and an increase in the set of academic standards that students were expected to achieve. Though many Republican groups historically opposed the active role of the federal government in education, lobbying efforts, public opinion, and other political developments in Washington (such as the Republican defeat in the 1996 presidential election) caused congressional Republicans to push for federal educational reforms that emphasized standardized testing and other accountability measures. At the time, increased attention was being paid to the state of education in the nation because prior to the 2000 United States presidential election, then-candidate George Bush made a number of campaign promises related to bipartisan education reform.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The increased focus in the United States on educational standards and accountability reflected international education policy developments and debates. After World War II, international organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) devoted their attention to global educational development. From the 1960s onward, these organizations increasingly focused on learning outcomes and evaluation procedures that included the evaluation of education systems against defined standards of performance. The 2001 NCLB Act was part of this global movement toward greater accountability in education.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: President George W. Bush first proposed the use of federal aid to create a plan by which to hold schools accountable for the educational outcomes of their students on January 23, 2001; however, as it was initially described, the Act faced significant criticism from interest groups such as the Education Trust because of its inclusion of vouchers. Vouchers would enable parents to choose a different school (public, private, or otherwise) for their child to attend if their district failed to meet state standards; however, critics stated that this move would take funds away from schools that needed the most funding. The NCLB Act was introduced in the United States House of Representatives on March 22, 2001, and it was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senators Ted Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). As it made its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate, the bill faced a number of challenges, ranging from Democratic appeals for more funding, to Republican pushback on the increased role of the Federal government in the realm of education. Despite this, the Act garnered bipartisan support in both chambers of the legislature, and it was passed in the United States House of Representatives on December 13, 2001 (voting 381–41), and in the United States Senate on December 18, 2001 (voting 87–10). The Act was then signed into law by President Bush on January 8, 2002.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: According to the U.S. Department of Education, some of the most important things that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 sets out to accomplish are increasing the accountability of schools for the educational outcomes of their students and bridging the gap between poor and high-performing students and districts. In order to do this, NCLB requires all public schools receiving federal funding to administer a nationwide standardized test annually to students in select grades. Furthermore, in order to improve the educational outcomes of students, the act names several methods that could be utilized by school districts to help their students achieve educational growth, such as teacher professional development, educational technology, and parental involvement activities, among others. In order to determine how much grant money schools should be allocated for the programs enacted in the various sections of NCLB, the act asks each local agency to determine the average number of students in daily attendance in the K-12 schools that the agencies serve. Also, the law calls for the improvement of the dissemination of information on student achievement and school performance to parents through reporting systems that reflect best educational practices.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Schools that receive Title I funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores (e.g. each year, fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year's fifth graders).


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act requires states to provide "highly qualified" teachers to all students. Each state sets its own standards for what counts as "highly qualified." Similarly, the act requires states to set "one high, challenging standard" for its students. Each state decides for itself what counts as "one high, challenging standard," but the curriculum standards must be applied to all students, rather than having different standards for students in different cities or other parts of the state.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act also requires schools to let military recruiters have students' contact information and other access to the student, if the school provides that information to universities or employers, unless the students opt out of giving military recruiters access. This portion of the law has drawn a fair amount of criticism and has even led to political resistance. For instance, in 2003 in Santa Cruz, California, student-led efforts forced school districts to create an "opt-in" policy that required students affirm they wanted the military to have their information. This successful student organizing effort was copied in various other cities throughout the United States.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act outlines programs and requirements that have the intended purpose of preventing drug and alcohol use by students, as well as programs that would deter students from committing acts of violence in schools. The act also provides funds to states in order to enable students who have been expelled from school for certain offenses to perform acts of community service.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Supporters of the NCLB claim one of the strong positive points of the bill is the increased accountability that is required of schools and teachers. According to the legislation, schools must pass yearly tests that judge student improvement over the fiscal year. These yearly standardized tests are the main means of determining whether schools live up to required standards. If required improvements are not made, the schools face decreased funding and other punishments that contribute to the increased accountability. According to supporters, these goals help teachers and schools realize the significance and importance of the educational system and how it affects the nation. Opponents of this law say that the punishments only hurt the schools and do not contribute to the improvement of student education.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The commonwealth of Pennsylvania has proposed tying teacher's salaries to test scores. If a district's students do poorly, the state cuts the district's budget the following year and the teachers get a pay cut. Critics point out that if a school does poorly, reducing its budget and cutting teacher salaries will likely hamper the school's ability to improve.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act requires schools to rely on scientifically based research for programs and teaching methods. The act defines this as "research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs." Scientifically based research results in "replicable and applicable findings" from research that used appropriate methods to generate persuasive, empirical conclusions.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Prior to the NCLB act, new teachers were typically required to have a bachelor's degree, be fully certified, and demonstrate subject matter knowledge—generally through tests. Under NCLB, existing teachers—including those with tenure—were also supposed to meet standards. They could meet the same requirements set for new teachers or could meet a state-determined "...high, objective, uniform state standard of evaluation," aka HOUSSE. Downfall of the quality requirements of the NCLB legislation have received little research attention, in part because state rules require few changes from pre-existing practice. There is also little evidence that the rules have altered trends in observable teacher traits. For years, American educators have been struggling to identify those teacher traits that are important contributors to student achievement. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what traits are most important and most education policy experts agree that further research is required.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Several of the analyses of state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that outcomes accountability led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems. The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB reduces effective instruction and student learning by causing states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools don't teach basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The United States Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: These statistics compare 2005 with 2000 though No Child Left Behind did not even take effect until 2003. Critics point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2005 was roughly the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which calls into question how any increase can be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some of the subgroups are cherry-picked—that in other subgroups scores remained the same or fell. Also, the makers of the standardized tests have been blamed for making the tests easier so that it is easier for schools to sufficiently improve.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Education researchers Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob argue that NCLB showed statistically significant positive impact on students' performance on 4th-grade math exams (equal to two-thirds of a year's worth of growth), smaller and statistically insignificant improvements in 8th-grade math exam performance, and no discernible improvement in reading performance.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Critics argue that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that the school believes increases test performance, rather than achieve in-depth understanding of the overall curriculum. For example, a teacher who knows that all questions on a math test are simple addition problems (e.g., What is 2 + 3?) might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition, to leave more time for the material the test assesses. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test." "Teaching to the test" has been observed to raise test scores, though not as much as other teaching techniques.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests, New York and Michigan, and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two-thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two points. The teachers correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present simplistic items rather than higher-order items.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Another problem is that outside influences often affect student performance. Students who struggle to take tests may perform well using another method of learning such as project-based learning. Sometimes, factors such as home life can affect test performance. Basing performance on one test inaccurately measures student success overall. No Child Left Behind has failed to account for all these factors.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Those opposed to the use of testing to determine educational achievement prefer alternatives such as subjective teacher opinions, classwork, and performance-based assessments.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Under No Child Left Behind, schools and teachers were held almost exclusively accountable for levels of student performance. But that meant that even schools that were making great strides with students were still labeled as "failing" just because the students had not yet made it all the way to a "proficient" level of achievement. Since 2005, the U.S. Department of Education has approved 15 states to implement growth model pilots. Each state adopted one of four distinct growth models: Trajectory, Transition Tables, Student Growth Percentiles, and Projection.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The incentives for improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores. Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards. A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Many argue that local government had failed students, necessitating federal intervention to remedy issues like teachers teaching outside their areas of expertise, and complacency in the face of continually failing schools. Some local governments, notably that of New York state, have supported NCLB provisions, because local standards failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and NCLB would let them use longitudinal data more effectively to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as an apparent result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states plus the District of Columbia, with ninety-eight percent of its schools achieving No Child Left Behind standards.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Student performance in other subjects (besides reading and math) will be measured as a part of overall progress.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: NCLB's main focus is on skills in reading, writing, and mathematics, which are areas related to economic success. Combined with the budget crises in the late-2000s recession, some schools have cut or eliminated classes and resources for many subject areas that are not part of NCLB's accountability standards. Since 2007, almost 71% of schools have reduced instruction time in subjects such as history, arts, language, and music to provide more time and resources to mathematics and English.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In some schools, the classes remain available, but individual students who are not proficient in basic skills are sent to remedial reading or mathematics classes rather than arts, sports, or other optional subjects.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: According to Paul Reville, the author of "Stop Narrowing of the Curriculum By Right-Sizing School Time," teachers are learning that students need more time to excel in the "needed" subjects. The students need more time to achieve the basic goals that should come by somewhat relevant to a student.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Physical Education, on the other hand, is one of the subjects least affected. Some might find this confusing because like many electives and non-core classes, No Child Left Behind does not address Physical Education directly. Two reasons why Physical Education is not adversely affected include the obesity crisis in the United States that the federal government is trying to reverse through programs like First Lady Michelle Obama's "Let's Move Campaign," which among other things, looks to improve the quantity and quality of physical education. Secondly, there is research, including a 2005 study by Dr. Charles H. Hillmam of The University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign that concludes that fitness is globally related to academic achievement.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The opportunities, challenges, and risks that No Child Left Behind poses for science education in elementary and middle schools—worldwide competition insists on rapidly improving science education. Adding science assessments to the NCLB requirements may ultimately result in science being taught in more elementary schools and by more teachers than ever before. 2/3 of elementary school teachers indicated that they were not familiar with national science standards. Most concern circulates around the result that, consuming too much time for language arts and mathematics may limit children's experience—and curiosity and interest—in sciences.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: NCLB pressures schools to guarantee that nearly all students meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic—but requires nothing beyond these minima. It provides no incentives to improve student achievement beyond the bare minimum. Programs not essential for achieving mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students. Federal funding of gifted education decreased by a third over the law's first five years. There was only one program that helped improve the gifted: they received $9.6 million. In the 2007 budget, President George W. Bush zeroed this out. While NCLB is silent on the education of academically gifted students, some states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement. According to research, an IQ of 120 is needed. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the Act became law.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: A 2008 study by the Fordham Institute suggests that the lack of incentive for schools to meet the needs of high achieving students had serious consequences: while between 2000 and 2007 students in the lowest 10th percentile (low performers) had improved their average performance on the 4th grade reading portion of the National Assessment of Educational Progress by 16 points, the scores of the highest-performing students (90th percentile and above) hardly budged.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: "There's a fallacy in the law and everybody knows it," said Alabama State Superintendent Joe Morton on Wednesday, August 11, 2010. According to the No Child Left Behind Act, by 2014, every child is supposed to test on grade level in reading and math. "That can't happen," said Morton. "You have too many variables and you have too many scenarios, and everybody knows that would never happen." Alabama State Board Member Mary Jane Caylor said, "I don't think that No Child Left Behind has benefited this state." She argued the goal of 100 percent proficiency is unattainable. Charles Murray wrote of the law: "The United States Congress, acting with large bipartisan majorities, at the urging of the President, enacted as the law of the land that all children are to be above average."


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ "creative reclassification" of high school dropouts (to reduce unfavorable statistics). For example, at Sharpstown High School in Houston, Texas, more than 1,000 students began high school as freshmen, and four years later, fewer than 300 students were enrolled in the senior class. However, none of these "missing" students from Sharpstown High were reported as dropouts.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014; detractors charge that a 100% goal is unattainable, and critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the given level for their age, no matter how effective the teacher is. While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of students that may have below-average capabilities.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The term "all" in NCLB ended up meaning less than 100% of students, because by the time the 100% requirement was to take effect in 2015, no state had reached the goal of having 100% of student pass the proficiency bar. Students who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and who are assessed must receive the accommodations specified in the IEP during assessment; if these accommodations do not change the nature of the assessment, then these students' scores are counted the same as any other student's score. Common acceptable changes include extended test time, testing in a quieter room, translation of math problems into the student's native language, or allowing a student to type answers instead of writing them by hand.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Simply being classified as having special education needs does not automatically exempt students from assessment. Most students with mild disabilities or physical disabilities take the same test as non-disabled students.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, regulations let schools use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act. States are given broad discretion in selecting alternate assessments. For example, a school may accept an Advanced Placement test for English in lieu of the English test written by the state, and simplified tests for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) and Virginia Grade Level Alternative (VGLA) options, for example, are portfolio assessments.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or limited English proficient (LEP) students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Opponents say that testing students with disabilities violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by making students with disabilities learn the same material as non-disabled students.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: NCLB includes incentives to reward schools showing progress for students with disabilities and other measures to fix or provide students with alternative options than schools not meeting the needs of the disabled population. The law is written so that the scores of students with IEPs (Individualized Education Plans) and 504 plans are counted just as other students' scores are counted. Schools have argued against having disabled populations involved in their AYP measurements because they claim that there are too many variables involved.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Stemming from the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) of 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was enacted in its first form in 1991, and then reenacted with new education aspects in 2006 (although still referred to as IDEA 2004). It kept the EAHCA requirements of free and accessible education for all children. The 2004 IDEA authorized formula grants to states and discretionary grants for research, technology, and training. It also required schools to use research-based interventions to assist students with disabilities.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The amount of funding each school would receive from its "Local Education Agency" for each year would be divided by the number of children with disabilities and multiplied by the number of students with disabilities participating in the schoolwide programs.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Particularly since 2004, policymakers have sought to align IDEA with NCLB. The most obvious points of alignment include the shared requirements for Highly Qualified Teachers, for establishment of goals for students with special needs, and for assessment levels for these students. In 2004, George Bush signed provisions that would define for both of these acts what was considered a "highly qualified teacher."


