In what way(s) can we argue that NCLB means "no" to students?
You can argue that this law means "no" for students because it means that they will not get a good and well-rounded education.
It can be argued that NCLB creates a system in which all teachers worry about is whether their students will pass the standardized tests. The teachers will therefore spend all of their time "teaching to the test." This will take away time that could be used for important aspects of education (such as, for example, critical thinking or personal exploration). It will also take away time from such areas as art, music, physical education, and anything else that is not tested. In these ways, the law (one can argue) says "no" to students who want a well-rounded education.