What the No Child Left Behind Law Means for Your ChildThe No Child Left Behind law has brought sweeping changes to education across the nation. Here's what it means to your child.

By GreatSchools Staff

  Print   Email

 

Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law took effect in 2002, it has had a sweeping impact on U.S. public school classrooms. It affects what students are taught, the tests they take, the training of their teachers and the way money is spent on education.

Debate rages over whether the law is an effective way to improve academic achievement. Congress was scheduled to decide whether to renew it in 2007. But efforts stalled amid criticism of the law from both Democrats and Republicans, and arguments over how to change it.

Does Tutoring Work?

A 2006 report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office on how the tutoring services requirement of NCLB is working recommends that the federal government help states evaluate whether tutoring is improving student achievement because no state has done this conclusively.

The latest estimates, according to U.S. Deputy Secretary of Education Ray Simon, are that NCLB will probably not be reauthorized until 2010. In the meantime, in October 2008, the U.S. Department of Education added new regulations to the law which include requiring schools to provide a uniform calculation for high school graduation rates, and enhancing a parent's ability to access school choice and tutoring options for their children by requiring schools (and providing them with funds) to communicate to parents about their options in a timely and clear way.

The Focus of the Debate

NCLB's advocates say the landmark law holds schools accountable, empowers parents and is helping to close the achievement gap in America's schools.

Many critics, including those who agree with the law's goals, argue that it is a "one-size-fits-all" approach to education that overemphasizes testing and doesn't provide enough money to schools to achieve success.

As stricter testing requirements and penalties have taken effect, several states have rebelled, challenging the law in legislatures and the courts. In response, the U.S. Department of Education has given greater latitude to some districts and states in satisfying the law's provisions. That, in turn, has drawn criticism that the federal government has gone too far and weakened the law so much that it can't achieve its goals.

For parents trying to figure out how NCLB affects their children, it can be tough to keep up with the fast-moving developments. Here's a primer:

NCLB, Your Child and Your School

The law may help your child in two ways:

Your child may be eligible to move to a better school or could receive free tutoring. Your school could qualify for grants to use toward attracting top-notch teachers or other

school programs.

But your child and your school may not receive the full benefits if you don't ask for them. The U.S. Department of Education has neither the personnel nor the budget to make sure that all of the nation's public schools comply with NCLB's complicated regulations. Education officials have said from the start that the key to enforcement would be parents who pressure schools to give their children the options provided by the federal law.

The Law's Goals and What It Says

Philosophy:

The law, which was passed with bipartisan support, was designed to introduce national standards to a system in which students in some demographic groups were more likely to succeed and others likely to be left behind. But it allows states to determine how success is measured.

Targets:

States are required to set targets for overall achievement and for specific categories of students, such as English language learners or economically disadvantaged students. These targets determine whether the school makes "adequate yearly progress," or AYP, as measured by state standardized tests. A school can fail - even if it is making substantial progress for most of its students - if one category of students cannot meet the standards. The goal is for every student in public school to be proficient in reading and math by 2014.

Testing:

Students must be tested annually in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once in grades 10 through 12. Students must be tested in science in at least one grade in elementary, middle and high school. Schools that don't meet goals for their overall student bodies or specific categories of students are sanctioned.

Affected schools:

The law applies to schools that receive Title I money from the federal government. Schools that get Title I funds are generally those in which at least 35% of students are from low-income families. More than half of all public schools are Title I schools.

How the Law Affects Teachers

Teachers must be "highly qualified" to teach core academic subjects in every classroom. Specifically, an elementary school teacher must have a bachelor's degree and pass a rigorous test in core curriculum areas. Middle and high school teachers must show they're competent in the subjects they teach by passing a test or by completing an academic major, graduate degree or comparable coursework.

Research, including a 2006 study of three states by the think tank Education Trust, shows that students in schools with a large percentage of minority and low-income students are more likely to be taught by teachers who are inexperienced and lack a major or minor in the subjects they teach. The teacher qualification provisions of NCLB are aimed at insuring that schools where students tend to need the most help employ teachers who are qualified to provide it. States have struggled to meet this goal.

