No Child Left Behind Act

Signing ceremony at Hamilton High School in Hamilton, Ohio.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), commonly known as NCLB, is a United States federal law that reauthorizes a number of federal programs that aim to improve the performance of U.S.'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 promotes an increased focus on reading and re-authorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enact 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 also requires that the schools distribute the name, and home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters.

The effectiveness and desirability of NCLB's measures continue to be a matter of vigorous controversy. Up for possible reauthorization in 2007, a new Congress has already started considering major revisions, as one group of 50 Republican senators and representatives introduced legislation in March 2007 that would provide states much greater freedom from NCLB's controls and punishments.

On May 3, 2005, Utah governor Jon Huntsman signed a measure into state law that allows that state's districts to ignore provisions of the law that conflict with that state's programs, making it the first state to enact such a law. The Department of Education has threatened to withhold federal education funding as a result.

Major Provisions

A construction project to repair and update the building facade at the U.S. Department of Education headquarters building in 2002 resulted in the installation of structures at all of the entrances to protect employees and visitors from falling debris. ED redesigned these protective structures to promote the "No Child Left Behind Act." The structures are temporary and will be removed in 2007. Source: U.S. Department of Education, http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2002/04/04112002a.html

Adequate yearly progress

No Child Left Behind requires States to create an accountability system of assessments, graduation rates, and other indicators. Schools have to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), as determined by the state, by raising the achievement levels of subgroups of students such as African Americans, Latinos, low-income students, and special education students to a state-determined level of proficiency. All students must be proficient by the 2013-2014 school year. An escalating set of assistance is provided to students who are in schools that repeatedly do not improve.

Each state determines appropriate levels of proficiency for its students. If a single group within a school fails to reach proficiency, the entire school is considered to have fallen short. An escalating set of assistance is offered to students in Title I schools that fail to reach state goals. Some of these benefits must be available to all students in such a school, regardless of their academic standing or their free/ reduced price lunch eligibility. Other benefits are available only to low-income students, regardless of their academic ability. Low-income students in non-Title I schools are not eligible to receive these benefits, regardless of their academic standing.

Schools receiving Title I funds that do not meet AYP requirements for two consecutive years will be identified as "in need of improvement" and required to offer parents the option of sending their children to another public school within the district. Upon being identified as "in need of improvement" the school is also required to develop or revise an existing school improvement plan which must be approved by the district. If the school does not meet targets the next year, supplemental educational services such as tutoring and after school programs must also be offered to all students who receive free or reduced price lunch, regardless of the students’ academic standing. Often, these low-income students have not failed the standardized tests, while other students in their school have. However, the tutoring must be offered to all the low-income students and only them. This sanction is written as if income is equivalent to academic ability or to achievement scores. When states approve only remedial curriculum for Supplemental Educational Services (SES) programs, they then could, conceivably, tutor significant numbers of high achieving low-income students with remedial work, while not tutoring students who failed. It is also critical that stakeholders do not assume that students eligible for service are low achievers because such a misconception could affect how services are provided.

If the school continues in "in need of improvement" status the following year it will be required to take corrective action such as removing relevant staff, implementing new curriculum, decreasing management authority, appointing outside experts to advise the school, extending the length of the school day or year or restructuring the school's internal organization. Only schools receiving Title I funds are subject to these sanctions. No school will have funds cut; however, they may lose federal funding if they do not comply with the goverment's support. The staff will be fired and new staff will take their place

Teacher quality

The No Child Left Behind act requires that (by the end of the 2005-2006 school year) all teachers be "highly qualified" as defined in the law. A highly qualified teacher is one who has fulfilled the state's certification and licensing requirements. New teachers must meet the following requirements:

• Possess at least a bachelor's degree
• At the elementary level they 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 curriculum.
• At the middle and high school levels they must pass a state test in each academic subject area they teach, plus have either an undergraduate major, a graduate degree, coursework equivalent to an undergraduate major or an advanced certification or credentialing.

