Andrew Dombrowski

EPSY 3110W
6 March 2013
No Child Left Behind Act
One of the most controversial issues in the United States education system came to a
head in 2001 with the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act. It was passed by U.S. Congress
and became law on January 8th, 2002. The act requires states to provide basic skills assessments
to students at select grade levels. If states do not meet this requirement they will lose their
federal school funding. The act does not provide a national achievement standard, but rather the
standards are set by individual states. The act requires that all public schools, in order to receive
funding, must administer state-wide standardized tests annually. In addition, schools receiving
Title 1 funding that stems from the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 must also prove
Adequate Yearly Progress. This means that a schools specific grade level must improve on their
standardized testing scores than that same grade level of the year before. If these scores are
repeatedly poor then actions are taken to improve the school. NCLB has expanded the role of
the federal government in public education through annual testing, annual academic progress,
report cards, teacher qualifications, and funding changes. ("No child left," 2008)
The NCLB act has both positive and negative aspects associated with it which in turn has
led to both support and opposition to it. Supporters point to the fact that the bill places more
responsibility on the schools and teachers on how well or poorly their students perform. If the
testing results consistently fail to meet the standards schools face a risk of a loss of funding and
teachers of losing their jobs. (Harper, 2005) This idea serves as a way to measure how well
teachers are performing at their jobs. NCLB places a high emphasis on reading, writing and

math. It also measures educational status and growth by ethnicity. This helps close the
achievement gap between white and minority students. It also places extra emphasis on students
that are commonly overlooked such as students with disabilities, ELL students, and minority
students. Another positive is that parents receive annual reports on their childrens achievement
of the previous school year.
Some of the same aspects of the act that supporters praise can also be viewed as
negatives. Opponents of the bill feel that punishing schools by reducing funding will only make
it more difficult for that school to improve in the future. Opponents also disagree with the
increased accountability of teachers. They feel that a teacher can only control so much of how
their students perform and that bad test scores should not directly reflect and serve as the sole
measurement of how efficient they are as educators. A major con of the act is that schools have
been grossly underfunded at the state level which makes reaching a schools goals more difficult
and thus at risk of even less funding by the federal government.
One of the biggest problems brought up is the idea of teaching to the test. Teachers,
knowing they are being evaluated based on the scores of the standardized tests, may tend to take
a biased route to what they teach in their classrooms in hopes of having their students succeed on
the standardized test. Another problem with the tests is the fact states set their own standards and
can therefore set the standards very low ensuring that every student meets the goal. They also
argue that the test is unfair to students with disabilities and ELL students. ("Care to Vote ," 2008)
The numbers show that schools Adequate Yearly Progress has steadily improved and the
achievement has closed between whites and minorities. ("No child left," 2008) However it is
challenging to read into these numbers because they may be skewed due to teaching to the test.

Students average test scores have increased since the act was implemented, but controversy
continues to arise around if students are being taught a well-rounded education.
It is difficult for there to truly be no child left behind. The goal for the act is 100 percent
of students to reach the same standards for math and reading by 2014, but it can be argued that
this just is not possible. The assessment, in fact, uses the numbers of 95% of students which is
still a very high percentage to expect. Many variables go into this such as varying school
districts, student potential, and special education students. Not all students develop at the same
speed thus making the goal of every student reaching the standard unrealistic.
The act remains one of the most debated in the education system. There have been ideas
proposed for revisions to the bill while others want the act scrapped altogether. President Obama
has proposed a $3 billion increase in the federal education budget to help schools with the high
demands of the act. Obama also wants accountability punishments to be lessoned and replaced
with more emphasis on student improvement. His administration has also proposed that states
increase their academic standards after a so-called dumbing-down period. (Harper, 2005) After
this period the focus should shift to re-classifying schools that fail to meet goal and to develop a
new evaluation process for teachers and educators. In 2012, President Obama granted over half
the states waivers from NCLB requirements. He stated that "In exchange for that flexibility,
those states 'have agreed to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential
reforms to improve teacher effectiveness. ("Care to Vote," 2008) While much is up in the air
when it comes to No Child Left Behind, one thing does seem to be certain; its going to be part
of the education system in the United States for years to come.

Works Cited

Care to Vote. (2008, 02 17). Retrieved from

http://www.carleton.edu/departments/educ/vote/pages/pros_and-cons.html

Harper, L. (2005, August 21). PBS Newshour. Retrieved from

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/indepth_coverage/education/no_child/impact.html

No Child Left Behind. (2008, April). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml