No Child Left Behind Act of 2001

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 developed out of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as well as the recommendations made by the National Commission on Education Excellence during the 1980s. From 2001 to 2015, it formed the basis for current United States educational policy. Through its focus on standards, accountability, and parental options, it sought to provide a quality education for all students and to close the achievement gap between low-income and minority students and their peers. The law was hotly debated, with its proponents citing higher test scores and improved urban schools; while critics claimed that federal funds were not sufficient to support the law, and that the law encouraged an overly narrow curriculum.

Overview

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was called "the most sweeping federal education legislation in our nation's history" (McReynolds, 2006). After President George W. Bush signed the Act into law on January 8, 2002, opinions did not lack 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 non-minority students, NCLB elicited both praise and complaint from educators and legislators alike. Mathis noted that while there was general agreement regarding the overall aim of the legislation—ensuring the education of every child—there was widespread disagreement surrounding the implementation of the legislation—what would be the cost, who would fund it, and how the goal should be accomplished.

Understanding 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

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. 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 reported that for the next ten years, federal investment into education grew by nearly 200 percent. Yet, a declining economy from 1975 to 1980 took its toll on federal education spending, and during this five-year period, federal investment in education rose by only 2 percent.

McReynolds also traced the roots of NCLB philosophy back several decades, but she went even further and cited 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. 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 indicated, he petitioned for the abolition of the US 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;
• "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. Likewise, the primary responsibility for financing educational improvements also went to state and local officials.

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. 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.

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. 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.

Applications

Policy & Pillars

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 close the achievement gap existing in America's educational system as a result of economic and social factors and to ensure that, when it came 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.

Stronger Accountability for Results

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 required that states and school districts provided annual report cards to parents and communities to show progress in the schools and the state. If schools fell short of making adequate yearly progress (AYP), as evidenced in part by the achievement of students, NCLB required that the schools provide supplemental educational services to students. These services could include tutoring and after-school programs. After five years, if a school was determined still to be failing to achieve standards in progress, the school could be forced to undergo major changes, such as restructuring, state takeover, conversion into a charter school, or dissolution. However, no state reached the 100 percent achievement goal by 2014.

More Freedom for States and Communities

The US Department of Education indicates that NCLB provides states and school districts with "unprecedented flexibility" in the use of federal education funds. One major facet of this flexibility was 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 were Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools. LEAs could use funding from these programs for needs such as personnel hiring, salary raises, professional development or to their Title I programs.

The flexibility provision also allowed up to seven states to consolidate federal grant funds to be used for any educational purpose allowed under ESEA. One requirement of this consolidation was that the states involved must form up to ten local performance agreements with LEAs to allow them similar levels of flexibility in consolidating funds.

Proven Education Methods

Under NCLB, federal funding was allocated to programs that had a proven level of effectiveness in producing positive results in educational achievement. By relying on scientific research and evaluation, NCLB sought to direct federal dollars to those programs that can show objective improvements and progress. To ensure accuracy in scientific research, NCLB sought to move research methodology to a "medical model," in which a random population sample is taken, a control group is established, and research is performed based on this sampling.

More Choices for Parents

Perhaps one of the most often-mentioned, and widely debated, provisions of NCLB was the increase in choices for parents. This provision encompassed 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, after-school 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.

Additional Provisions

In addition to these four pillars, NCLB also included additional provisions applying to reading, teacher qualification, and English language instruction. Regarding reading, President Bush set a specific goal of ensuring that every child can read by the end of third grade: the Reading First initiative. In support of this initiative, NCLB called for an increase in federal funding for scientifically based reading instruction programs. In addition, the Reading First initiative made available grants and other awards to states and LEAs for the purpose of enhancing reading and language arts development.

To attain its goal of having a highly qualified teacher in every classroom, NCLB created the Improving Teacher Quality State Grants program, which allows states and LEAs to determine the most effective means of achieving the goal of having highly qualified teachers. In exchange for this allowance, however, NCLB required local education agencies to provide evidence that they are making progress towards full realization of providing highly qualified teachers in the classrooms. Finally, to assist states and school districts in educating students for whom English is not the primary language, NCLB established a new formula grant program to assist states in educating English language learning students while concurrently helping them to excel academically.

Viewpoints

After its passage in 2001, debate surrounding the goals, methods, and overall effectiveness of NCLB did not cease. The law's reauthorization process provided a new platform for discussion of the successes, failures, and recommendations for improvement of NCLB. As the national conversation grew, many within the Administration and Department of Education are touting the great educational advancements resulting from NCLB, while others in government and education alike express concern over what they see as subjective measures of accountability and shortages in federal funding for NCLB.

Effects of NCLB

In examining the impact of NCLB, the Center on Education Policy (CEP) reached four main conclusions:

• 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.

While these conclusions appeared generally positive at first glance, Jennings and Rentner, respectively the president and director of national programs at CEP, provide an additional look at ten 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. 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 non-math and non-reading subjects, and the subject that has borne the greatest brunt of these cutbacks is Social Studies.

Schools are increasingly focusing on joining curriculum with instruction and are relying on, at least to some extent, test data to guide instruction. This change is most apparent in schools that have failed to meet adequate yearly progress for two years. To escape major restructuring or even dissolution that may come after five years of underachievement, these schools are looking to how they may change or improve their teaching methods, increase professional development opportunities for teachers, and provide supplemental instruction to low-performing students.

Low-performing schools are receiving "makeovers" rather than complete restructuring.

Under NCLB, schools that underperformed for five consecutive years were subject to restructuring. Jennings and Rentner reported that, rather than experiencing state takeovers, transition into a public charter school, or complete dissolution as some anticipated, these schools received a "makeover," which often involved enhancements in the areas of curriculum, staffing, and leadership.

Students began taking more tests. Jennings and Rentner noted that NCLB resulted in students taking more tests than before. Whereas in 2002, fewer than half of the states issued yearly reading and math tests for students in grades 3–8, by 2006 the percentage had risen to 100. Moreover, beginning in the 2007–2008 school year, testing requirements under NCLB extended to science, thus further increasing the number of tests students must take.

Schools increasingly became aware of achievement levels among subgroups of students. Due to NCLB's requirement that schools addressed not only overall academic achievement but also academic achievement among subgroups of students—including students with disabilities, students from low-income families, racial or ethnic minorities, and students learning English—schools devoted additional time and resources to ensuring the educational progress of these identified groups. This factor, however, was not without problems and was a cause for concern among educators and state officials. Many questioned the requirement regarding administering state tests to disabled students and those learning English. For the mentally disabled, educators argued that certain state tests may be inappropriate, while for those learning English, educators questioned the value of administering English and language tests. Jennings and Rentner indicated that while the US Department of Education made certain changes in these areas, many officials and educators believed more changes were needed.

States and school districts began taking more active roles in education but often without necessary federal funding. NCLB resulted in increased requirements for states and local school districts. Among these are ensuring teacher quality, testing to standards, and assisting schools in need. Where requirements were not lacking, however, funding and resources often were, and Jennings and Rentner reported that in 2005, thirty-six of the fifty states indicated insufficient staff to fulfill NCLB requirements. Moreover, 80 percent of school districts indicated two consecutive years of insufficient funds to carry out NCLB mandates.

Criticism

Federal Funding Criticism

Less glowing in his analysis of the flaws of NCLB, Del Stover cited 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 were failing to meet AYP standards. If good schools increasingly failed to meet AYP, Stover indicated, the net effect of these failures would be the loss of credibility of the NCLB legislation. Furthermore, according to Stover, NCLB was 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 was not alone is his criticism of federal funding shortages for NCLB. The National Education Association argued that federal funding fell 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 indicated that NCLB was fully funded.

Mathis explained this discrepancy and examined the different perspectives on "fully funded" that were often utilized in public rhetoric, either to support the assertion that NCLB was fully funded or to deny the same. Among these were the "relative" approach, which looked at funding as an overall percentage of federal appropriation dollars, the "authorization level" approach, which compared actual appropriation levels of funding with authorization levels, and the "money left on the table" approach, which pointed to states' retaining unspent federal education dollars. While Mathis examined these, and three additional approaches, in much greater depth, the notable feature of his work was that it highlighted the semantic tactics utilized both by NCLB supporters and critics in arguing either for or against the reality of full-funding for NCLB.

Methodological Criticisms

While funding and AYP rank high on the list of criticisms of NCLB, they did not complete the list. Educational organizations such as the National Education Association (NEA) also found fault with other NCLB provisions. Among the NEA's specific concerns with NCLB were the following:

• "It imposes invalid one-size-fits-all measures on students, failing to recognize that different children learn in different ways and with different timelines;
• "Its vision of accountability focuses more on punishing children and schools than on giving them the support they need to improve; [and]
• "It favors privatization, rather than teacher-led, family-oriented solutions" (ESEA: It's Time for a Change!).

Federal Criticisms

Criticism of NCLB was not limited to outside organizations, and despite the fact that much of the praise of NCLB came from the federal administration, so, too, did some of the critique. In "Building on Results: A Blueprint for Strengthening The No Child Left Behind Act" (2007), US Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings reviewed five years under NCLB, noted significant accomplishments, and presented recommendations for improvement. Spellings pointed to specific advances in reading and math scores among younger students and a closing of the achievement gap in reading and math between Black and Hispanic nine-year-olds and their White counterparts. At the same time, however, Spellings noted a continual underperformance among late middle and high school students, to the point at which reading scores and math scores among certain students have actually fallen.

Spellings recommended addressing these concerns while not straying from the NCLB's core components. Specifically, Spellings recommended greater efforts to close the achievement gap, better curricula to prepare middle and high-school students to enter postsecondary education or the labor force, flexibility for states to restructure low-performing schools, and options for families.

While few disputed the laudable aims of the No Child Left Behind Act, many questioned the effectiveness of the act.

Obama Administration Blueprint for Revising ESEA

In March 2010, President Obama released A Blueprint for Reform: The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was a revamping of the NCLB law and called for overall changes in the ways in which schools and school districts are judged to be succeeding or failing. The Blueprint also called for the elimination of the NCLB 2014 deadline for academic proficiency. Rather than referring to the Blueprint as a targeting reform of NCLB, the Obama administration described the Blueprint as building “on the significant reforms already made in response to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009” (USDE, 2010). In essence, the Blueprint was a move from the criteria-referenced, proficiency-based system of the NCLB law to a norm-referenced, improvement-centered system. The Blueprint focused on four areas of revision:

• "Improving teach and administrative effectiveness,
• "Providing information to families to help them evaluate and improve their child’s school,
• "Implementing college- and career-ready standards in schools, and
• "Targeting the country’s lowest-performing schools first by providing intensive support and effective interventions."

NCLB Waivers

In August 2011, President Obama ordered Secretary of Education Arne Duncan to continue with plans to offer options to states facing hardship due to proficiency standards of NCLB and their 2014 deadline. As a result, in September 2011, Obama established a formal and approved process by which states could apply for flexibility from some provisions. Known as waivers, states would be allowed to avoid some of the requirements of NCLB without penalty. By February 2012, ten states had been granted waivers on the condition that they “raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential reforms to improve teacher effectiveness” (CNN, 2012). In 2014, forty-three states, the District of Columbia, and eight California CORE (California Office to Reform Education) districts had been granted waivers by the Department of Education. In order to be granted waivers, a state had to agree to and have a plan in place to put into operation the tenants of the President’s Blueprint for Reform of 2010.

Replacement

In 2015, the No Child Left Behind Act was replaced by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA gave states more flexibility in deciding their own standards for measuring schools and student performance than NCLB. It also measured schools success by 4-year and 5-year graduation rates and did not require labels for low-performing schools.

Terms & Concepts

Achievement Gap: The difference between the standardized test performance of low-income and minority students and their peers.

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The minimum progress that states, school districts, and schools must show on the way to achieving full compliance with state academic standards.

Charter School: A publicly funded school that operates independently of the mainstream public school system and is overseen by educators, parents, community leaders, and others.

Highly Qualified Teacher: A state-certified teacher who has a college degree and has demonstrated skillful competency in his or her subject matter.

Local Education Agency (LEA): A public authority, such as a school board, within a state that exercises administrative oversight over public schools within its jurisdiction.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Federal legislation reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for the purpose of improving educational standards and accountability and providing parents with additional options in school choice.

Supplemental Educational Services (SES): Additional education services provided to low-income students who have attended a school that has been underperforming for two years. These services may include tutoring, summer school, and/or other academic help.

Title I: The first section of ESEA. Title I is the portion of NCLB that supports programs intended to assist the most disadvantaged students. Title I funds are distributed to states, which, in turn, distribute them to school districts based on the number of low-income children in each district.

Bibliography

CNN. (2012, February 10). Ten states freed from some ‘No Child Left Behind’ requirements. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from

Coats, L. T., & Xu, J. (2013). No Child Left Behind and outreach to families and communities: The perspectives of exemplary African-American science teachers. Research Papers in Education, 28, 609–627. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

ESEA: It's time for a change!. (n.d.) Retrieved February 23, 2007, from National Education Association

Executive summary of NCLB. (2004). Retrieved February 23, 2007, from

Four pillars of NCLB. (2004). Retrieved February 23, 2007, from

From the capital to the classroom: Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act. (2006). Retrieved February 23, 2007, from Center on Education Policy

History of the federal role in education. (n.d.) Retrieved February 23, 2007, from National Conference of State Legislators

Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools. Phi Delta Kappan, 88, 110-113. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

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, 5–23. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Klein, A., & Superville, D. R. (2014). States mixed on new waiver flexibility for teacher evaluations. Education Week, 34, 17. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Labaree, D. F. (2014). Let’s measure what no one teaches: PISA, NCLB, and the shrinking aims of education. Teachers College Record, 116, 1–14. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Mathis, W. (2005). The cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act: Different assumptions, different answers. PJE. Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 90-119. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

McReynolds, K. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act raises growing concerns. Encounter, 19, 33-36. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

A nation at risk. (1983). National Commission on Excellence in Education. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from

NEA's positive agenda for the ESEA reauthorization. (2006). Retrieved February 23, 2007, from

Polikoff, M. S. (2012). Instructional alignment under No Child Left Behind. American Journal of Education, 118, 341–368. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Questions and answers on No Child Left Behind - Doing what works. (2003). Retrieved

February 23, 2007, from

Smith, E. (2005). Raising standards in American schools: The case of No Child Left Behind. Journal of Education Policy, 20, 507-524. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Stover, D. (2007). NCLB--Act II. American School Board Journal, 194, 20-23. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

US Department of Education. (2007). Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved February 21, 2007. from

US Department of Eduction. (2010). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Retrieved December 21, 2013, from

Suggested Reading

Farstrup, A. (2007). Five years of NCLB: Where do we go from here? Reading Today, 24, 20-20. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Hoff, D. (2007). Bush offers 'blueprint' for NCLB. Education Week, 26, 1-25. Retrieved February 21, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Hoff, D., & Cavanagh, S. (2007). Bush plan would heighten NCLB focus on high school. Education Week, 26, 1-21. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Klein, A. (2007). School board members hit D.C. to weigh in on NCLB. Education Week, 26, 19-20. Retrieved February 23, 2007 from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier.

Koyama, J. P. (2012). Making failure matter: Enacting No Child Left Behind’s standards, accountabilities, and classifications. Educational Policy, 26, 870–891. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Koyama, J. P. (2013). Global scare tactics and the call for US schools to be held accountable. American Journal of Education, 120, 77–99. Retrieved October 8, 2014, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Kyung Eun, J. (2011). Thinking inside the box: Interrogating No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top. KEDI Journal of Educational Policy, 8, 99–121. Retrieved December 20, 2013, from EBSCO Online Database Education Research Complete.

Woestehoff, J. & Neill, M. (2007). Chicago school reform: Lessons for the nation. Retrieved February 23, 2007, from