Teachers not new to the profession must hold a bachelor's degree and must pass a state test demonstrating subject knowledge and teaching skills. These requirements have caused some controversy and 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.

For further information see the Teacher Quality Guidance from the U.S. Department of Education website

Student testing

The progress of all students will be measured annually in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school. By the end of the 2007-2008 school year, testing will also be conducted in science once during grades 3–5, 6–9, and 10–11.

Parent involvement

In order to better inform parents, states are required to issue detailed report cards on the status of schools and districts. Under the law, parents must also be informed when their child is being taught by a teacher who does not meet "highly qualified" status. Schools are also required to include and involve parents in the school improvement planning process.

Scientifically-based research

The phrase "scientifically based research" is found 111 times in the text of the No Child Left Behind Act. 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.

The Department of Education has established the What Works Clearinghouse as a resource to assist in understanding the term "scientifically based research."

To date, several products have been approved as meeting NCLB requirements in the five years since NCLB was passed — a total of 8 products as of 9-10-2006. Critics argue that the process to be included in the What Works Clearinghouse is complicated and ineffective in approving products. While the mission of the What Works Clearinghouse is to determine effective educational methodology associated with given products rather than the research behind the products themselves per se, it has largely been seen by the public as a means to certify NCLB compliant educational products. This is not the case and the WWC does not in fact certify any individual product or program as NCLB compliant, only that the methodology behind it is sound. Still, critics cite the small number of products (or methodologies) approved and the cost of the project, which is purported to be nearly 20 million dollars, as evidence that WWC is ineffective.

As an alternative to The What Works Clearinghouse, educators and researchers have teamed with vendors to produce Educational Underwriters. Educational Underwriters is a non-profit organization that provides independent certification of research as NCLB compliant. Vendors submit their product-related research to Educational Underwriters to see if it meets NCLB requirements. Educational Underwriters (EdU) seeks to de-politicize the research-based mandate of No Child Left Behind.

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. — From NCLB FAQs in External Links.

Claims made in favor of the act

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 . NCLB aims to show achievment toward these goals through federally mandated standardized testing.

In addition, it is argued 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 . 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 .

The Department of Education points to National Assessment of Educational Progress results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math: [1]

• 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).

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

• Answers George Bush's question "Is Our Children Learning?"
• Introduces an element of accountability into public school education and the expenditure of public funds for education.
• Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
• 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 Blacks 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.
• Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
• Increases the quality of education. 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• Emphasizes reading, writing, math and science achievement through a number of "core academic subjects" that include subjects as diverse as algebra and art.
• 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.
• 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 (AYP) standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.
• 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.
• Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
• Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

Criticism of the Act

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

Constitutionality of Federal Government Policy on Education

One fundamental criticism of the No Child Left Behind Act is its dubious constitutionality as per the Tenth Amendment.

Failure to fully fund the act

Many initial supporters of NCLB have since broken with the Bush Administration over what they claim is the White House's failure to adequately fund its own programs. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has claimed: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not." Organizations such as ACORN (a community organization of low and moderate-income families and itself the subject of controversy [2]) have criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the act. Neither the Senate nor the White House has requested funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions (for example President Bush requested only $13.3 of $22.75 billion in 2006) [3]. State education budgets are in very bad shape these days as declining tax revenues have forced many governors and legislatures to make deep cuts. While some new money may flow to districts as a result of NCLB, the amount falls far short of the cuts being made at the state level. Inadequate funding places a strain on local school districts, many of which are not funded by the law. As just one example, under the Choice provisions of NCLB, LEAs must allow transfers of students from poorly performing Title I schools to good schools, but Title I funding will not follow that student to the new school. Many other provisions of NCLB such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, while laudable, bring huge responsibilities to local districts that are not fully funded by NCLB (Jamie McKenzie 2003). Republicans in Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises and have pointed out that President Clinton never requested the full amount of funding authorized under the previous ESEA law. [4] 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.

