Results for no child left behind
On this page:
 
AnswerNote:

No Child Left Behind

no child left behind
Source

The "No Child Left Behind" law requires states to give students in grades 3-8 an annual test in reading and math. In 10 years, all students are supposed to test as "proficient." Test scores at individual schools must improve for all students and for minorities, low-income students and other subgroups. If a school receiving federal Title I funding misses the target two years in a row, students must be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. If a school fails to improve three years in a row, students must be offered vouchers good for extra help, including private tutoring. Teachers in core content areas must be "highly qualified," certified and knowledgeable about the subject matter taught. The law funds "research-based" reading programs for elementary students.

Last updated: June 21, 2004.

 
 
Education Encyclopedia: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act. This act was a congressional reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) and is also known technically as Public Law 107-87.

In April 1965, almost thirty-seven years prior to the enactment of Public Law 107-87, the 89th Congress and President Lyndon Baines Johnson had overseen enactment of the original ESEA (Pub. L. 89-10). This federal government statue proved enormously important for American education. It also proved enormously difficult to implement and manage. The nature and complexity of the No Child Left Behind Act suggests that it too will be both equally important and equally challenging to those charged with overseeing its operation.

The Original Esea

The significance of the original ESEA resided in its emphasis on the schooling of students from low-income households. The ESEA, through a remarkably creative financing formula, distributed federal funds to states, and thence to counties and school districts, proportionate to the number of enrolled students from low-income households. By the turn of the twenty-first century, this act was responsible for distributing more than $13 billion each school year to public and, through a few minimal provisions, private and religious K - 12 schools. The act also supplied substantial financial subsidies for the operation of state education departments.

Prior to 1965, not only did the federal government have only the most minimal presence in education, education also had only a minimal presence in the lives of low-income students. These were children who had legal access to public schooling. But public schooling had few mechanisms, other than the dedication of certain teachers and principals, for educating them. Low-income students were permitted to stay in school, often being promoted from one grade to the next. Prior to the ESEA, however, there were few expectations that schools would expend on their behalf the added resources that might be necessary to compensate for the poverty-impacted nature of their neighborhoods and households. The ESEA was, if nothing else, a powerful symbolic message that even poor children were to be schooled.

Administration of the ESEA proved challenging. School districts frequently did not realize that the added federal funding was intended for low-income children. They accepted the money as "general financial aid," suitable for whatever purpose they chose to spend it. Congressional amendments in 1968 made the statute's purposes more clear. Nevertheless, these new regulations were so strict that it became equally clear that the federally funded poverty programs, however much needed, were intruding deeply into the operation of schools. The narrowly focused instructional programs they financed were at best wasteful and possibly counterproductive to the education of children.

By the mid-1990s, Congress undertook another midcourse correction and began to permit schools to deploy the ESEA funds with greater local discretion. Still, by 1998, a General Accounting Office report suggested that only fifteen states were adequately implementing the ESEA. This was more than three decades after its enactment.

The New Act

The No Child Left Behind Act promises to be as important as the original ESEA not only because of the added federal funding it authorizes for education but also because of the pathbreaking measures required of states accepting the money.

The new ESEA is also symbolic of a major shift in American education. Until the latter part of the twentieth century, it was generally sufficient simply to offer schooling and to ensure that all children had equal access to it. By the turn of the twenty-first century, however, global economic changes had so altered that societal landscape that Americans were expecting far more of their education systems. Now, simple access was no longer sufficient. Learning was coming to be expected - and not simply learning for the slender elite that for more than a century had graduated from privileged public and private schools and attended the nation's highest-ranking universities. Now learning was expected of all children, and performance was expected of all schools. The No Child Left Behind Act is filled with accountability provisions to ensure that states and participating schools understand the new expectations.

The No Child Left Behind Act is symbolic of the transition in American education from a period where the main concern was that the inputs of schooling be present to a period where it is the outcomes of schooling that matter. To accomplish this new purpose - to render schools effective - the reauthorized ESEA provides added funding to school districts, through states. In addition, it requires that states have learning standards and testing programs capable of assessing each child's performance in achieving those standards. The accountability mechanisms in the statute provide for negative sanctions to schools and districts that persistently fail to elevate student achievement.

However important practically, financially, or symbolically, the No Child Left Behind Act will doubtless prove difficult to implement. The statutory language offers only the most rudimentary solutions to a number of issues and questions, such as the comparability of testing forms across states, or whether improvement in student achievement is sufficient or must a school attain absolute standards of achievement to be approved.

In that the original ESEA was not fully understood nor faultlessly managed even three decades after its enactment, it is unlikely that the 2002-enacted version, which if anything is even more complicated, will achieve success at a faster pace.

Internet Resource

U.S. Department of Education. 2002. No Child Left Behind.www.nochildleftbehind.gov.

— JAMES W. GUTHRIE

 
Act of Congress:

No Child Left Behind (2001)

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) (P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425) is a major revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The key components of the new version of this legislation, passed with significant bipartisan support, are two goals associated with accountability and the closing of the achievement gap between students of different socioeconomic backgrounds. Critics of the original 1965 legislation argued that the law provided federal funding to schools but did not mandate accountability for academic results; NCLB does both. In contrast, critics of the current legislation, including the National Educational Association, have claimed that adequate funding is not provided to satisfy the more stringent accountability requirements included in NCLB.

To satisfy NCLB requirements, schools must prove that each one of its students is proficient, or on grade level, in key educational areas, such as reading and math, by 2014 in order to continue to receive federal funding. Beginning in 2002–2003, NCLB requires school districts to prepare annual reports for families and the public at large describing academic achievement in the aggregate (for the entire district), by individual schools, and by grade level. Since the federal government provides only about seven percent of the total funding for public elementary and secondary schools, however, it may have trouble demanding the level of accountability that NCLB seeks.

School Accountability and Nclb

The federal government plans to make the results from the accountability tests available in annual report cards so parents can measure school performance and statewide progress, and evaluate the quality of their child's school, the qualifications of teachers, and their child's progress in key subjects. In addition, statewide reports will show progress for all student groups in closing achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and other groups of students.

Under NCLB, each state sets its own benchmark for purposes of demonstrating that it has achieved "adequate yearly progress." This is part of a larger trend in education that focuses on the collection of data and the analysis of that data in relation to student learning. Adequate yearly progress is measured over-all for each school as well as disaggregated, or reported separately, for students from major ethnic and racial groups, economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. No Child Left Behind clearly provides that states must raise their target goals over time and that the federal government expects increasing numbers of students to meet them. More important, states are to evaluate all students, and each subgroup is to make adequate yearly progress or the school fails in its entirety. Schools that do not consistently meet these requirements may eventually have to reorganize and/or surrender to state control. The requirements of NCLB, however, do not apply to private schools or to students who are home-schooled.

"Scientifically based research" is a key element to the accountability standard established by NCLB. Scientifically based research means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge about education activities and programs and involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn. Mentioned 111 times in the pages of the legislation, "scientifically based research" nevertheless is not defined within the act in such a way that schools and school districts clearly understand how to apply it to their various educational settings. Teachers are most concerned that the actual implementation of the proposed research methodology would mean that they would have trouble actually using these methods in a classroom, and these NCLB provisions might also severely limit classroom teaching methods and materials. Critics also assert that increased standardized testing is too expensive, too restrictive, and impossible to administer effectively.

Teacher Accountability and Nclb

In addition to measuring student achievement, the law requires that an increased accountability standard be applied to the nation's teachers. It mandates that all teachers who teach core academic subjects must be highly qualified by 2005–2006. In the past, teachers were able to obtain teaching certificates labeled as temporary, provisional, or emergency; now NCLB prohibits this practice. Existing teachers at all levels must demonstrate sufficient content knowledge in the subjects that they teach. Elementary teachers entering the profession must possess full state certification, have earned at least a bachelor's degree, and have passed a rigorous state test demonstrating subject knowledge and teaching skills in curriculum areas such as reading, writing, and math. New teachers in the middle and secondary schools must also have full state certification, at least a bachelor's degree, and have passed a rigorous state test in the subjects he or she teaches or have successfully completed an academic major (or equivalent course work), graduate degree, or advanced certification in each subject taught.

