This article examines what some people see as flaws in the transfer policy provision of the No Child Left Behind law. Advocates of the policy are calling for providing schools with incentives to accept transfers and for giving parents more time, information, and options, among other changes. States need to hold districts' feet to the fire, those proponents argue, and the federal government needs to lean harder on states and collect better data. Skeptics about the provision argue that offering transfers should be only one of several options for under-performing schools, and certainly not the first sanction schools face. They also say that transfers should be restricted to certain students, and that Washington needs to send districts more money to carry out the policy. The transfer requirement is the first of a string of consequences that the law imposes on schools that receive Title I money and repeatedly fail to make adequate yearly progress, or AYP, the key measure of success under the law. Those schools not making AYP by the third year are required to offer their students such options as tutoring, but many more students have gotten those options than have transferred, suggesting that school choice is not where the action is under the NCLB law. Other issues include the timing of parental notification, school capacity in small and rural districts, and evidence that moving a child to a different school actually improved their achievement. Solutions from various experts are suggested.