The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 didn’t just make provisions for who can teach and how learning will be assessed, but also which strategies need to be used to teach course material and aide in professional development. The document mandates that schools use programs and practices that are based on research in order to improve the performance of all students. The term “scientifically based research programs”, which is stated over one hundred times in the 1100 page document, denotes research that involves the application of rigorous, methodical and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities. This term also includes research that employs systematic and empirical methods that draw on observation and testing, justifies conclusions through rigorous data analysis, research that yields reliable results from different experimenters, and designs that are assigned to different conditions with appropriate controls for any given assignment. No Child Left Behind also requires that “scientifically based research” methods have been approved by a peer-reviewed journal or by a panel of independent experts through unbiased review (ECS, 2007). Research meeting this label, which includes only a small portion of the total research conducted in the field of education, and research methods that do not provide evidence of effectiveness are deemed unsuited for the classroom. Teachers and administrators are able to acquire information about which instructional programs and methodologies are considered "research-based" instructional through several government-funded sources. One of these sources, “The Best Evidence Encyclopedia”, published by Johns Hopkins University Center for Data-Driven Reform in Education, outlines which educational programs have been successfully evaluated in valid research including “educator’s summaries” of research and full-text reviews on each topic (Johns Hopkins, 2007).
No Child Left Behind also established provisions so that the parents of students in schools that are not meeting adequate yearly progress (AYP) are able to be educated elsewhere. Schools that are identified as needing improvement are required to provide students with the opportunity to take advantage of public school choice no later than the beginning of the school year following the time the school was identified as needing improvement. Since the authorization the NCLB provision known as “public school choice”, Congress has appropriated a significant increase in funding of Title I aid in order to provide funding for various schools to implement these parental choice requirements. Students from low-income families who remain in Title I schools that fail to meet state standards for at least three years are eligible to receive these supplemental educational services. In these circumstances, local education agencies are required to provide school choice and supplemental education services in order to continue receiving federal aid. Failing schools must also provide annual notice to parents of eligible children about the availability of services and information on the approved providers. To ensure that these supplemental education services are being held to the same accountability standards as the schools, service providers are required to submit progress reports to both the parents and the student’s school. In the 2004-2005 school year about one percent of students eligible for public school choice utilized the opportunity to receive supplemental education services of some kind (Spellings, 2007).
One of the biggest goals of the Bush Administration’s No Child Left Behind Act is to finally give some long needed interest to the schools that are struggling the most, creating common expectations for all and paying particular attention to inner-city schools in constant socioeconomic struggle. Schools that are not meeting the requirements set by No Child Left Behind are now being held accountable, and those in favor of the law make a point to highlight the schools that have finally reversed a long record of failure. One such story is that of M. Hall Stanton Elementary in one of the most crime-infested parts of Philadelphia. Just five years ago in 2002, only 12% of Stanton's fifth-graders were reading at grade level, and the 3rd and 4th graders were engaged in what teachers referred to as "gang wars." By 2006, 70% of fifth-graders were proficient readers, and the school was a model of respectability and learning, achieving its AYP goals three years in a row without taking any valuable time away from art, music or social studies. Stanton’s ability to achieve such high scores without taking time away from the arts and humanities is what makes this accomplishment so significant (Wallis, 2007). Many teachers who are critical about No Child Left Behind argue that high-stakes testing places too much focus on test material and takes away from the wider range of more practical lessons, but success at Stanton seems to suggest otherwise. Today, Stanton Elementary continues to thrive, and many attribute that success to No Child Left Behind’s emphasis on accountability. Not many people likes to think about the fate of failing schools that continue to founder. Under NCLB, such schools face vigorous interventions. If they miss Annual Yearly progress for two years in a row, they must offer students the right of public school choice. After three years, they must provide supplemental education and tutoring services. If the school continues to fail for five years, NCLB mandates that the school must be restructured, which could mean finding a new staff, converting the school to a charter school, having the state or another private institution take the reins, or some other form of intervention (Wallis, 2007).
Many parents and educators argue that the methods in which No Child Left Behind deals with failure are harsh and ineffective. In 2004, 1.4 million students were eligible for tutoring and only 17% of them were given any assistance. The following year, about 3.9 million students were eligible for public school choice and only about 1% took advantage of the opportunity. The president of the National Council on Teacher Quality, Kate Walsh, says the reason for these statistics is because in cities such as Baltimore, “the vast majority [of them] aren’t schools where anyone who has a choice would want to send their kid.” And as for the 2,000 American public schools that have failed to meet Annual Yearly Progress for five years in a row, the options available seem least effective. Most schools are only subjected to minor adjustments, because the more radical options stated in NCLB are impractical and expensive. Diane Ravitch, an educational research professor at New York University states "None of these remedies have any basis in reality or research.” Others argue that the estimated $600 million a year now spent on state testing programs could be used to improve instruction in schools that are in need of the most educational assistance (Wallis, 2007).
Those in favor of No Child Left Behind claim first and foremost that test scores in reading and math have improved nationwide based on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results since the law was instated in 2001. In the past, others have felt that local governments have failed students by showing satisfaction in the face of failure and going directly to providing federal intervention when teachers were teaching out of their subject area. The establishment of standards prevents these local governments from continually overlooking failure (Mizell, 2007). New York State had also voiced support for NCLB provisions, arguing that local standards had failed to provide sufficient oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow data that has developed over time to be more effectively used to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (Bennett, 2005). Claims are also made in criticism of the act, arguing that schools categorized as failing will tend to “resort to using proprietary curricula, testing, and tutoring programs from certain companies who have long business relationships with President Bush, namely McGraw Hill and Reading First” (Ohanian 2007). Bush has also recommended tutors and educational services related to religious-based institutions, which some believe violates the idea of separation of church and state. Others claim that because accountability is so high, many schools are manipulating test scores in order to make it appear that they are doing better, which has in turn neglected yielded negative consequences for over 2 million students (Dobbs 2004). Criticisms against standardized testing suggest that the tests are culturally biased and unavailable in languages other than English for English-language learners. And during a time when war is a large concern for Americans and at the forefront of government policy, many feel that it is inappropriate that the NCLB bill has been utilized to enforce that schools give the same access to military recruiters as they do to recruiters from colleges.
In light of the many criticisms of No Child Left Behind, the bill will be up for reevaluation later this year (2007). The Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor and religious groups that have signed on to a statement that calls for major revisions to the federal education law. Some of the Commissions recommendations include moving beyond status quo, fair and accurate assessment for student progress, and ensuring that high schools prepare students for college as well as the workplace (Joint Org. Statement, 2004). Senator Edward Kennedy and Congressman George Miller are currently sorting through a seemingly never-ending number of proposals to address AYP's shortcomings (and provide a fuller picture of school quality), monotonous state standards, curriculum narrowing, remedies for failing schools, and issues concerning the law's requirement for a "qualified teacher" in every classroom. It is also important to possibly reconsider funding formulas so that schools in poor neighborhoods have the resources to address their weaknesses and, most importantly, afford to hire experienced teachers. This is the best way to address the achievement gap between rich and poor (Wallis, 2007). Alfie Kohn, a writer and educational critic, argues that NCLB may be too destructive to salvage and that the entire bill should be discarded (Kohn, 2007). Nevertheless, Miller and Kennedy hope to pass a new and improved version of the law by year's end, and it is important to realize that making progress in the areas that NCLB wishes to address may take time, effort, and several revisions of educational policy.
Work Cited
Aspen Institute, (2007). Comission on no child left behind. Retrieved October 30, 2007,
from The Aspen Institute Web site: http://www.aspeninstitute.org/
Bennett, R.M. (2005). Federal Legislation and Education in New York State. Retrieved
October 30, 2007, from NYS Education Department Web site:
http://www.oms.nysed.gov/legcoord/fedleg05/body.html#no%20ch
Bush, G. W. (2002). High qualified teachers and paraprofessionals seminar. Retrieved
October 29, 2007, from United States Department of Education Web site:
http://www.ed.gov/admins/tchrqual/learn/hqt/edlite-slide016.html
Johns Hopkins C.D.D.R.E. (2007). About B.E.E. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from Best
Evidence Encyclopedia Web site: http://www.bestevidence.org
ECS Writer. (2007). How state leaders shape the education policy. Retrieved October 30,
2007, from Education Commission of the States Web site: htto://www.ecs.org
Joint Organizational Statement, (2004, October 21). Joint org. statement on NCLB.
Retrieved October 30, 2007, from Fair Test Web site: http://www.fairtest.org/
Lemann, N. (2002, March, 28). The president's big test. Frontline: Testing Our
Schools, Retrieved October 29, 2007, from http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/
frontline/shows/schools/nochild/lemann.html
Mizell, Hayes (2003, April 25). NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity?.
Retrieved October 30, 2007, from The Mizell Hayes Reader Web site:
http://www.middleweb.com/HMnclb.html
Ohanian, S. (2007, February 18). NCLB as an anti-poverty measure. Retrieved October
30, 2007, from Susan Ohanian Speaks Out Web site: http://susanohanian.org
Paris, K. (1994). Summary of goals 2000. Retrieved October 29, 2007, from North
Central Regional Educational Laboratory Web site: http://www.ncrel.org/sdrs/areas/issues/envrnmnt/stw/sw0goals.htm
Spellings, M. (2005, October, 21). Key policy letters signed by the secretary of
education. US Department of Education, Retrieved October 29, 2007, from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/secletter/051021.html
Spellings, M. (2007). Choice and supplemental education services: Frequently Asked
Questions. Retrieved October 30, 2007, from U.S. Department of Education Web
site: http://www.ed.gov/parents/schools/choice/choice.html#8
Spellings, M. (2006).Improving teacher quality. US Department of Education.
Wallis, C. (2007, May 24). How to fix no child left behind. Time Magazine.