Social Issues and the Future of Nclb

Other NCLB provisions simplify federal support for bilingual education and allow students to change schools if their school is deemed persistently dangerous. In the area of sex education, schools may not use federal funds to operate a program that distributes condoms or other contraceptives in the schools—the school must emphasize abstinence. Furthermore, public school districts must certify each year that none of their policies prevent or deny participation in constitutionally protected prayer in elementary and secondary schools.

Proponents of NCLB believe that this new legislation will allow individual schools more choices regarding the students they teach. As an ideal, states are to set their own standards, or benchmarks, of performance to fulfill the needs of their students. In certain critical curriculum areas—reading, math, and science—the law will measure students and schools in comparison to the performance of students throughout the country in annual testing by 2013–2014.

Numerous factors, however, determine a student's academic success, and no amount of legislation can effectively control the student's home life, his or her socioeconomic background, whether or not he or she lives in a bad neighborhood, or whether he or she is personally motivated to succeed. Students without essential support systems outside of school may have trouble meeting the ambitious goals of NCLB despite a massive increase in efforts made by his or her teachers. Finally, critics assert that many schools that are thought to be failing are not—they are simply serving poor neighborhoods and are underfunded and that the proposed "adequate yearly progress" system cannot tell the difference between a learning gain and random noise created by a large number of statistics.

Internet Resource

U.S. Department of Education Official Web Site. No Child Left Behind. .

 
Wikipedia: No Child Left Behind Act
President Bush signing the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio.
Enlarge
President Bush signing the bipartisan No Child Left Behind Act at Hamilton H.S. in Hamilton, Ohio.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB (IPA: /ˈnɪkəlbiː/), is a United States federal law that was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001[1] and signed on January 8, 2002, that reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and re-authorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA).

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students. The act requires states to develop criterion-based assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

The act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters, unless the parent specifically opts out.[2]

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. A primary criticism asserts that NCLB reduces effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers "to teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that sheds light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to reduce the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.[3]

Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, a new Congress is considering major revisions, as one group of 50 Republican senators and representatives introduced legislation in March 2007 to provide states much greater freedom from NCLB's controls and punishments.[citation needed]


Overview

Teacher quality

The No Child Left Behind act requires that (by the end of the 2006-07 school year)[4] all teachers be "highly qualified" as defined in the law. A highly qualified teacher is one who has (1) fulfilled the state's certification and licensing requirements, (2) obtained at least a bachelor's degree, and (3) demonstrated subject matter expertise. The procedure for demonstrating subject matter knowledge depends on a teacher's tenure and level of instruction.

For teachers who are new to the profession (less than one year of experience):

  • Elementary teachers must pass a state test demonstrating their subject knowledge and teaching skills in reading/language arts, writing, mathematics and other areas of basic elementary school curricula.
  • Middle and high school teachers must demonstrate a high level of competency in each academic subject area they teach, such demonstration can occur either through passage of a rigorous state academic subject test or successful completion of an undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major or an advanced certification or credentialing.

Experienced teachers can satisfy the subject matter requirement in the same manner as new teachers or demonstrate subject knowledge through a state-determined high objective uniform state standard of evaluation (HOUSSE). These requirements have caused some difficulty in implementation especially for special education teachers and teachers in small rural schools who are often called upon to teach multiple grades and subjects.[5]

Student testing

The progress of all students will be measured annually for math and reading in grades 3-8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-08 school year, testing also will be conducted in science once during grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–11.

Assessments are required in public schools by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Assessments may take any form so long as the same assessment system is used for all students in a state. Although it is not required under NCLB, states generally have chosen inexpensive multiple-choice standardized tests.[citation needed]

Some states choose to adopt tests which statistically norm, or rank student performance relative to each other, but this is discouraged by NCLB. Under NCLB, assessments should normally be criterion-referenced tests, which focus on whether a student knows the required content or can do the required skill as outlined in the state's standards. Norm-referenced tests, by contrast, merely compare the performance of students to determine where students rank compared to other students.

English language learners are generally exempted from testing during their first year in an American school. After that, they must participate in the assessment process -- either in English or in their native language, at the sole discretion of the individual state -- for the next three to five years. After five years, students are expected to be sufficiently proficient in English to take the test in English.


Further information: List of state achievement tests

Scientifically based research

The phrase scientifically based research is found 111 times in the text of the No Child Left Behind Act.[6] Schools are required to use "scientifically based research" strategies in the classroom and for professional development of staff. Research meeting this label, which includes only a small portion of the total research conducted in the field of education and related fields, must involve large quantitative studies using control groups as opposed to partially or entirely qualitative or ethnographic studies, research methodologies which may suggest different teaching and professional development strategies but that do not result in evidence demonstrating efficacy.

The No Child Left Behind Act defines the term "scientifically based research" as research that:

  • Applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties;
  • Uses systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;
  • Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;
  • Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and
  • Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

However, programs marketed as research based may not be entirely scientifically researched.

Schools can obtain information about "research-based" instructional strategies and programs from several government-funded sources, including:

A nonprofit organization Educational Underwriters[17] was founded to provide an avenue for vendors seeking to have material reviewed. [dubious – discuss]

Public school choice

Schools identified as needing improvement are required to provide students with the opportunity to take advantage of public school choice no later than the beginning of the school year following their identification for school improvement. NCLB authorized — and Congress has subsequently appropriated — a substantial increase in funding for Title I aid, in part to provide funding for school districts to implement the law’s parental choice requirements. About 1 percent of eligible students made use of the school choice option as of 2004–05.[18]

Claims made in favor of the act

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Improved test scores (NAEP)

The Department of Education points to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:[19]

  • More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
  • America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
  • Reading and math scores for African American and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
  • Math scores for African American and Hispanic 13-year-olds reached an all-time high.
  • Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and African American nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
  • Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).

Improvement over local standards

In addition, 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.[20] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, arguing that local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress, also known as AYP.[21]

The establishment of statewide standards, instead of city or neighborhood curricula, also benefits students who move between neighboring communities by increasing the odds that lessons learned in one school will generally line up sensibly with lessons taught at the new school.

Increased accountability

Supporters of NCLB claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools, offers parents greater educational options for their children, and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students.[22] NCLB aims to show achievement toward these goals through federally mandated standardized testing.

In addition to and in support of the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:

  • Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
  • Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
  • Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
  • Establishes the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly enhance parental involvement and improved administration through the use of the assessment data to drive decisions on instruction, curriculum and business practices.

Attention to minority populations

  • Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
  • Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and African Americans and Latinos. Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.

Quality of education

  • Increases the quality of education by decreasing the quantity. Schools are required to improve their performance under NCLB by implementing "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
  • Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
  • Emphasizes reading, writing, math and science achievement through a number of "core academic subjects" that include subjects as diverse as algebra and art.

School choice

  • Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.

Safe harbor

  • Gives school districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.

Funding

  • Increases flexibility to state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
  • Provides more resources to schools. Federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.

Public perception of public education

  • Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

Claims made in criticism of the Act

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Benefits to Select Companies

Schools that fall short of NCLB's criteria will tend to resort to using proprietary curricula, testing, and tutoring programs from certain companies who have long business relationships with president Bush, namely McGraw Hill and Reading First.[23]

'Gaming' the system

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 exclude minorities or other groups (to enhance apparent school performance; as many as 2 million students)[24] and have employed creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[25]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.[26]

The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[27]

Problems with standardized tests

Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.[28] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any classtime on the practical applications of addition (e.g., story problems) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."

Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.[29] 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.[30]

Standardized tests have also been accused of cultural bias, and the practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[31]

Violation of separation of church and state

Since the Act's inception, President Bush has allowed "faith-based" groups to serve as private tutors, receiving public money, in public schools under the act, which has angered some who campaign for separation of church and state. The US Department of Education's website says: "No Child Left Behind provides opportunities for faith-based organizations to assist in educating children."[32][33]

Incentives against low-performing students

Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher[34] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether.[35]

Under the NCLB act, schools that do not meet certain established standards are given additional funds in an attempt to boost scores. Critics argue that schools have less of an incentive to do better if they are already receiving more funds. However, schools are also given bonuses for meeting yearly requirements. Since these requirements are given each year schools are less likely to rapidly increase their scores as a slow and gradual improvement would be financially better. Another part of the NCLB act gives schools that perform well awards and special recognition that opponents argue would encourage schools already doing well to push out disadvantaged students even more.

State refusal to produce non-English assessments

Students who are learning English have an automatic three-year-long window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must generally demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. The local education authority may grant any individual English learner another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis. In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers).[5] The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[36]

State education budgets

Several years of weak tax revenues, particularly in sales tax and capital gains taxes, have forced most states to make deep cutbacks in many areas, including education.[citation needed] The extra funds provided to a school under NCLB's provisions may be more than offset by budget cuts at the state level, leaving them with both lower revenue and higher expenses.

Narrow curriculum

NCLB's focus on math and English language skills (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students lose the benefits of a broad education.[37]

A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contends that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to rising levels of childhood obesity.[38]

The Center on Public Education found that after implementation of NCLB, 71 percent of the districts surveyed had elementary schools that cut back on instructional time for a subject to make room for more reading and math — the primary focus of the law.[39]

Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 71% believe instructional time has increased for reading, writing, and math (subjects tested under the law), and decreased for the arts, elementary social studies, and foreign languages.[40][41]

In some places, the implementation of NCLB during a time of budget restraints has been blamed for the elimination of classes and activities which are outside of NCLB's focus area.[42] "It hurts me to give up art, but it hurts me even more to have kids who can't read," said school principal Kathy Deck in Indianapolis, Indiana.[43]

Narrow definition of research

Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, anecdotes, personal experience, or other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.[44]

Limitations on local control

Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB so long as they also refuse federal funding for their schools.[45]

Facilitates military recruitment

NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.[46] [47] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military.

Some students may not learn as well

Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.[48] 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 a student who has below-average capabilities.

NCLB funding

Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some of these extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by NCLB monies.

Many early supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation because it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[49]

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 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 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[50] President Bush's 2008 budget allots $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is. [51]

Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises, and have responded to criticisms by claiming that President Bill Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law.[52] 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.

Federal funding is particularly important because declining tax revenues at the state level have led many governors and legislatures to make deep cuts in state education budgets. While some new money flows to local districts as a result of NCLB, the amount falls far short of the cuts being made at the state level.

Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind [6] 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.

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".[53]

In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and former 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.[54] 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 which need to be changed or significantly modified.

The Commission's recommendations are summarized as follows:

  • Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities
  • Accelerating Progress and Closing Achievement Gaps Through Improved Accountability
  • Moving Beyond the Status Quo to Effective School Improvement and Student Options
  • Fair and Accurate Assessments of Student Progress
  • High Standards for Every Student in Every State
  • Ensuring High Schools Prepare Students for College and the Workplace
  • Driving Progress Through Reliable, Accurate Data

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal [7]. It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communitiesand holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

Background of name

The name's most likely origin is the motto of the advocacy group The Children's Defense Fund, "Leave No Child Behind." The CDF motto itself likely comes from the motto of the United States Army Rangers, "Leave No Man Behind."[citation needed]

See also

References

  1. ^ http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml
  2. ^ Section 9528 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Section on Military recruitment. (PDF - English). Retrieved 6/7/07.
  3. ^ http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/nochild/ List of articles regarding NCLB debate
  4. ^ (nd) Original deadline of 2005-06 extended, see Letter from Secretary. Department of Education website. Retrieved 6/8/07.
  5. ^ (nd) Teacher Quality Guidance. Department of Education website. Retrieved 3/8/07.
  6. ^ (nd) Title IX - General Provisions. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07/.
  7. ^ Best Evidence Encyclopedia, see [1]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  8. ^ Campbell Collaboration. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  9. ^ Center on Instruction, see on Instruction. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/8/07.
  10. ^ Florida Center for Reading Research, see [2]. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  11. ^ National Institute for Literacy, see Institute for Literacy. U.S. Departments of Education, Labor, and Health and Human Services. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  12. ^ National Registry of Evidence-Based Programs and Practices, see [3]. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Retrieved 7/22/07.
  13. ^ NICHY Research to Practice Database, see Letter from Secretary. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  14. ^ Promising Practices Network, see Practices Network. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  15. ^ Results for Kids Resources, see [4], IDEA Partnership. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  16. ^ What Works Clearinghouse, see works Clearinghouse. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved 7/22/07.
  17. ^ Educational Underwriters, Inc., <http://educationalunderwriters.org/>. Retrieved on 2007 June 27
  18. ^ [http://www.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/choice/implementation/achievementanalysis.pdf Title I School Choice, Supplemental Educational Services, and Student Achievement]
  19. ^ (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  20. ^ Mizell, H. (2003) NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity? Retrieved 6/7/07.
  21. ^ No Child Left Behind. Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005. New York State Education Agency. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  22. ^ (nd) Reauthorization of NCLB. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  23. ^ (2007) No Child Left Behind as an Anti-Poverty Measure. Teacher Education Quarterly. Retrieved 10/3/07.
  24. ^ (2007) NCLB Shortcomings. Rochester Democrat and Chronicle. Retrieved 3/18/07.
  25. ^ (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. FactCheck.org. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  26. ^ Haney, W. (nd) Evidence on Education under NCLB (and How Florida Boosted NAEP Scores and Reduced the Race Gap). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Education Policy. Lynch School of Education. Boston College. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  27. ^ (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  28. ^ (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  29. ^ (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  30. ^ (June 2007). "Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales". NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved on 2007-06-08.
  31. ^ (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  32. ^ No Child Left Behind and Faith-Based Leaders. United States Department of Education. Retrieved on 2007-06-28.
  33. ^ No Child Left Behind's Faith-Based Initiative Provision and the Establishment Clause. Journal of Law and Education. Retrieved on 2007-06-28.
  34. ^ (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. SusanOhanian.org. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  35. ^ Ryan, J. (2004) The Perverse Incentives of No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  36. ^ Crawford, J. (nd) [http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/NABE_on_NCLB.pdf No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners]. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  37. ^ (2003) Major NCLB Problems.
  38. ^ Trickey, H. (2006) No child left out of the dodgeball game? CNN.com. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  39. ^ Trickey, H. (2006)
  40. ^ Lynch, Robert L. (2007) No Child Left Behind Act wrongly left the arts behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  41. ^ Associated Press (2007) Schools Boost Focus On Math And Reading. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  42. ^ National Education Association (2003) Cuts Leave More and More Public School Children Behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  43. ^ Washington Post (2004) 'No Child' Law Leaves Schools' Old Ways Behind. Retrieved 9/15/07.
  44. ^ Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  45. ^ Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  46. ^ (nd) SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  47. ^ (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  48. ^ EdAccountability.org website.
  49. ^ (nd) Leaving No Child Left Behind: States charged with implementing Bush’s national education plan balk at the cost of compliance. The American Conservative. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  50. ^ (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  51. ^ Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.
  52. ^ (nd) Fact Sheet on Education. House of Representatives. Retrieved 3/18/07.
  53. ^ NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.
  54. ^ Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.

External links

  • NCLB Voices (hundreds of observations and stories from educators who have been affected by this law)

This entry is from Wikipedia, the leading user-contributed encyclopedia. It may not have been reviewed by professional editors (see full disclaimer)

 
 

Join the WikiAnswers Q&A community. Post a question or answer questions about "no child left behind" at WikiAnswers.

 

Copyrights:

Answers Corporation AnswerNote. © 1999-2008 by Answers Corporation. All rights reserved.  Read more
Education Encyclopedia. Encyclopedia of Education. Copyright © 2002 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Act of Congress. Major Acts of Congress. Copyright © 2004 by The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.  Read more
Wikipedia. This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article "No Child Left Behind Act".  Read more

Search for answers directly from your browser with the FREE Answers.com Toolbar!  
Click here to download now. 

Get Answers your way! Check out all our free tools and products.

On this page:   E-mail   print Print  Link  

 

Keep Reading

Mentioned In:

 |  More >More >

Related Topics

 

Do you have the answers?