No Child Left Behind

Running head:

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Michael Teh Rocky Mountain High School

No Child Left Behind

Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was created in order to give federal funding to schools based on improved test scores. Signed by President Bush in 2002, it is the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. No Child Left Behind has changed the way students are taught, since standardized tests are a priority starting in 3 rd grade. The act has lost popularity since its enactment, and many people are looking for a replacement. Currently, President Obama intends to come up with a program that is more flexible, while keeping some aspects of No Child Left Behind.

No Child Left Behind

Policy Identification and Explanation Passed as Public Law 107-110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 addressed the problems in the educational system at the time and attempted to fix them. The act created several programs to raise test scores, monitor students progress, improve the quality of teachers, and decrease the gap between underperforming schools (ABC-CLIO, 2011). More specifically, Title I of the Act deals with Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged (Public Law 107-110, 2001). Section 1111 describes the process regarding how states must set standards for all students and create a standardized test to assess knowledge. The assessments must include math, language arts, and science. The schools must also report continuous and substantial academic improvement for all students in order to get the federal funding (Public Law 107-110, 2001). Policy History/Background The origin of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 dates all the way back to 1954, when the Supreme Court ruled that racial segregation in public schools was unconstitutional. Known famously as Brown v. Board of Education, it led to the passage of the Civil Rights Act. A year later, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was enacted, which was the first major educational policy instituted by the national government (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Almost two decades later, in 1981, the National Commission on Excellence in Education was formed with the purpose to review and synthesize the data and scholarly literature on the quality of learning and teaching in the nations schools, colleges, and universities, both public and private, with special concern for the educational experience of teen-age youth (Jorgensen, 2003). The commission created a report with concerns such as declining SAT scores and high

No Child Left Behind

teenage minority functional illiteracy rates. It was obvious that something needed to be changed, and the report delivered a few recommendations. Those suggestions turned into the Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994. Over the next few years, there was much discussion about performance standards for schools across America. Schools needed to be accountable for the progress of the education of their students (Jorgensen, 2003). The latest reinvention of the American education system arrived in 2002, when President George W. Bushs No Child Left Behind Act passed with a landslide vote. President Bush did not act alone, however, enlisting the help of elected officials from both parties. Republican Congressman John Boehner and Democrat Senator Ted Kennedy co-authored the bill. Rod Paige, the Secretary of Education, endorsed and had high hopes for No Child Left Behind. The act fulfilled many peoples wishes of education improvement, mostly through the use of setting standards and testing. There was overwhelming support for the law in Congress, as the vote count in the Senate was 87-10 and 381-41 in the House (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Current Situation The United States has always invested great amounts of money on education. In fact, as the graph below shows, funds spent on elementary and secondary education (including all levels of government) rose every year from 1990-2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

No Child Left Behind

The passage of No Child Left Behind [NCLB] helped to continue the trend. From 2001 to 2007, Congress had increased federal funding for education from $42.2 billion to $54.4 billion (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). There is evidence that the act increased per-pupil district expenditures by roughly $700. But beyond the way NCLB has affected the economy in the country, it has changed the way that students are taught. Teachers and their pupils are now all extremely pressured to perform up to standards so the school may continue to receive federal funding (Toppo, 2007). Teachers today undergo stress because of the expectations of high test scores. This has changed the way they teach, since they now must shape their curriculum toward the reading, science, and math standardized tests. Not only are teachers tense because of NCLB, but

No Child Left Behind

students also must perform well starting in the third grade, when standardized tests begin. But for all the burden put upon teachers and students, NCLB has indeed brought about the positive results that were intended (Toppo, 2007). At Stanton Elementary School in Philadelphia, the reading level of its students has increased. In 2003, fewer than two in ten kids met the state reading standards. By 2005, seven out of ten did (Toppo, 2007). That progress is representative of the entire United States, as shown by the National Assessment of Educational Progress. The report showed that more progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading from 2000-2005 than in the previous 28 years combined. Also, reading and math scores for black and Hispanic nine-year-olds were at an alltime high. Data shows that students in middle school and high school have improved as well (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). However, there are changing factors that were not anticipated when the law was introduced. For instance, some states have lowered standards in order to improve test scores quickly and receive federal funding. In fact, the Department of Education (2007) conducted a study that showed that the differences in states test scores was largely based on the level of the standards set. Standardized tests had another side effect as well, causing teachers to teach to the test. This means that more focus has been put on getting a high test score instead of learning and understanding the concepts. Differing Viewpoints No Child Left Behind has been very controversial since enacted in 2002. However, at the time it was passed, there was overwhelming support from both parties. Obviously, the execution and effects of the act differed from the expectations. Currently, President Obama is

No Child Left Behind

planning to replace No Child Left Behind and has already reformed education with his Race to the Top initiative. Several senators, both Democrat and Republican, are following Obamas lead, along with Secretary of Education Arne Duncan (Picard, 2011). Obama has many supporters, including the National Education Association and teachers unions. The main opinions of the unions argue that the effects of a good education cannot always be measured by a standardized test. NCLB has also been protested by more than twenty states because of its strict expectations. The opponents of NCLB argue that even though each school in the United States varies in the amount of money available, the act was formulated as if each school was created equal (Mayers, 2006). Each school is expected to live up to uniform standards even though they are not all the same. Those schools that are underprivileged to begin with are sometimes not helped by NCLB at all. NCLB allocates funds that are usually less than 10% of a schools budget. Furthermore, if schools do not improve and meet standards, then they dont receive that funding. NCLB was designed to help lower-end schools, but if those schools dont have adequate supplies and teachers, then they will never improve or receive federal funding (Darling-Hammond, 2007). On the other hand, supporters of NCLB claim it has accomplished what it set out to do. The National Assessment of Educational Progress recorded test scores that were higher than ever (U.S. Department of Education, 2007). Schools have been awarded funding because their scores have improved. Also, the underprivileged have been helped because of NCLB, according to Peter Wright, an attorney who represents children with special needs. He has used NCLB to help give special needs students the right to be taught how to read in school. According to

No Child Left Behind

Wright (2005), No Child Left Behind is an excellent sword that we can use to open doors for the children we represent. Both of these viewpoints agree on one principle: education is extremely important and must be improved. Though supporters of NCLB claim the method to achieve this is through standardized testing, opponents say test scores are not always an accurate representation of a valuable education. Both sides agree that underprivileged students must be helped, but dont agree on how they should be helped. Policy Recommendation No Child Left Behind could be altered to better fit the needs of Americas schools. While the act had worthy goals, some aspects of education cant be measured by standardized tests. In addition, the tough standards place extra stress on the teachers and students. President Obamas challenge to the states for federal funding, Race to the Top [RTT], could be a precedent for a program to improve NCLB. NCLB certainly has benefited education in the United States, but certain aspects of the act could be removed or changed. Unlike NCLB, Race to the Top flexibly allowed states to set their own goals. If a state can show that their education system has improved, then they should receive federal funding. Also, standardized testing should have a smaller role in deciding how much a school will receive in federal funding. More focus should be placed on improving teachers and making sure the students have a well-rounded education. RTT awarded funds to states based on four criteria: making standards and assessments, developing teachers, measuring student growth, and turning around lower-achieving schools (Picard, 2011).

No Child Left Behind

It is recommended that the RTT program be expanded to fully replace NCLB. As shown, RTT has similar goals to NCLB, but its process of awarding funds differs significantly. The expectations are far less strict and allow schools and teachers the freedom to teach the way they want to. The funding allotted to the Education Department should be the same no matter what program is being used, as education is always a priority. This is certainly economically feasible because the same amount of money would be used as today, causing no difference in the economy. A plan similar to RTT would be politically feasible as well, since support for NCLB has decreased year after year. Also, RTT has already been passed before, and could be expanded to fully replace NCLB.

No Child Left Behind

10

References ABC-CLIO. (2011). No child left behind act (2002). In Issues: Understanding Controversy and Society. Retrieved January 28, 2011, from http://issues.abc-clio.com/ Darling-Hammond, L. (2007, May 2). No child left behind is a bad law. Retrieved February 11, 2011, from Gale Opposing Viewpoints. Jorgensen, M. A., & Hoffmann, J. (2003, August). History of the no child left behind act of 2001. In Pearson. Retrieved February 2, 2011, from www.pearsonassessments.com/NR/./0/HistoryofNCLB_Rev2_Final.pdf Mayers, M, C. (2006, April 01). Public law 107-110 No child left behind act of 2001: Support or threat to education as a fundamental right?. Education, (3), 449, Retrieved from http://elibrary.bigchalk.com Picard, J. (2011, January 27). Improve education, Obama says. In International Business Times. Retrieved February 3, 2011, from http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/105960/20110127/education.htm Public law 107-110. (2002, January 8). In ED.gov. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from www2.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/107-110.pdf Toppo, G. (2007, January 7). How Bush education law has changed our schools. In USA Today. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/200701-07-no-child_x.htm U.S. Department of Education. (2007, October). A guide to education and no child left behind. In ED.gov. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide_pg11.html

No Child Left Behind

11

U.S. Department of Education. (2004, October). The history of no child left behind. In ED.gov. Retrieved February 10, 2011, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/guide/guide_pg12.html Wright, P. (2005). No child left behind is a good law. Retrieved February 1, 2011, from Gale Opposing Viewpoints in Context.