PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Jan 23, 2007
No Child Left Behind Improvements Act of 2007 - Amends the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) to alter requirements for adequate yearly progress (AYP) assessments of student groups by: (1) allowing states to vary the number of students sufficient for such an assessment from local educational agency (LEA) to LEA and from school to school; (2) lowering the percentage of students in a failing group who must show improvement from the preceding year for a school to avoid corrective action; (3) changing the method of counting students in more than one group; (4) allowing states to use alternative methods of defining AYP; (5) exempting a higher percentage of students from such assessments; (6) giving states greater flexibility in the use of alternative assessments for disabled students and those not proficient in English; and (7) allowing multiple assessments of the same student prior to the following school year and measurement of the achievement of students as if they were in their prior grade.
Provides that a state's intermediate academic achievement goals need not increase in equal increments for all groups.
Requires that states be given maximum flexibility in devising academic improvement plans.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Limits the implementation of sanctions to schools and LEAs that fail AYP standards in the same subject for the same group for two consecutive school years, and the provision of school transfers and supplemental services to students in the group who failed AYP standards. Provides further exceptions to and conditions on the application of corrective actions.
Involves LEAs in the choice and critique of supplemental service providers as well as the provision of such services.
Authorizes states, LEAs, and schools to defer implementation of certain corrective actions in any fiscal year when the amount appropriated under ESEA and the Individuals with Disabilities Act does not equal or exceed a specified authorized amount.
Applies AYP assessments to private schools receiving benefits under ESEA. Allows states to deny such benefits to private schools that fail state AYP standards for three consecutive years and underperform local public schools.
People & committees
Rep. Young, Don [R-AK-At Large] · R–AK
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Referred to the Subcommittee on Early Childhood, Elementary, and Secondary Education.
Referred to the House Committee on Education and Labor.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Mar 23, 2026. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.648 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.648 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.648 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.648 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.