More help for Title I schools and students (non-performing schools have to provide supplementary services to students if
adequate yearly progress (YP) is not met for 3 consecutive years)
Ability for students to attend another school in district who has met AYP (non-performing school for 2 years)
NCLB puts more emphasis on real world skills (reading, writing, math)
Achievement Gap
Negatives of NCLB Students
Teaching to the test
Standardized tests
Achievement Gap
Students held to same achievement standards (dictated by state), regardless of ability level, socioeconomic status, and
native language
NCLB puts more emphasis on real world skills (reading, writing, math)
Benefits and Negatives of NCLB
Teachers
Benefits:
Updated training
Teacher qualifications
High expectations
Pay Incentives
Negatives:
Transparency (Assessment data disseminated to parents, informing them of student and school progress)
Ability to ask school district for educational information regarding teachers credentialing
Negatives:
Funding
More help for Title I schools and students (non-performing schools have to provide supplementary services to students
if adequate yearly progress (AYP) is not for 3 consecutive years)
Federal funding
In researching benefits and negatives of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 for students, teachers, families, and
school districts, there are many contradictory statistics. These contradictory statistics make it difficult to assess
whether or not the NCLB Act of 2001 was effective or not; however, it is clear that reform is needed.
The NCLB act is not perfect, yet not wholly flawed either. The purpose behind the act is to improve the education of all
American students, noble, to say the least. Some of NCLBs aspects work, particularly its focus to improve the
education of minority students. Other aspects do not including, how achievement is measured, how schools are
restructured and what makes a teacher highly qualified. Other parts of NCLB have also gathered strong criticisms
including the use of a single test to measure achievement and the shift of curriculum from liberal arts to reading and
writing, the focus of NCLB. The most important aspect of NCLB is that it has brought attention to the state of education
in its entirety (Kolodziej, 2011).
Proposals for Reform
NCLB WAIVERS
September 2011 U.S. Department of Education came up with idea to grant certain states waivers that will allow
for flexibility from the provisions set in the No Child Left Behind ( NCLB ) Laws.
Waivers granted flexibility to the states on how and when they achieved certain goals and requirements of the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Law. It also offered flexibility in terms of how the federal education funds were
implemented.
Waivers are especially appealing to low-performing schools who were looking for more reasonable achievement
targets and who wanted more influence in terms of intervention strategies that would more effective for their
school.
To date; 43 states, The District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico have received waivers.
One year waiver extensions have also been provided allowing schools more time to meet the conditions of the
waivers. 35 states thus far have utilized the waiver to improve student achievement levels and address other
problematic areas.
Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind is still a controversial issue in Congress. Waivers offer a quick remedy
but not an overall resolution.
Proposals for Reform
Waiver Provisions
Transition curriculum to college and career-ready standards
Develop an effective way to measure different performance levels of schools
Hold low-performing schools accountable for making improvements needed ( but will still provide support )
Teacher and principal evaluations to be completed based on student achievement
1. Schools must adhere to provisions of the waiver otherwise will be held accountable.
2. One year waiver extensions have been offered allowing schools more time to meet waiver standards.
3. Washington is first state that has failed to be granted an extension and will lose waiver. Subject to loss of $40
million in federal Title 1 funding and will now be labeled as failing to meet proficiency levels required.
4. CORE ( California Office to Reform Education )- eight large California school districts that combined to form
CORE. Applied as one entity to receive unique one-year NCLB waiver. Sacramento district withdrew in protest of
its provision to base teacher evaluations on student test scores. Will now have to return back to provisions of
NCLB law. Anticipated cost is $4 million to help underachieving students now reach academic proficiency.
Proposals for Reform
NCLB FUTURE ENDEAVORS:
http://www.educationnews.org/education-policy-and-politics/naep-scores-has-nclb-
helped-close-achievement-gaps/#sthash.f8DsYr7B.dpuf
Bush, G. W. (2001, February). No Child Left Behind [Electronic version]. U.S. Department Of Education, 1-26
CQ Press. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Is the law improving student performance? The CQ Researcher, 15(20), 473.
Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and
schools [PDF]. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 149-207. Retrieved from http://www.brookings.
edu/~/media/Projects/BPEA/Fall%202010/2010b_bpea_dee.PDF
Dillon, S. (2009). No Child Law Is Not Closing a Racial Gap. New York Times. Retrieved from
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/29/education/29scores.html?_r=0
References
Edwards, H. S. (2015). Leaving Tests Behind. Time, 185(5), 28.
Fisanick, C. (Ed.). (2008). Has No Child Left Behind been good for education? Farmington Hills,MN: Greenhaven Press.
Guisbond, L., & National Center for Fair & Open Testing, (. (2012). NCLB's Lost Decade for Educational Progress: What Can
We Learn from this Policy Failure?. National Center For Fair & Open Testing (Fairtest),
Irons, J.E., & Harris, S. (2007). The challenges of No Child Left Behind: Understanding the issues of excellence,
accountability, and choice. Lanham, MD: The Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group, Inc. p. 38 as seen in ESSAI, Vol
New American Foundation. (2014). Federal Education Budget Project. Retrieved from
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-act-title-i-school- funding-equity-factor
Phelps, R. (2011). "The Effect of Testing on Achievement: Meta-Analyses and Research Summary, 19102010, Nonpartisan
Education Review
References
Posey, L. (2014). No Waiver Left Behind: States welcome more flexibility in meeting the challenging requirements of No Child
Schulte, A. C., & Stevens, J. J. (2015). Once, Sometimes, or Always in Special Education: Mathematics Growth and
TA&.D Network. (2012). Historical state-level IDEA data files: Part B data and notes: 2004-2011
Understanding the No Child Left Behind Act Mathematics and Science [Electronic version]. (2007 ). Learning Point
Associates, 1-16.
Vu, P. (2008). "Do State Tests Make the Grade?, Retrieved from http://www.stateline.org