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The National Council on Disability (NCD) looks at how NCLB and IDEA are improving outcomes for students with Down syndrome. The effects they investigate include reducing the number of students who drop out, increasing graduation rates, and effective strategies to transition students to post-secondary education. Their studies have reported that NCLB and IDEA have changed the attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities. They are pleased that students are finally included in state assessment and accountability systems. NCLB made assessments be taken "seriously," they found, as now assessments and accommodations are under review by administrators.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Another organization that found positive correlations between NCLB and IDEA was the National Center on Educational Outcomes. It published a brochure for parents of students with disabilities about how the two (NCLB & IDEA) work well together because they "provide both individualized instruction and school accountability for students and disabilities." They specifically highlight the new focus on "shared responsibility of general and special education teachers," forcing schools to have disabled students more on their radar." They do acknowledge, however, that for each student to "participate in the general curriculum [of high standards for all students] and make progress toward proficiency," additional time and effort for coordination are needed. The National Center on Educational Outcomes reported that now disabled students will receive "...the academic attention and resources they deserved."


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Particular research has been done on how the laws impact students who are deaf or hard of hearing. First, the legislation makes schools responsible for how students with disabilities score—emphasizing "...student outcomes instead of placement." It also puts the public's eye on how outside programs can be utilized to improve outcomes for this underserved population, and has thus prompted more research on the effectiveness of certain in- and out-of-school interventions. For example, NCLB requirements have made researchers begin to study the effects of read aloud or interpreters on both reading and mathematics assessments, and on having students sign responses that are then recorded by a scribe.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Still, research thus far on the positive effects of NCLB/IDEA is limited. It has been aimed at young students in an attempt to find strategies to help them learn to read. Evaluations also have included a limited number of students, which make it very difficult to draw conclusions to a broader group. Evaluations also focus only on one type of disabilities.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The National Council for Disabilities had reservations about how the regulations of NCLB fit with those of IDEA. One concern is how schools can effectively intervene and develop strategies when NCLB calls for group accountability rather than individual student attention. The Individual nature of IDEA is "inconsistent with the group nature of NCLB." They worry that NCLB focuses too much on standardized testing and not enough on the work-based experience necessary for obtaining jobs in the future. Also, NCLB is measured essentially by a single test score, but IDEA calls for various measures of student success.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: IDEA's focus on various measures stems from its foundation in Individualized Education Plans for students with disabilities (IEP). An IEP is designed to give students with disabilities individual goals that are often not on their grade level. An IEP is intended for "developing goals and objectives that correspond to the needs of the student, and ultimately choosing a placement in the least restrictive environment possible for the student." Under the IEP, students could be able to legally have lowered success criteria for academic success.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: A 2006 report by the Center for Evaluation and Education Policy (CEEP) and the Indiana Institute on Disability and Community indicated that most states were not making AYP because of special education subgroups even though progress had been made toward that end. This was in effect pushing schools to cancel the inclusion model and keep special education students separate. "IDEA calls for individualized curriculum and assessments that determine success based on growth and improvement each year. NCLB, in contrast, measures all students by the same markers, which are based not on individual improvement but by proficiency in math and reading," the study states. When interviewed with the Indiana University Newsroom, author of the CEEP report Sandi Cole said, "The system needs to make sense. Don't we want to know how much a child is progressing towards the standards? ... We need a system that values learning and growth over time, in addition to helping students reach high standards." Cole found in her survey that NCLB encourages teachers to teach to the test, limiting curriculum choices/options, and to use the special education students as a "scapegoat" for their school not making AYP. In addition, Indiana administrators who responded to the survey indicated that NCLB testing has led to higher numbers of students with disabilities dropping out of school.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Legal journals have also commented on the incompatibility of IDEA and NCLB; some say the acts may never be reconciled with one another. They point out that an IEP is designed specifically for individual student achievement, which gives the rights to parents to ensure that the schools are following the necessary protocols of Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). They worry that not enough emphasis is being placed on the child's IEP with this setup. In Board of Education for Ottawa Township High School District 140 v. Spelling, two Illinois school districts and parents of disabled students challenged the legality of NCLB's testing requirements in light of IDEA's mandate to provide students with individualized education. Although students there were aligned with "proficiency" to state standards, students did not meet requirements of their IEP. Their parents feared that students were not given right to FAPE. The case questioned which better indicated progress: standardized test measures, or IEP measures? It concluded that since some students may never test on grade level, all students with disabilities should be given more options and accommodations with standardized testing than they currently receive.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: All students who are learning English would have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English-language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Many schools test or assess students with limited English proficiency even when the students are exempt from NCLB-mandated reporting, because the tests may provide useful information to the teacher and school. In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exemption comprises a majority of young students.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: NCLB testing under-reports learning at non-English-language immersion schools, particularly those that immerse students in Native American languages. NCLB requires some Native American students to take standardized tests in English. In other cases, the students could be legally tested in their native language, except that the state has not paid to have the test translated.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: One study found that schools in California and Illinois that have not met AYP serve 75–85% minority students while schools meeting AYP have less than 40% minority students. Schools that do not meet AYP are required to offer their students' parents the opportunity to transfer their students to a non-failing school within the district, but it is not required that the other school accepts the student. NCLB controls the portion of federal Title I funding based upon each school meeting annual set standards. Any participating school that does not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run, which could entail state-takeover.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and Congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education. Total federal education funding increased from $42.2 billion in 2001 (the fiscal year before the law's passage) up to $55.7 billion in 2004. A new $1 billion Reading First program was created, distributing funds to local schools to improve the teaching of reading, and over $100 million for its companion, Early Reading First. Numerous other formula programs received large increases as well. This was consistent with the administration's position of funding formula programs, which distribute money to local schools for their use, and grant programs, where particular schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The act created a new competitive-grant program called Reading First, funded at $1.02 billion in 2004, to help states and districts set up "scientific, research-based" reading programs for children in grades K–3 (with priority given to high-poverty areas). A smaller early-reading program sought to help states better prepare 3- to 5-year-olds in disadvantaged areas to read. The program's funding was later cut drastically by Congress amid budget talks.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Funding Changes: Through an alteration in the Title I funding formula, the No Child Left Behind Act was expected to better target resources to school districts with high concentrations of poor children. The law also included provisions intended to give states and districts greater flexibility in how they spent a portion of their federal allotments.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB is administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states, in turn, reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004–05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and mathematics, engaging in data-driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The NCLB increases were companions to another massive increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed very large increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at the same time as the NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, a state formula-funding program that distributes money to local districts for the education of students with disabilities, was increased from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004. Because a district's and state's performance on NCLB measures depended on improved performance by students with disabilities, particularly, students with learning disabilities, this 60 percent increase in funding was also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Some critics claim that extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by increased levels of federal NCLB funding. Others note that funding for the law increased massively following passage and that billions in funds previously allocated to particular uses could be reallocated to new uses. Even before the law's passage, Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted ensuring that children are educated remained a state responsibility regardless of federal support:


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Various early Democratic supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, once stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not." Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association:


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that during the Bush Administration, neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act's main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 billion of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006. Advocacy groups note that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal allotted $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from the year before. 44 out of 50 states would have received reductions in federal funding if the budget passed as it was. Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, these claims focused on reallocated funds, as each of President Bush's proposed budgets increased funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including his final 2009 budget proposal.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Members of Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001–02 through 2006–07.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In fiscal year 2007, $75 billion in costs were shifted from NCLB, adding further stresses on state budgets. This decrease resulted in schools cutting programs that served to educate children, which subsequently impacted the ability to meet the goals of NCLB. The decrease in funding came at a time when there was an increase in expectations for school performance. To make ends meet, many schools re-allocated funds that had been intended for other purposes (e.g., arts, sports, etc.) to achieve the national educational goals set by NCLB. Congress acknowledged these funding decreases and retroactively provided the funds to cover shortfalls, but without the guarantee of permanent aid.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The number one area where funding was cut from the national budget was in Title I funding for disadvantaged students and schools.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: According to the book "NCLB Meets School Realities", the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states. While states were being forced to make budget cuts, including in the area of education, they had to incur additional expenses to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funding they received from the federal government in support of NCLB was not enough to cover the added expense necessary to adhere to the new law.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor, and religious groups that have signed on to a statement calling for major changes to the federal education law. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) initiated and chaired the meetings that produced the statement, originally released in October 2004. The statement's central message is that "the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement." The number of organizations signing the statement has nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, as the law's scheduled reauthorization approaches.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Education critic Alfie Kohn argues that the NCLB law is "unredeemable" and should be scrapped. He is quoted saying "[I]ts main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills".


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act. The Commission is an independent, bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis, and research, the Commission uncovered the successes of NCLB, as well as provisions that must be significantly changed.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal. It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: While many critics and policymakers believe the NCLB legislation has major flaws, it appears the policy will be in effect for the long-term, though not without major modifications.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: President Barack Obama released a blueprint for reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the successor to No Child Left Behind, in March 2010. Specific revisions include providing funds for states to implement a broader range of assessments to evaluate advanced academic skills, including students' abilities to conduct research, use technology, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, and communicate effectively.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In addition, Obama proposes that the NCLB legislation lessen its stringent accountability punishments to states by focusing more on student improvement. Improvement measures would encompass assessing all children appropriately, including English language learners, minorities, and special needs students. The school system would be re-designed to consider measures beyond reading and math tests; and would promote incentives to keep students enrolled in school through graduation, rather than encouraging student drop-out to increase AYP scores.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Obama's objectives also entail lowering the achievement gap between Black and White students and also increasing the federal budget by $3 billion to help schools meet the strict mandates of the bill. There has also been a proposal, put forward by the Obama administration, that states increase their academic standards after a dumbing down period, focus on re-classifying schools that have been labeled as failing, and develop a new evaluation process for teachers and educators.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The federal government's gradual investment in public social provisions provides the NCLB Act a forum to deliver on its promise to improve achievement for all of its students. Education critics argue that although the legislation is marked as an improvement to the ESEA in de-segregating the quality of education in schools, it is actually harmful. The legislation has become virtually the only federal social policy meant to address wide-scale social inequities, and its policy features inevitably stigmatize both schools attended by children of the poor and children in general.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Moreover, critics further argue that the current political landscape of this country, which favors market-based solutions to social and economic problems, has eroded trust in public institutions and has undermined political support for an expansive concept of social responsibility, which subsequently results in a disinvestment in the education of the poor and privatization of American schools.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Skeptics posit that NCLB provides distinct political advantages to Democrats, whose focus on accountability offers a way for them to speak of equal opportunity and avoid being classified as the party of big government, special interests, and minority groups—a common accusation from Republicans who want to discredit what they see as the traditional Democratic agenda. Opponents posit that NCLB has inadvertently shifted the debate on education and racial inequality to traditional political alliances. Consequently, major political discord remains between those who oppose federal oversight of state and local practices and those who view NCLB in terms of civil rights and educational equality.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In the plan, the Obama Administration responds to critiques that standardized testing fails to capture higher level thinking by outlining new systems of evaluation to capture more in depth assessments on student achievement. His plan came on the heels of the announcement of the Race to the Top initiative, a $4.35 billion reform program financed by the Department of Education through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Obama says that accurate assessments "...can be used to accurately measure student growth; to better measure how states, districts, schools, principals, and teachers are educating students; to help teachers adjust and focus their teaching, and to provide better information to students and their families." He has pledged to support state governments in their efforts to improve standardized test provisions by upgrading the standards they are set to measure. To do this, the federal government gives states grants to help develop and implement assessments based on higher standards so they can more accurately measure school progress. This mirrors provisions in the Race to the Top program that require states to measure individual achievement through sophisticated data collection from kindergarten to higher education.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: While Obama plans to improve the quality of standardized testing, he does not plan to eliminate the testing requirements and accountability measures produced by standardized tests. Rather, he provides additional resources and flexibility to meet new goals. Critics of Obama's reform efforts maintain that high-stakes testing is detrimental to school success across the country, because it encourages teachers to "teach to the test" and places undue pressure on teachers and schools if they fail to meet benchmarks.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The re-authorization process has become somewhat of a controversy, as lawmakers and politicians continually debate about the changes that must be made to the bill to make it work best for the educational system.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In 2012, President Obama granted waivers from NCLB requirements to several states. "In exchange for that flexibility, those states 'have agreed to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential reforms to improve teacher effectiveness,' the White House said in a statement."


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: Eight of the 32 NCLB waivers granted to states are conditional, meaning those states have not entirely satisfied the administration's requirements and part of their plans are under review.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: The waivers of Arizona, Oregon, and Kansas are conditional, according to Acting Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education Michael Yudin. Arizona has not yet received state board approval for teacher evaluations, and Kansas and Oregon are both still developing teacher and principal evaluation guidelines.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: In addition, five states that did not complete the waiver process—and one whose application was rejected—got a one-year freeze on the rising targets for standardized test scores: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, and West Virginia.


title: No Child Left Behind Act

text: On April 30, 2015, a bill was introduced to Congress to replace the No Child Left Behind Act, the Every Student Succeeds Act, which was passed by the House on December 2 and the Senate on December 9, before being signed into law by President Obama on December 10, 2015. This bill affords states more flexibility in regards to setting their own respective standards for measuring school as well as student performance.


title: Martin Brundle

text: Martin John Brundle (born 1 June 1959) is a British former racing driver, best known as a Formula One driver and as a commentator for ITV Sport from 1997 to 2008, the BBC from 2009 to 2011, and Sky Sports since 2012.


title: Martin Brundle

text: Brundle contested the 1983 British Formula Three Championship, finishing a close second to Ayrton Senna, and the two progressed to Formula One the next year. Brundle was the 1988 World Sportscar Champion with Silk Cut Jaguar, with a record points score; and won the 1988 24 Hours of Daytona, and the 1990 24 Hours of Le Mans for Jaguar Cars.


title: Martin Brundle

text: Brundle had an unorthodox route to Formula One. He began his racing career at the age of 12, competing in grass track racing, in the Norfolk village of Pott Row. In 1975, he moved to Hot Rod racing and received 'Star grade' status. In 1979, he started single seater racing in Formula Ford. During this time he also raced Tom Walkinshaw's BMW touring cars, during which he finished second against a field of international drivers at Snetterton. He won the BMW championship in 1980, and partnered Stirling Moss in the TWR-run BP/Audi team during the 1981 British Saloon Car Championship season. In 1982, he moved up to Formula Three achieving five pole positions and two wins in his debut season. He won the Grovewood Award as the most promising Commonwealth driver. The next year, he competed with Ayrton Senna for the Formula Three championship, which Brundle lost on the final laps of the last race. In 1984, he was offered a Formula One entry.