NCLB: Moving Forward

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a phrase that evokes quite a varied range of reactions from people, particularly those in the field of education. NCLB of course is the federal legislation signed into law in 2002 with bipartisan support. This legislation was enacted to improve student performance in the public schools in general, and also to close the achievement gap among at-risk students, such as ethnic minorities, those living in poverty and special needs students by 2013.
Some of the primary components of NCLB include focusing on employing more highly qualified teachers, and state developed standardized tests (measuring basic skills such as math and reading) to progress monitor student achievement in each public school district. All schools that receive title 1 federal funding are required to make adequate yearly progress (AYP), meaning their standardized test scores must continue to improve every year measured against standards developed individually by each state. If the districts do not make AYP, then there is a series of consequences depending on how many consecutive school-years this occurs. Consequences range from the district being required to develop and implement an improvement plan to an entire restructuring of the school.
Many proponents of NCLB praise its emphasis on accountability and standards for the education system. The standardized testing and content used is very objective and has led to a more uniformed curriculum standard nationally. Proponents of NCLB also maintain that by closing the achievement gap among at-risk students, NCLB will further democratize the nation’s education system. According to National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005 current data does indicate that national math and reading scores are rising and the achievement gap is closing. Some critics however argue about how representative of the whole country these scores are and also how much these results are actually related to NCLB. NCLB has also led to more active leadership from state governments within their public schools as well as led to an emphasis on higher standards for teachers.
Critics argue that NCLB relies too heavily on just one standardized measure. They argue that teachers are now just “teaching to the test”. Also because states can set their own standards many argue that these standards vary greatly with some states creating easier tests to avoid federal sanctions. Critics also maintain that using only standardized testing as an outcome measure is a “one size fits all” solution, which is inappropriate for student subgroups such as limited-English proficient students and special education students. Another criticism includes that the federal legislation takes away from state and local rights in educating their students. Many critics also maintain that NCLB is severely underfunded leaving schools to make cuts in non-tested subjects such as science and social studies in order to pay for NCLB mandates. Other criticisms include that NCLB has increased the national teacher shortage and completely ignores the gifted students in our schools.
Clearly in reviewing the pros and cons, the basic premise of NCLB seems necessary. It is apparent, however that the planning and execution of NCLB were severely flawed. At the heart of this issue seems to be that it has been underfunded, leading to unintended consequences at schools and even a lawsuit against the federal government by the national teachers union. NCLB also does not acknowledge the reality of basic neuropsychological research, which identifies many other factors in student learning, such as genetics and socioeconomic status. Ultimately standardized testing should be only one piece of the assessment procedure, including a method more clearly linked to teacher contributuions. As with any best-practice assessment, multiple measures should be used in order to help parcel out teacher contributions and preexisting student issues. Finally, some research has found high stakes testing is effective at contributing to positive student change, though punitive nature of NCLB demoralizes teachers compromising gains in the long run. A more positive approach to raising teacher efforts should be employed utilizing reinforcement, similar to the way we would program for the students we are educating.

By: Rich Allen

Educational Research Newsletter
http://www.ernweb.com/public/892.cfm
Major court ruling on No Child Left Behind: States and school districts not required to spend own funds to comply with law.
Dillon, Erin & Rotherham, Andy. "States' Evidence: What It Means to Make 'Adequate Yearly Progress' Under NCLB"
http://www.nea.org/lawsuit/nr080107.html?
http://articles.massivelinks.com/education-5/no-child-left-behind-pros-and-cons-981/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act