NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT

Can Federal Initiatives Rescue Failing Schools?

Can Federal Initiatives Rescue Failing Schools?

Introduction

The “No Child Left Behind (NCLB)” Act is a complex and controversial federal educational reform initiative that was signed into law in 2002. It was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. NCLB dramatically increased federal mandates and requirements on states and public school districts and schools. In fact, NCLB represented the most significant expansion in U.S. history of the federal government into education. At the same time, NCLB gave states a great deal of flexibility in determining how they will implement much of the law. Andrew Rotherham (2002) is an advocate that schools should be held accountable by the federal government. As a part of this federal plan, states should assist school in establishing academic standard as well as tools, or tests, to use as measurements assessing progress towards accomplishing the academic standards. Rotherham (2002) does not deny that the ESEA of 1994 failed, and even points out the reasons it failed: vague language, varying state interpretation, loose implementation, and lax enforcement of consequences. His defense, however, is that the 1994 ESEA was a pilot. Reaction to a failed pilot is to learn from the errors; enhance and strengthen the design, not abandon it all together (Rotherham, 2002).

In fact, Rothernam (2002) illustrates that Texas was able to implement an accountability system that demanded progress be shown in the state as a whole in student learning, as well as among disadvantaged students (poor, minority, disability). Texas' success demonstrated that accountability systems can work. However, it is critical to point out that this state implemented the accountability system on its own accord, and most state have not taken steps to implement an accountability system. Therefore, a federally mandated system is required in order to improve student learning, and the mandated accountability system is ineffective unless consequences are implemented, as well. If federal funds to states and schools are dependent upon the improvement of students' scores in tests, the states and schools will have more incentive to follow the federal mandate (Rotherham, 2002).

Discussion and Analysis

Peter Schrag (2004) contends that it is problematic to layer a federal accountability system on top of an existing state accountability system. With the ESEA of 1994, many states interpreted the language and implemented standards for student learning and testing. Under the newer education reform, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), states are again responsible to interpret the language speaking to improvement, and are setting state thresholds for standards (Schrag, 2004).

The NCLB calls for states to be responsible for implementing measures and reports. Two years of failing the threshold will result in the intervention strategies for the school in an “improvement program.” In addition, students enrolled in a school labeled for the improvement program have the option of transferring to better performing school. NCLB further calls for “highly-qualified teacher” to be placed in every classroom. The primary purpose of NCLB was to ensure that students in public schools achieved important learning ...