Allegations of Corruption

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) [5] and have employed creative reclassification of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics) [6]. Evidence has accumulated that these and other strategies have created an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, especially in states with high minority populations [7].

Problems with Standardized Tests

Critics have argued that the overwhelming focus on standardized testing as the means of assessment encourages "teaching to the test". That is, teachers are encouraged to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding which can more readily be transferred to similar problems. [8]

In addition, because each state can produce its own standardized tests, states could compensate for inadequate education programs by making the standardized tests easy enough that their results are on par with those from other states with average or above average education programs.[9] For example, the difficulty of Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards test has been questioned and criticized.

Standardized tests have also been accused of cultural bias, and the practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question. [10]

Inequitable divisions of resources

Because the law's reponse 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 [11] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether [12].

Students who are learning English have a 3 year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. In practice, however, only 10 states test any students in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers).[13] The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments, which are neither valid nor reliable in measuring what they know.[14]

Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 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.[15] Some critics of the law suggest it is also responsible for the elimination of certain extracurricular activities.

State Education Budgets

State education budgets are poorly functioning these days as declining tax revenues have forced the government to make deep cutbacks. Some of the new funds for districts funding NCLB never make it because of the cuts being made at the state level. Inadequate funding makes it hard for local school districts not funded by the law. Provisions of NCLB that push for quality teachers and more professional development are good, however they bring huge responsibilities to local districts that are not fully funded by NCLB. [16]

Narrow Curriculum

NCLB's focus on just math and reading scores is more likely to backfire and have the reverse effect on a generation of students in poorly performing schools, as schools may strip away much of the broad education in order to elevate scores on just two indicators. [17]

Narrow definition of research

Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies 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 excludes a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge. [18]

Limitations on local control

Conservative critics have pointed out that NCLB violates conservative principles by 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. [19]

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, and schools are not required to tell the students or parents. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared. [20][21]

Miscellaneous critiques

A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contend that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to childhood obesity.[22]

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.[23]

NCLB includes the controversial Boy Scouts of America Equal Access Act, an act some consider to be a violation of the separation of church and state.

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 so.

Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind
More than 100 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, and religious groups have signed on to the "Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB," calling for major changes to the federal education law. FairTestinitiated 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. [24]

Background of name

The name's most likely origin is the motto of the liberal 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."

External links

• "No Child Left" is a site and journal opposed to NCLB and highly critical of its approach to schools.
• School Ranking Data based on NCLB (subscription required)
• NCLB Desktop Reference (147 pages)
• NCLB Desktop Reference (online version, includes Microsoft documents and PDF links)
• Online Petition to End No Child Left Behind
• Text of No Child Left Behind Act
• No Child Left Behind: Testing, Reporting, and Accountability
• Remarks by President Bush at signing ceremony
• Facts About NCLB Funding
• Implications of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for Teacher Education
• Read Congressional Research Service (CRS) Reports regarding the No Child Left Behind Act
• National Institute for Literacy
• Pros & Cons of the No Child Left Behind Act, at About.com
• Analysis of NCLB
• Comments by Secretary of Education
• No Child Left Behind: Misguided Accountability System for English Language Learners
• Linda Perlstein, The Nation 21 October 2004, "The Issue Left Behind"
• "White House paid commentator to promote law", 7 January 2005, Greg Toppo, USA Today
• President Discusses No Child Left Behind and High School Initiatives, Speech text and video, 12 January 2005
• "The ABCs of AYP" Explanation of the NCLB accountability system from The Education Trust
• No Child Left Behind at Wikia
• Mississippi Teacher Corps Focus Paper on No Child Left Behind
• Military Free Zone Reveals some of the darker sides of the NCLB Act
• Center for Education Reform website Promoting charter schools and other reforms
• Educational Underwriters Incorporated Non-profit organization which certifies the research backing educational products as NCLB compliant.
• National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest)