No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind

Introduction

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is the most significant and controversial change in federal education policy since the federal government assumed a major role in education in the 1960s. It expands the federal role in education, requires states to develop and implement a test-based accountability system based on criteria established by the federal government, and specifies a timeline for when students must demonstrate proficiency as measured by reading and mathematics assessments. For those schools not meeting the state-defined proficiency criteria, the law contains funding set asides and sanctions based on theories of competition as a strategy for school reform. To meet these requirements, it promises large increases in federal aid.

Discussion

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Since its inception in 1965, Title I of the ESEA has embodied the federal government's commitment to providing compensatory educational services for economically disadvantaged schools and districts and has served as the primary vehicle for improving educational opportunities for low-income students (Fuller, et al, 2006). NCLB continues this commitment and intends to close “the achievement gaps between high- and low-performing children, especially the achievement gap between minority and nonminor-ity students, and between disadvantaged children and their more advantaged peers”. In this regard, NCLB differs from previous reau-thorizations of ESEA by requiring all schools and districts to implement a single statewide accountability system that requires equal educational outcomes.

President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into law on January 8, 2002, declaring a new era in U.S. public education. The legislation enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the post-September 11, 2001, context. Since then, support has eroded and the policy has been criticized on many fronts.

While NCLB is revolutionary in some respects, it also contributes to a long history of attempts to address educational disparities evident in U.S. public schools. These disparities—also referred to as the “achievement gap”—show white and Asian students generally outperforming their African American and Latino/a counterparts and students from wealthier communities outperforming those from poorer ones. The root cause of this “gap” has been variously attributed to poverty, racism, discrimination (Hess and Michael, 2006), inequitable resource distribution, poorly managed schools, unqualified teachers, and low expectations.

NCLB reauthorized and renamed legislation that had been in place since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Under ESEA, federal resources were tunneled into economically disadvantaged school districts for compensatory educational services. Education was seen as a tool for combating poverty and diminishing institutional barriers.

A fundamental shift in thinking is traceable to a report entitled “A Nation at Risk” issued in 1983 during the Reagan administration. The report alleged that U.S. public schools were tolerating mediocrity and urged states to take action. It shifted the focus from “inputs” (such as resources) and began to focus on “outputs,” which placed emphasis on testing to ensure that performance standards were being met. Funding was linked to higher expectations and greater ...