PA: NCLB 1

Body - Part 3 Policy Analysis: No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind act of 2002 has led to its desired outcomes for target

populations; however, later I will discuss its unintended consequences, and application to social

work values, ethics, and promotion of social justice.

As evidenced by Dee et al. (2010), the No Child Left Behind act had a greater positive

outcome for students who selectively were in lower grades, like fourth grade for example. Further,

it was noted that the subgroup of students with special needs was able to evaluate at or above the

level deemed proficient by each state, around an average increase of 18% in math (Kolodziej,

2011, as cited in Fisanick, 2008). Historically marginalized communities of students saw increases

and benefits with specific clustering by students identifying as Hispanic (Dee et al., 2010). The

NCLB policy met its desired outcomes in that regard, but what came first was the implementation

of the AYP as an indicated way to measure growth in students' abilities. Schools increased usage of

tests highlighting the strengths and areas of improvement, which assisted as an instructional tool

for educators, and thus grew the opportunities for further professional advancement displayed to

schools (Dee et al., 2010).

What could be seen from the up taking in accountability for its teachers, allowed for greater

outcomes for students due to the NCLB promoting more teaching strategies effective for its

students. This in turn led to more positive outcomes for schools (Dee et al., 2010). Including

additional spending directly on each student; around six hundred dollars each (Dee et al., 2010)

does create the idea that schools are taking the time to invest in their students' successes; however,

that is not always the case when NCLB policy only degrades schools.
PA: NCLB 2

There are unintended consequences of the implementation of the No Child Left Behind act

regarding students, schools, and the policy itself. To begin, the teachers who are experienced do

not teach at low-income schools (Kolodziej, 2011, as cited in Irons & Harris, 2007, p. 38). Thus,

the teachers with extraordinarily little experience came into the school system under the impression

not necessarily focusing on the holistic outcome of the child, but more so on the outcomes

associated with test preparation activities (Dee et al., 2010). Even though the focus was placed on

testing, scores that correlated with school increased expenditures still did not meet expectations of

the goals in NCLB (Dee et al., 2010). For example, the reading outcomes of students did not even

have a measurable effect as math did (Dee et al., 2010).

Another, I say, more interesting unintended outcome was the impact of sanctions by NCLB

on schools and deeming them as failing. In the article by Bogin (2014), they suggest that home

value in low-income neighborhoods when the NCLB sanctioned their school in the area, was

brought value down by six percent due to the “poor perceived school quality and social stigma”

that came with the sanctions on the schools, and low-income neighborhood already.

So, what does this policy say regarding social works values and ethics? I do not think this

policy lives up to any moral standard. Yes, the idea behind it was, I am sure, good-intentioned, but

when thinking about how individuals manipulated testing scores to receive additional funding, did

not respect the worth of students, or behaved in a trustworthy manner (National Association of

Social Workers, 2021). With regards to social justice, I would say the policy ‘tried its best, which

its best was nowhere near the level of social change needed to see results that benefited students of

color, with disabilities, or students struggling academically. There are results to show, but again,

not enough. The attempt to bring resources to students who were falling behind in school did not

fall in line with the social work values and ethics, especially with the attempts it made. If real
PA: NCLB 3

change is to be met, there needs to be more critical thought about the populations of students, the

services attempting to be provided, and how oversight of goals are being met.
PA: NCLB 4

References

Bogin, A., & Nguyen, H. P. (2014). Property Left Behind: An Unintended Consequence of a No

Child Left behind “Failing” School Designation. Journal of Regional Science, 54(5), 788–

805. https://doi-org.pallas2.tcl.sc.edu/10.1111/jors.12141

DEE, T. S., JACOB, B. A., HOXBY, C. M., & LADD, H. F. (2010). The Impact of No Child Left

Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools [with Comments and Discussion]. Brookings

Papers on Economic Activity, 149–207. http://www.jstor.org/stable/41012846

Fisanick, C. (Ed.). (2008). Has No Child Left Behind been good for education? Farmington Hills,

MN: Greenhaven Press.

Irons, J.E., & Harris, S. (2007). The challenges of No Child Left Behind: Understanding the issues

of excellence, accountability, and choice. Lanham, MD: The Rowman & Littlefield

Publishing Group, Inc 

Kolodziej, T. (n.d.). (2011). The benefits and detriments of the no child left behind act. College of

DuPage Essai. Retrieved April 1, 2022, from https://dc.cod.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?

referer=&httpsredir=1&article=1364&context=essai 

National Association of Social Workers. (2021). National Association of Social Workers (NASW).

NASW - National Association of Social Workers. Retrieved April 1, 2022, from

https://www.socialworkers.org/About/Ethics/Code-of-Ethics/Code-of-Ethics-English