A Study on No Child Left Behind Act

A Study on No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) Hakan Aydin, Ali Eroglu, Nihat Celik, Kemal Kocak

The Policy Description & Summary of Key Details About How The Policy Came to Be The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the most recent iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), the major federal law authorizing federal spending on programs to support K-12 schooling. ESEA is the largest source of federal spending on elementary and secondary education.

ESEA was enacted in 1965 as part of the Johnson Administration’s War on Poverty campaign. The law’s original goal, which remains today, was to improve educational equity for students from lower income families by providing federal funds to school districts serving poor students. School districts serving lower income students often receive less state and local funding than those serving more affluent children.

Since its initial passage in 1965, ESEA has been reauthorized seven times, most recently in January 2002 as the No Child left Behind Act. Each reauthorization has brought changes to the program, but its central goal of improving the educational opportunities for children from lower income families remains. The 1994 reauthorization, the Improving America’s Schools Act, put in place key standards and accountability elements for states and local school districts that receive funding under the law. These accountability provisions were further developed in the most recent reauthorization, the No Child Left Behind Act.

Although NCLB covers numerous federal education programs, the law’s requirements for testing, accountability, and school improvement receive the most attention. NCLB requires states to test students in reading and mathematics annually in grades 3 -8 and once in grades 10 -12. States must test students in science once in grades 3 -5, 6 -8, and 10 -12. Individual schools, school districts and states must publicly report test results in the aggregate and for specific student subgroups, including low-income students, students with disabilities, English language learners, and major racial and ethnic groups.

NCLB required states, school districts, and schools to ensure all students are proficient in grade-level math and reading by 2014. States define grade-level performance. Schools must make "adequate yearly progress" toward this goal, whereby proficiency rates increase in the years leading up to 2014. The rate of increase required is chosen by each state.

Requirements that the Department of Education offered to waive include states meeting AYP targets whereby students must reach 100 percent student proficiency by 2014 in reading and math, and mandated interventions, whereby districts must allow students to attend different schools and offer Supplemental Educational Services for Title I schools and school districts failing to meet the AYP targets. The waivers also allowed states to opt out of mandatory interventions for districts failing to meet requirements to staff only ‘Highly Qualified Teachers’ in their schools

Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years are identified for "school improvement, " and must draft a school improvement plan, devote at least 10 percent of federal funds provided under Title I of NCLB to teacher professional development. Schools that fail to make AYP for a third year are identified for corrective action, and must institute interventions designed to improve school performance from a list specified in the legislation. Schools that fail to make AYP for a fourth year are identified for restructuring, which requires more significant interventions. If schools fail to make AYP for a fifth year, they much implement a restructuring plan that includes reconstituting school staff and/or leadership, changing the school’s governance arrangement, converting the school to a charter, turning it over to a private management company, or some other major change.

NCLB School Improvement Timeline Years Not Making AYP Action One No Action Two No Action Year One of School Improvement Three Implement Public School Choice Year Two of School Improvement Four Continue offering public school choice. Implement Supplemental Education Services Corrective Action Five Continue offering school choice and supplemental education services Restructuring Planning Year Six Continue offering school choice and supplemental education services Seven Implement Restructuring

Identify What This Policy Is/Was Supposed To Do (Its Intended Goal or Goals) 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. Some local governments, notably that of New York state, have supported NCLB provisions, because local standards failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and NCLB would let them use longitudinal data more effectively to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Cont. Quality of Education: 1. Increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance 2. 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. 3. Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative. 4. Emphasizes reading, language arts, and mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects. ”

Cont. Effect on Arts and Electives: NCLB’s main focus is on skills in reading, writing and mathematics, which areas related to economic success. Combined with the budget crises in the Late-2000 s recession, some schools have cut or eliminated classes and resources for many subject areas that are not part of NCLB's accountability standards. Since 2007, almost 71% of schools have reduced instruction time in subjects such as history, arts, language, and music to provide more time and resources to mathematics and English.

Cont. Limitations on Local Control: Some conservative, libertarian, and liberal critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Some Libertarians 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, if they forgo the federal funding that comes with it.

Effects on School and Students Gifted Students: NCLB pressures schools to guarantee that nearly all students meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic— but requires nothing beyond these minimums. It provides no incentives to improve student achievement beyond the bare minimum. Programs not essential for achieving mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts.

Cont. 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. "

Cont. 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). For example, at Houston’s Sharpstown High School, more than 1, 000 students began high school as freshmen, and four years later, fewer than 300 students were enrolled in the senior class. However, none of these "missing" students from Sharpstown High were reported as dropouts.

How does NCLB policy accomplish the goals? NCLB is the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). NCLB is stricter and more specific than the Improving America’s Schools Act (IASA), the 1994 reauthorization of the same law. Key NCLB accountability provisions include the following:

Every state must have in place content standards for what students should know and be able to do in reading and mathematics, and must implement content standards in science by 2005– 06. Every state must administer annual tests in reading and mathematics for all students—including students with disabilities and limited English proficiency (LEP)—in grades 3– 8 and at least once in grades 10– 12 by 2005– 06. By 2007– 08, all states also must assess students in science at least once each in grades 3– 5, 6– 9 and 10– 12.

Every state must also develop annual AYP targets for schools and districts for all students and for key subgroups of students based on state test results, student test participation rates, and one other academic indicator (such as graduation rate). Increasing AYP targets require that all students demonstrate proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013– 14. States must implement English proficiency standards and assessments for LEP students by 2002– 03, and must administer these tests annually. By 2005– 06, states must have set annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs) specifying expected progress in LEP students’ learning English proficiency and in meeting AYP targets.

Information on school and district performance must be communicated to parents, teachers, and other stakeholders. Specific assistance and consequences must be implemented for schools and districts that repeatedly do not make AYP.