Running head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 1 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 Instructor’s Name: Student’s Name: Course Name: Course Number: Date: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 2 Introduction The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) has been called "the most sweeping federal education legislation in our nation's history" (McReynolds, 2006, p. 33). Since President George W. Bush signed the Act into law on January 8, 2002, opinions have not lacked regarding its benefits, drawbacks, and overall viability in bringing about long term improvements in public education. Intended to close the learning gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students, between wealthy and non wealthy students, and between minority and nonminority students (McReynolds, 2006), NCLB has elicited both praise and complaint from educators and legislators alike. Mathis (2005) notes that while there is general agreement regarding the overall aim of the legislation— ensuring the education of every child—there is widespread disagreement surrounding the implementation of the legislation—what will be the cost, who will fund it, and how the goal should be accomplished. While consensus on these issues will not be reached instantly, an understanding of the history of NCLB, its main provisions, and the chief praises and criticisms directed towards it will provide a basis from which to formulate sound opinions and from which to work towards the goal of quality education for all students. History of NCLB According to the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL), the history of the No Child Left Behind Act can be traced back over four decades to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 (History of the Federal Role in Education). The ESEA, signed by President Lyndon Johnson as part of his "War on Poverty, " appropriated approximately $2 million for the advancement and improvement of educational opportunities for the underprivileged within the states. NCSL reports that for the next 10 years, federal investment into education grew by nearly 200 percent. Yet, a declining economy from 1975 to 1980 took its NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT toll on federal education spending, and during this five year period, federal investment in education rose by only 2 percent. McReynolds (2006) also traces the roots of NCLB philosophy back several decades, but she goes even further and cites the 1957 launching of Sputnik as a foundational element in the American educational attitude that produced NCLB. According to McReynolds, the launch of Sputnik marked a significant turning point in American educational policy as it underscored a need for American children to be able to compete globally in the areas of math and science. As a result, the federal government began to take a more active interest in the education of American children in these subject areas. The expansion of the federal government's role in education came to a near halt, however, with the swearing in of President Ronald Reagan in 1980 (History of the Federal Role in Education). According to the NCSL, during the first five years of President Reagan's administration, federal funding for education fell by 21 percent. As a result of his philosophy of smaller government and local educational control, Reagan believed that the federal role in education should decrease, and, as the NCSL indicates, he petitioned for the abolition of the U.S. Department of Education. Still, Reagan left his mark on public education through the National Commission on Education Excellence (NCEE). Convened by Reagan and then Secretary of Education Terrell Bell, the Commission was charged with examining the state of education in the United States. The culmination of the Commission's work came in the form of the 1983 report, "A Nation at Risk: The Imperative for Educational Reform" (History of the Federal Role in Education). Included in the report's specific scope of analysis were the following: • "Assessing the quality of teaching and learning in our nation's public and private schools, colleges, and universities; 3 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT • "Comparing American schools and colleges with those of other advanced nations; • "Studying the relationship between college admissions requirements and student achievement in high school; • "Identifying educational programs which result in notable student success in college; • "Assessing the degree to which major social and educational changes in the last quarter century have affected student achievement; and • "Defining problems which must be faced and overcome if we are successfully to pursue the course of excellence in education" (A Nation at Risk, 1983). In light of its findings in these areas, the commission reported that there was an "urgent need for improvement, both immediate and long term" (A Nation at Risk, 1983). To address this need, the NCEE offered recommendations in five areas: content, standards and expectations, time, teaching, and leadership and fiscal support. The commission recommended establishing core curriculum standards but left the primary responsibility for establishing these standards to the states (History of the Federal Role in Education). Likewise, the primary responsibility for financing educational improvements also went to state and local officials (A Nation at Risk, 1983). According to NCLS, President Reagan's entrusting standards development to the states led states to begin to develop standards of achievement for different grade levels, and by 1990, almost 40 percent of high school graduates had achieved the goals set forth in core curriculum standards (History of the Federal Role in Education). The NCEE's research, analysis, and recommendations spurred the growth of standards based accountability that, consequently, played a significant role in the development of NCLB (History of the Federal Role in Education). 4 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT President Reagan's successors, Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton held a more active view of the federal government's role in education. President Bush's National Education Summit, convened in 1989, produced America 2000, a progressive educational agenda that established six goals to be reached by the year 2000. These goals ranged from school safety to academic achievement. Following in Bush's steps, President Clinton transformed America 2000 into Goals 2000. Among its initiatives, Goals 2000 created the National Education Standards and Improvement Council, which held the authority to accept or reject state generated content standards (History of the Federal Role in Education). While many saw this as an unwelcome growth in federal involvement in education, others applauded the increased focus on accountability. Eventually, the Council was done away with, but, as the NCSL reports, the federal role in accountability continued. In 1994, President Clinton signed the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA), which was, in essence, a revision and reauthorization of President Johnson's 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Coming full circle nearly 30 years after its original appearance, IASA required states to develop and implement content standards and mechanisms for measuring the achievement of the same (History of the Federal Role in Education). Application of the Policy concerning NCLB All of these leading factors from 1957 through 2000 point to the fact that NCLB did not develop in a vacuum. Less than one week after taking office in 2001, President George W. Bush introduced the No Child Left Behind Act, which he described as "the cornerstone of … [his] administration" (Executive Summary of NCLB, 2004). NCLB was an outgrowth both of President Bush's support for public education and his belief that "too many of our neediest children are being left behind" (Executive Summary of NCLB, 2005). NCLB was intended to 5 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 6 close the achievement gap existing in America's educational system as a result of economic and social factors and to ensure that, when it comes to receiving a quality education, no child is left behind. As adopted in 2001, NCLB was a reauthorization of ESEA and consisted of four main components: stronger accountability for results, more freedom for states and communities, proven education methods, and more choices for parents (Four Pillars of NCLB, 2004). Stronger Results of NCLB Act NCLB set the goal to have all students perform at or above grade level in math and reading by the year 2014. NCLB's accountability measures require that states and school districts provide annual report cards to parents and communities to show progress in the schools and the state. If schools fall short of making adequate yearly progress (AYP), as evidenced in part by the achievement of students, NCLB requires that the schools provide supplemental educational services to students. These services may include tutoring and afterschool programs. After five years, if a school is determined still to be failing to achieve standards in progress, the school may be forced to undergo major changes, such as restructuring, state takeover, conversion into a charter school, or dissolution (Four Pillars of NCLB, 2004; Jennings & Rentner, 2006). Waivers of NCLB More Freedom for States and Communities (related to Saint Leo’s core value of Community): the U.S. Department of Education indicates that NCLB provides states and school districts with "unprecedented flexibility" in the use of federal education funds (Four Pillars of NCLB, 2004). One major facet of this flexibility is the allowance for states and local education agencies (LEA) to transfer up to 50 percent of federal funding received under certain grant programs to fill a qualified need of the state's choice. The allowable grant programs are Teacher NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 7 Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and DrugFree Schools. LEAs may use funding from these programs for needs such as personnel hiring, salary raises, professional development or to their Title I programs (Executive Summary of NCLB, 2004). The flexibility provision also allows up to seven states to consolidate federal grant funds to be used for any educational purpose allowed under ESEA. One requirement of this consolidation is that the states involved must form up to 10 local performance agreements with LEAs to allow them similar levels of flexibility in consolidating funds (Executive Summary of NCLB, 2004). More Choices for Parents: perhaps one of the most often mentioned, and widely debated, provisions of NCLB is the increase in choices for parents. This provision encompasses three situations: • Parents of children in low performing schools that have failed for two consecutive years to meet state established standards have the option of transferring their children to a better public or charter school within the same school district. In these instances, the district remains responsible for providing transportation for the students to the new schools and may use Title I funds if necessary. • Children from low income families who attend a school that for three years or more has failed to meet state standards qualify to receive supplemental educational services, including tutoring, afterschool assistance, and summer school. • Parents whose children attend a school that is dangerous and/or who have been the victims of violent crime while in school are permitted to transfer their children to a safer school within the same school district (Four Pillars of NCLB, 2004). Effects of NCLB In examining the impact of NCLB, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) reached four main conclusions: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT • NCLB has caused a change in teaching and learning; • A majority of states and school districts report an increase in scores on state tests; • The number of schools identified as needing improvement under NCLB has remained fairly steady, despite predictions that the number would increase significantly. Moreover, rates of participation in tutoring and utilization of school choice options remain low; and, • The greatest benefits of NCLB are evident in urban school districts (From the Capital to the Classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act, 2006). While these conclusions appear generally positive at first glance, Jennings and Rentner (2006), respectively the president and director of national programs at CEP, provide an additional look at 10 major effects of NCLB on public schools. The following is a short summary of several of their key findings: While state test scores are rising, it is unclear whether the actual academic gains are as great as the scores seem to indicate. Under NCLB, states have flexibility in establishing their testing programs and methods. As a result, states utilize various means of testing, and the results may, at times, indicate that more students are performing according to standards than is actually the case. Jennings and Rentner support this assertion by noting that, while some national studies concur with states' reports of rising achievement, others do not. Due to NCLB accountability standards, schools are spending more time on math and reading and often less time on other core subjects. Math and reading are the two subjects for which NCLB mandates testing. As a result, many schools have shifted energies and resources to ensure adequate progress and achievement in this area, and, oftentimes, this has come at the expense of teaching in other areas. 8 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 9 For example, Jennings and Rentner report that more than 70 percent of school districts have indicated that their elementary schools are spending less time than before on nonmath and nonreading subjects, and the sub. NCLB Federal Funding Criticism Less glowing in his analysis of the flaws of NCLB, Del Stover (2007) cites adequate yearly progress (AYP) formulas and federal funding as among the most "divisive" and "crucial" issues affecting the reauthorization of NCLB. According to Stover, almost one third of schools may be failing to meet AYP standards, and this percentage is likely to rise as NCLB's 2014 deadline for reading and math proficiency approaches. If good schools increasingly fail to meet AYP, Stover indicates, the net effect of these failures may be the loss of credibility of the NCLB legislation. Furthermore, according to Stover, NCLB has been underfunded in the amount of $31.45 billion. Whereas Congress authorized $91.25 billion in 2001 for public education and NCLB implementation, only $59.8 billion was actually provided. Stover is not alone is his criticism of federal funding shortages for NCLB. The National Education Association (ESEA: It's Time for a Change!) argues that federal funding falls far short of meeting the requirements set forth in NCLB. Yet, at the same time, the Department of Education and other federal administration officials often indicate that NCLB is fully funded (Mathis, 2005). Mathis explains this discrepancy and examines the different perspectives on "fully funded" that are often utilized in public rhetoric, either to support the assertion that NCLB is fully funded or to deny the same. Among these are the "relative" approach, which looks at funding as an overall percentage of federal appropriation dollars, the "authorization level" approach, which compares actual appropriation levels of funding with authorization levels, and the "money left on the table" approach, which points to states' retaining unspent federal education dollars. While Mathis NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 10 examines these, and three additional approaches, in much greater depth, the notable feature of his work is that it highlights the semantic tactics utilized both by NCLB supporters and critics in arguing either for or against the reality of full funding for NCLB. Conclusion NCLB is an extraordinarily influential and controversial policy that, over the last seven years, has brought test-based school accountability to scale at public schools across the United States. The impact of this Federally mandated reform on student achievement is an empirical question of central importance. This research paper focused on the pros and cons (criticism) concerning the NCLB act. Many advocates of special education children have criticized the fact that special needs students are held to state standards in order to graduate but yet are not provided with the education necessary to pass the tests. However, one lawyer for special needs students supports the NCLB Act. Byrne notes that NCLB requires schools to test all children and measure progress. Previously, schools could lump all tests together and use the highest performing students to outweigh the special education students. With NCLB, schools must demonstrate progress in subgroups. Therefore, the public can see how schools have progressed with poor, minority and disabled children. Furthermore, he says that the criticism of lack of funding is useless. History has shown that laws demand behavior and accountability. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 11 References CNN. (2012, February 10). Ten states freed from some ‘No Child Left Behind’ requirements. Retrieved from http://www.cnn.com/2012/02/09/politics/stateseducation/index.html? %5Fs=PM:POLITICS Coats, L. T., & Xu, J. (2013). No Child Left Behind and outreach to families and communities: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT The perspectives of exemplary African American science teachers. Research Papers in Education, 28(5), 609–627. History of the federal role in education. (n.d.) Retrieved from National Conference of State Legislators http://www.ncsl.org/programs/educ/NCLBHistory.htm Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88(2), 110113. Kaufman, A., & Blewett, E. (2012). When good enough is no longer good enough: How the high stakes nature of the No Child Left Behind Act supplanted the Rowley definition of a free appropriate public education. Journal of Law & Education, 41(1), 5–23. Mathis, W. (2005). The cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different assumptions, different answers. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 80(2), 90119. McReynolds, K. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act raises growing concerns. Encounter, 19(2), 3336. NCLB. (2004). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/4pillars.html From the capital to the classroom. NEA's positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization. (2006). Retrieved from http://www.nea.org/esea/posagendaexecsum.html No Child Left Behind Act. (2006). Retrieved from Center on Education Policy http://www.cep 12 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT dc.org/nclb/Year4/NCLBYear4Summary.pdf Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118(3), 341–368. Questions and answers on No Child Left Behind Doing what works. (2003). Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/whatworks/doing.html Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: The case of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Education Policy, 20(4), 507524. Stover, D. (2007). NCLBAct II. American School Board Journal, 194(1), 20 23. US Department of Education. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/nclb/buildingonresults.pdf US Department of Eduction. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf 13 
Purchase answer to see full attachment