The law covers other teaching staff, too. Most teachers' aides and other "paraprofessionals" are now required to complete two years of college or an equivalent type of training.

Reading Instruction

NCLB also requires teachers in kindergarten through third grade to teach reading based on "scientifically based" research. Schools may be eligible for "Reading First" grants to assist with improving reading instruction. Although this program has shown initial signs of effectiveness in helping to boost reading instruction, it came under scrutiny in September 2006 when a scathing report (PDF) by the Office of Inspector General of the U.S. Department of Education revealed that several members of the panel who award Reading First grants may have had conflicts of interest because they had ties to publishing companies which promoted specific reading materials with a specifc philosophy.

Unsafe Schools

States must have an "Unsafe School Choice Option"-that is, a plan that allows students to transfer to a safe school if they attend a school designated as a persistently dangerous school or if they become victims of violent crime.

Sanctions

Those that haven't met "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) for two consecutive school years are identified as "in need of improvement." Every student in the school will be given the option to transfer to a better-performing school in the district, with free transportation included. However, NLCB requires that priority in providing school choice be given to low-achieving children from low-income families.

School districts may not use lack of space as a reason to deny a transfer, but they have some flexibility in meeting this requirement. School districts may restrict which schools are available for transfer and when transfers may occur. They may sign contracts with neighboring districts to accept students from failing schools, contract with online schools, create schools within schools, offer supplemental services a year early, hire more teachers, add portables or build new classrooms at more successful schools. If a school continues to fail to meet AYP, these sanctions take effect:

After three consecutive years, the school must also provide "supplemental education services," or SES, to children who remain at the school. Those services can include tutoring, remedial classes, after-school services and summer school programs.

The federal government has allowed some districts to switch the order of sanctions. Students would be eligible for free tutoring if these schools fail to meet their goals for two years in a row and would then get the option to transfer if the school misses its goals a third time.

After four consecutive years of failing to meet annual goals, the district must take action to improve the school, such as replacing certain staff or implementing a new curriculum.

After five years, the school is identified for restructuring and arrangements must be made to run it differently. These can include a state takeover, the hiring of a private management contractor, conversion to a charter school or significant staff restructuring.

How Schools Can Benefit

There are rewards for schools that close achievement gaps between groups of students or exceed academic achievement goals. States can use federal funds to pay teachers bonuses, and they can designate schools that have made the greatest achievement gains as "Distinguished Schools."

Other benefits of No Child Left Behind include:

Grants for teacher training. Parents should be aware that districts have flexibility in how they can spend federal funds designed to find and retain quality teachers, including alternative certification, merit pay and bonuses for teachers of high-need subjects such as math and science.

Grants for reading instruction. The goal of the Reading First program is to help every child learn to read using "scientifically based" research. States may apply for these grants for their reading programs.

Flexibility in spending federal funds. School districts have considerable leeway in spending up to 50% of their non-Title I funds in categories such as teacher quality, technology, after-school learning, and Safe and Drug-Free schools. For example, a district may decide to spend 50% of its federal technology funds on recruiting quality teachers instead of technology.New regulations issued in October 2008 make it easier for schools to use Title I funds for outreach to parents to make them aware of their school choice and free tutoring options.

What Schools Must Tell Parents

All schools and districts are required to make annual report cards available to the public. The report cards must include details on:

Student academic achievement for all student groups A comparison of students at the basic, proficient and advanced levels of academic

achievement within the school district and compared to other students statewide High school graduation rates and dropout rates The professional qualifications of teachers The percentage of students not tested The names of schools identified as "in need of improvement"

The U.S. Department of Education also requires states to participate in National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and math assessments of fourth- and eighth-grade students every two years. These tests allow parents to compare how students are performing in different states. The NAEP results must also be included on school and district report cards.

What Parents Can Do

The No Child Left Behind law was designed to hold schools more accountable and empower parents. Here are some steps you can take to make the law work for your child:

Find out how your school is performing. You don't need to wait for the school report card to be issued; you can discover a great deal about your school by reading its school profile on GreatSchools.org. You can compare your school's performance to other schools by using our Compare Schools feature. To get an idea of how your school is performing nationally, visit the NAEP Web site.

If you suspect your school may be a failing school, ask your principal or superintendent to clarify its status. If it is a failing school, thoroughly investigate your options for tutoring help or transfer.

Ask your school principal what the school is doing to help close any achievement gaps between different groups of students. For example, if the test results of English language learners significantly lag other groups in the school, your school should have a plan designed to give those students extra help. Your school will be judged on the performance of students in all groups, not just schoolwide results.

Ask what your school is doing to attract, train and keep well-qualified teachers.

Find out if your district has applied for a "Reading First" grant and how it intends to spend the money.

Ask about your state's Unsafe School Choice Option and whether state officials have certified in writing to the U.S. Secretary of Education that your state is in compliance with this provision as a condition of receiving funds under No Child Left Behind.

How the Law is Working

The nonprofit, independent Center on Education Policy releases annual report cards on NCLB. The organization, which advocates for public schools, surveyed education officials in 50 states and gave the law a mixed report card in 2006. The center concluded that as a result of the law:

Districts are better aligning classroom teaching with state academic standards. Principals and teachers are making better use of test results to improve teaching. Scores on states tests are higher in a large majority of states and school districts. Teachers report high stress levels and poor staff morale because of the pressure to

improve scores. Most school districts are cutting back on social studies, science, art or other subjects to

make more time for reading and math, the subjects that are tested. The effect on achievement gaps between groups of students of different races or

ethnicities is unclear. While most states and districts reported that the achievement gap in test results had narrowed or stayed the same, the center's own case studies did not find the same results. As a result, the study concluded, it is "impossible to reach an overall conclusion about achievement gaps."

In a harsher report, the The Civil Rights Project, formerly known as the Harvard Civil Rights Project, concluded in 2006 that NCLB is failing to close the achievement gap, won't make its 2014 goals and has not significantly improved reading and math achievement.

Federal education officials dispute these conclusions.

Few Students Take Advantage of School Choice, Tutoring

Only about 1.6% of students eligible to transfer from low-performing schools did so in 2005-2006, a percentage that hasn't changed much since 2002-2003 when the option was first offered. The Center for Education Policy survey suggested that families didn't choose to change because they were satisfied with their current schools, wanted to go to schools in their neighborhoods or were discouraged by long commutes.

But others have accused school districts of failing to notify parents of their option to transfer. School choice advocates took legal action on these complaints and sued the Los Angeles and Compton, California, school districts in 2006.

Only 20% of students eligible for free tutoring are getting it. School districts and for-profit tutoring companies are sparring over the reasons why. Some tutoring companies say districts have failed to inform families in a clear and timely way that students are eligible for tutoring.

Some school officials have pointed to the lack of oversight of tutoring companies and say the quality of services has been wildly uneven.

In an attempt to increase the number of students getting tutoring, the federal government changed the rules in 2006 for 23 school districts in Alaska, Delaware, Indiana, North Carolina and Virginia. In these districts, students in schools that have failed to meet goals for two years are eligible for free services and don't have to wait for their schools to fail a third time.

NCLB Prompts Protests, Revolts

As the increasingly strict provisions and penalties of the law have taken effect, protests over the law have grown in scores of states, where officials complain that the law requires them to spend dollars they don't have.

The single biggest criticism is that the federal government has not fully funded the law, a charge the Bush administration counters by saying that the law is a partnership between the U.S. government and the states.

The New York Times reported in 2006 that the Bush administration has increased education spending since the Clinton era, but the money for No Child Left Behind stayed at $24.5 billion in 2004 and 2005. The administration cut funding for 2006 to $23.5 billion, the Times reported.

Others argue that the law imposes a rigid solution to problems historically better solved at the state and local levels. Utah decided in 2005 to forfeit federal money rather than follow the law. Other districts and states have filed legal challenges or are contemplating them.

While praising the law's goals, the bipartisan National Conference of State Legislatures has called for more flexibility and more money.

In response to the criticisms, the federal government has loosened some of the rules for some states. But critics, on the left and right, say the law creates a number of other problems:

Officials can "game" the system because each state sets its own criteria for meeting many of the law's requirements. States can make tests easier so that more students can meet proficiency standards. Critics argue that this is exactly what has happened in some cases. And despite a requirement in the law that parents be allowed to transfer children out of unsafe schools, not a single one of California's more than 9,000 schools has ever been classified as "persistently dangerous," a conclusion questioned by federal auditors.

The law jeopardizes privacy rights. The U.S. military has the right to obtain lists from high schools of students' names, addresses and phone numbers for recruiting purposes, and must be granted the same access to schools that is given to college and business recruiters. Parents who oppose this practice may "opt out," but schools have not always made this provision clear.

NCLB conflicts with another federal law, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. This law entitles students with learning disabilities to an education that meets their needs. The federal government has given states more leeway in

measuring student progress in response to protests from parents of children with special needs. But critics say the government hasn't gone far enough. The law's advocates respond that it is this very accountability requirement that will ultimately improve instruction for learning-disabled students.

 

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, encompasses Title I, the federal government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students.

Coming at a time of wide public concern about the state of education, the legislation sets in place requirements that reach into virtually every public school in America.

As the newest incarnation of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act has expanded the federal role in education and become a focal point of education policy. Coming at a time of wide public concern about the state of education, the legislation sets in place requirements that reach into virtually every public school in America. It takes particular aim at improving the educational lot of disadvantaged students.

At the core of the No Child Left Behind Act are a number of measures designed to drive broad gains in student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress. They represent significant changes to the education landscape (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).

Annual testing. By the 2005-06 school year, states must begin testing students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and mathematics. By 2007-08, they must tests students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school. The tests must be aligned with state academic standards. A sample of 4th and 8th graders in each state must also participate in the National Assessment of Educational Progress testing program in reading and math every other year to provide a point of comparison for state test results.

Academic progress. States must bring all students up to the "proficient" level on state tests by the 2013-14 school year. Individual schools must meet state "adequate yearly progress" targets toward this goal (based on a formula spelled out in the law) for both their student populations as a whole and for certain demographic subgroups. If a school receiving federal Title I funding fails to meet the target two years in a row, it must be provided technical assistance and its students must be offered a choice of other public schools to attend. Students in schools that fail to make adequate progress three years in a row must also be offered supplemental educational services, including private tutoring. For continued failures, a school would be subject to outside corrective measures, including possible governance changes.

Report cards. Starting with the 2002-03 school year, states must furnish annual report cards showing a range of information, including student-achievement data broken down by subgroup and information on the performance of school districts. Districts must provide similar report cards showing school-by-school data.

Teacher qualifications. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school must be "highly qualified" in each subject he or she teaches. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally means that a teacher is certified and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money must be "highly qualified." By the end 2005-06 school year, all school paraprofessionals hired with Title I money must have completed at least two years of college, obtained an associate's degree or higher, or passed an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. That requirement is already in effect for newly hired paraprofessionals.

Reading First. The act creates 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 seeks to help states better prepare 3- to 5-year-olds in disadvantaged areas to read.

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

Given its scope and detail, the No Child Left Behind Act has been the source of considerable controversy and debate in the education community. As the law’s effects begin to be felt—particularly with 11,008 schools identified as needing improvement in 2004-2005—some educators and policymakers have questioned the feasibility and fairness of its goals and time frames.

An opinion poll released in December 2003 found that nearly half of school principals and superintendents view the federal legislation as either politically motivated or aimed at undermining public schools. Likewise, a recent study Policy Analysis for California suggests that, because of its requirement to evaluate school progress on the basis of demographic subgroups, the law may disproportionately penalize schools with diverse student populations (Public Agenda, 2003; Policy Analysis for California Education, 2003).

Other education leaders, however, have expressed support for the law’s stringent accountability mandates, characterizing them as vital levers of change, inclusiveness, and transparency of results. The laws’ ultimate effectiveness, some observers have argued, may depend on how closely states and schools stick to its principles of "tough accountability" (Education Trust, 2003; West & Peterson, 2003).

A related controversy has swirled around funding for the far-reaching legislation. Some commentators have argued that federal support for the law is not commensurate with its demands and that compliance may place undue financial burdens on states and schools (Center on Education Policy, 2003; Mathis, 2003). Opponents have frequently characterized the law as an "unfunded mandate."

In response, federal officials have pointed to increases in Title I spending and new money to pay for testing as evidence of the government’s financial commitment to the law. They have also

charged that the states have not taken full advantage of the federal funds available to them (Department of Education, 2003). Others have added that the accountability measures prescribed by No Child Left Behind Act may themselves help ensure that education resources are used more efficiently (West & Peterson, 2003).

Behind the policy debates, the states have been trudging forward in their efforts to comply with varied requirements the No Child Left Behind Act. In a survey of the states conducted for Quality Counts 2004, Education Week found that, while some are struggling to mesh their existing accountability systems with the federal law, all of the states now rate schools based on whether they are making "adequate yearly progress" under the act. In addition, 43 states are publishing report cards showing test results for each of the student categories required under the law.

One concern highlighted by the survey is whether states will have the capacity to help all the schools identified as missing adequate yearly progress targets. For the 2003-04 school year, 36 states planned to provide assistance to such schools, according to the survey. Twenty-two states and the District of Columbia had consequences in place for consistently low-performing schools for 2003-04.

States were also struggling to meet the law’s testing requirements. According to Quality Counts 2004, only 20 states are testing in English and math in the required grades for 2003-04, inching up from 19 in 2002-03.

On the teacher quality front, many states have been trying to develop workable standards for the "highly qualified" teacher requirement. Thirty-four states and the District of Columbia now required prospective high school teachers to demonstrate subject-matter expertise by passing a test in the subject they plan to teach, up from 29 in 2000 (Olson, 2003; Quality Counts 2004).

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (often abbreviated as No Child Left Behind, or in print as NCLB or pronounced "nicklebee"[1])[2][3] is a United States Act of Congress concerning the education of children in public schools.

NCLB was originally proposed by the administration of George W. Bush immediately after he took office.[4] The bill, shepherded through the Senate by co-author Senator Ted Kennedy, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.[5]

NCLB supports standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.

Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. Funding tied to NCLB received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.[6]

During his 2011 State of the Union Address, President Barack Obama announced that NCLB will be replaced. [7]

Contents[hide]

1 Legislative history 2 Provisions of the act 3 Favorable claims

o 3.1 Improved test scores o 3.2 Improvement over local standards o 3.3 Increased accountability o 3.4 Attention to minority populations o 3.5 Quality of education o 3.6 School choice o 3.7 Funding o 3.8 Public perception of public education

4 Criticism o 4.1 Unrealistic goals o 4.2 "Gaming" the system o 4.3 Problems with standardized tests o 4.4 Incentives against low-performing students o 4.5 Gifted, talented, and high-performing students o 4.6 State refusal to produce non-English assessments o 4.7 Effect on arts and electives o 4.8 Narrow definition of research o 4.9 Limitations on local control o 4.10 Variability in student potential and 100% compliance o 4.11 Increases Segregation in Public Schools

5 Funding o 5.1 State education budgets

6 Proposals for reform 7 See also 8 References 9 External links

o 9.1 Government o 9.2 Research o 9.3 Interest groups

[edit] Legislative history

was proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001. It was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384–45),[8] and the United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91–8).[9] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.

[edit] Provisions of the act

No Child Left Behind requires all government-run schools receiving federal funding to administer a state-wide standardized test (all students take the same test under the same conditions) annually to all students. The students' scores are used to determine whether the school has taught the students well. Schools which 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, its fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year's fifth graders).

If the school's results are repeatedly poor, then a series of steps are taken to improve the school.[10] Schools that miss AYP for a second consecutive year are publicly labeled as being "in need of improvement" and are required to develop a two-year improvement plan for the subject that the school is not teaching well. Students are given the option to transfer to a better school within the school district, if any exists. Missing AYP in the third year forces the school to offer free tutoring and other supplemental education services to struggling students. If a school misses its AYP target for a fourth consecutive year, the school is labeled as requiring "corrective action," which might involve actions like the wholesale replacement of staff, introduction of a new curriculum, or extending the amount of time students spend in class. The fifth year of failure results in planning to restructure the entire school; the plan is implemented if the school fails to hit its AYP targets for the sixth year in a row. Common options include closing the school, turning the school into a charter school, hiring a private company to run the school, or asking the state office of education to directly run the school.

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.

The act also requires schools to permit military recruiters to obtain students' contact information and other access to the student, if the school provides that information to universities or employers.

[edit] Favorable claims

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

[edit] Improved test scores

The 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:[11]

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 black and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high. Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and black 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).

Many argue that these statistics are misleading. They compare 2005 with 2000, when No Child Left Behind didn't even take effect until 2003. They point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 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 actually fell.[12]

[edit] Improvement over local standards

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.[13] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, because 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 (AYP).[14] States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as a result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states, and the District of Columbia at ninety-eight percent of its schools, achieving the No Child Left Behind Standards.[15]

[edit] Increased accountability

Supporters of the NCLB claim one of the strong positive points of the bill is the increased accountability that is required of the schools and its teachers. According to the legislation, schools are required to pass yearly tests that will judge how much improvement the students have made over the fiscal year. These yearly standardized tests are the main research that is used to decide whether schools are living up to the standards that they are required to meet. If these improvements are not met, 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 to this law base their objections to the accountability by stating that the punishments only hurt the schools more and do not contribute to the improvement of the students. If the schools and teachers do not live up to the accountability standards, parents may choose to move their children to different schools in the area

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.

[edit] 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 students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".[16] Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself.[16] Many previous state-created systems of accountability measured only average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.

[edit] Quality of education

Ideally, increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "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 [5]. Emphasizes reading, language arts, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic

subjects."[17]

[edit] 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.

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.

The School choice: A New Method Proposed[18]

According to Anne Lewis the author of Climb Out of the Five-and-Dime Hole having students choose an interest of study like a career path in the early years of junior high school is a new method being proposed. The idea is that core subjects should not be the only subjects being

learned. Additional learning with creativity should be mixed in with learning of the core subjects. Some schools have put more time and effort into a student learning more about a chosen career. This is being proposed in to being an amendment into NCLB. The idea came from Australia. Australia is taking into consideration that more resources need to be provided for career training.

[edit] Funding

As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and Congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education funding. Title I funding to districts for disadvantaged children increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004.[19] 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.[20] 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.[21]

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 math, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs.[22]

In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.[23]

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.[24] 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.

[edit] Public perception of public education

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

[edit] Criticism

The desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the act, because it applied to all states making it difficult to infer what would have happened without the act. However, analyses of the state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that accountability for outcomes led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems.[25] The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact.[26] A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce 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 shed light on which schools are not teaching 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.[27]

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

[edit] Unrealistic goals

"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 unobtainable.[28] 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."[29]

[30] Teachers are criticizing NCLB. NCLB is grouping the students as one instead of as individuals. Some teachers have suggested that there are too many [31]students coming into these schools and they are on different levels. Teachers explain that they do not have the power to dictate how a child learns. There are students with disabilities, diseases and even gifted students. There is no way that all these students learn the same way. Some students go to schools where curriculums are not on the right level due to lack of material. Some students go to schools where they learn more advanced subjects at a younger age.

[edit] "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 employ "creative reclassification" of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[32]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.[33]

The incentives for an 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.[34] Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[35] 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.[36]

[edit] 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 the teacher believes will increase test performance, rather than focus on acquiring deep understanding of the full, broad curriculum.[37] 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 class time on the practical applications of addition (i.e. treating 2+3=5 as a word problem) 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." "Teaching to the test" has been observed to raise test scores, though not as much as other teaching techniques.[38]

Many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State 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.[39] The teachers correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present simplistic items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.

The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students.[40] For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers to speak.[41]

The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[42]

[43]Robert Wright the author of “Standardized Testing For Outcome Assessment: Analysis of The Educational Testing System MBA Test”, discusses that student participation is much needed in order help the student learn. When a teacher decides to teach a lesson on how to take and/ or pass a standardized test, discussion and questions from the student helps the teacher know where to start and where a student is. Giving a student many exercises and activities can help a student better understand a subject or problem.

[edit] 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.[44]

The state of Pennsylvania has proposed tying teacher's salaries to scores on the test. If a district's students do poorly, the district's budget is cut the following year by the state, and the teachers get a pay cut. Critics point out that if a school is doing poorly, taking funds away from their budget and cutting teacher's salaries is, more likely than not, going to hamper the ability of the school to improve the following year.

[edit] Gifted, talented, and high-performing students

Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts. In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[45] While federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement.

[edit] State refusal to produce non-English assessments

All students who are learning English 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.

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.[46]

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.

[edit] Effect on arts and electives

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.[47] Since 2007, almost 71% of schools have reduced some instruction

time in subjects such as history, arts, language and music, in order to give more time and resources to mathematics and English.[48][49]

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.

According to Paul Reville the author of “Stop Narrowing of the Curriculum By Right-Sizing School time”, he explains how teachers are learning that students need more time in order 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.

More Time in a School Day [50]Paul Reville suggests that there is not enough time in the school day to meet the goal of NCLB. If somehow the federal and state governments could get involved and help look into developing programs that can assist with time management, then it could be possible that the schools as a whole, teachers and students could better achieve.

[edit] Narrow definition of research

Some school districts and researchers object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, ethnographies, clinical interviews, discourse analysis, grounded theory, action research, teaching experiments, design research and 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.[51]

[edit] 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, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it. The states that choose not to receive funding will have their taxes used in another state instead.[52]

[edit] Variability in student potential and 100% compliance

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. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. 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.[53] 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 have below-average capabilities, such as students with mental retardation.

In fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.[54] 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.

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.

In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act.[55] 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.[56]

Organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or 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 .[57]

[edit] Increases Segregation in Public Schools

Many people believe that No Child Left Behind has played a role in the increase of segregated public schools. Studies have shown that many African American students attend the lowest performing schools in the country, and African Americans score considerably lower on almost every indicator of academic well-being than do children of a Caucasian descent.[58] For example, high minority and high poverty schools score much lower on standardized tests than low minority and low poverty schools, but 71% of African Americans attend high minority schools and 72% of African Americans attend high-poverty schools. Standardized assessment scores reflect these disparities: the percentage of African Americans meeting proficiency in national assessments in reading and math is less than one fourth of that of White students.[59]

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.[60]

One recent study has shown 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.[61] Also, even though 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, it is not required that the other school accepts the student.[59] The parents with more education and resources are most likely to leave high-poverty schools. They are more likely to research the schools and make an informed decision on where to transfer their child. This often leads to segregated schools by both race and class.[62]

[edit] 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 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[63] 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:

Washington is willing to help [with the additional costs of federal requirements], as we've helped before, even before we [proposed NCLB]. But this is a part of the teaching responsibility that each state has. ... Washington has offered some assistance now. In the legislation, we have ... some support to pay for the development of tests. But even if that should be looked at as a gift, it is the state responsibility to do this.

—[64]

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."[65] 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:

In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy.

—[66]

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.[67] 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.[68] 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.[19]

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[63] and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001–02 through 2006–07.[69]

The fiscal year 2006 marked the first time in a decade that educational funding was reduced for NCLB.[70] In fiscal year 2007 $75 billion in costs were shifted from NCLB, adding further stresss on state budgets. [71] This decrease resulted in schools cutting programs that served to educate children, which subequently 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. In order to make ends meet many schools re-allocated funds that had been intended for other purposes (e.g. the 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. [72]

The number one area where funding was cut from the nationl budget was in Title I funding for disadvantaged students and schools. [73]

[edit] State education budgets

According to the book, NCLB Meets School Realities, the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states.[74] 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.

[edit] Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind[75] 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".[76]

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.[77] 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 goals 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 Parental involvement and empowerment

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal.[78] 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.

President Barack Obama is currently working on the reauthorization process for the ESEA, which is the precursor to the No Child Left Behind Act. He has made it one of his top priorities for 2010, and is currently working with Congress to initiate the reform bills. Congress is pushing for President Obama to make many amendments to the bill in order to make up for the mistakes of the current legislation. Obama has stated that he wants to lower the achievement gap between black and white students and also add an increase of $3 billion dollars in federal funds to help aid the schools meet the strict requirements 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. [79]

The reauthorization process has become somewhat of a controversy, as lawmakers and politicians continually debate about the changes that need to be made to the bill in order to make it work best for the country's educational system.

[edit] See also