Nclb Act Pros And Cons

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was signed into law on January 8, 2002 by President George W. Bush. The NCLB Act of 2001 reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education ACT (ESEA) and is considered to be the biggest and most significant revision to the education policy of the United States since 1965. While the NCLB Act is a historical piece of legislation that will forever change the education of public schools its history and main purpose was initiated decades before. The origins on the NCLB act of 2001 can be found in public cases and legislation starting with highly publicized cases such as Brown v. Board of Education (1954). Brown v. Board of Education (1954) outlawed segregation in public schools (U.S. Dept. Ed., 2004).
Additionally, NCLB Act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) (1965), which was initiated in 1965 by President Lyndon B. Johnson and was the original overhaul of the nation’s public schools (U.S. Dept. Ed., 2004; Guis, 2012). To date the NCLB Act of 2001 is the first federal legislation mandating educational standards and the largest by far, taking a precedent setting step, because until this time all educational matters were previously handled by state authorities (Hursh, 2007).
By far the need for change was one that resonated throughout the House and the Senate, rallying bipartisan support in numbers never seen in the legislative process. The NCLB act was highly advocated by a Senate committee headed by Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts (D), and Senator Judd Gregg of New Hampshire (R). Primary supporters in Congress included Congressman George Miller, a democrat from California, and Congressman John Boehner a republican representative of
Ohio. The NCLB Act of 2001 was the first of its kind that made a point to hold failing schools accountable to meet required educational standards of students, to close the ever widening achievement gap between Whites and minorities and most of all improve the quality of education to disadvantaged students (Hursh, 2007). The NCLB act provided the crucial link between federal ESEA Title I educational funding to state educational performance and standards (Guis, 2012). While the scope and purpose of the NCLB Act is fully stated, the underlying need and research that led to this educational overhaul is often left unstated. The educational state of America’s youth was highlighted in a report submitted by the National Commission on Excellence in Education in 1983.
According to this report 13 percent of all 17-year-olds in the United States can be classified as being functionally illiterate (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983). Additionally, 40 percent of minority youth were functionally illiterate and SAT scores were consistently declining (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983). The final report of the National Commission on Excellence in Education set forth recommendations for the improvement of the U.S. educational system in a report entitled A Nation at Risk. According to A Nation at Risk (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983 as cited by Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003) the federal educational system was in need of reform that provided “the best effort and performance from all students, whether they are gifted or less able, affluent or disadvantaged, whether destined for college, the farm, or industry” (U.S. Dept. Ed., 1983 as cited by Jorgensen & Hoffman,
2003). As a result of this report the ESEA was passed in 1956. The ESEA provided monetary support to schools throughout the nation without setting standards for schools to provide certain educational measures in return. Additional revisions included the Improving America’s Schools Act (IADA) were made by President Bill Clinton in 1994. The IADA requires to states in order to receive a Title I funding to administer test academic performance and develop plans to schools not making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (U.S. Dept. Ed., 2010). The IADA was additionally revised by President Bush who added sanctions for states not meeting AYP must submit a plan for improvement and provide students with an option to transfer to schools that are within the required limits of AYP (U.S. Dept. Ed., 2010). Essentially IADA required that the standards and accountability be the same for all children and provided a large stream of Title I funding to schools making AYP and restructuring schools who are not. The present day NCLB Act while providing over $150 million to school and educational improvement within the first six years of its enactment has been met with many praises, and improvements but still showing the need for improvement and alignment of standards across multiple states. Many states have varying methods of establishing AYP-together and state proficiency requirements vary as well causing the proportion of schools requiring improvements are considerably different from state to state (Goertz, 2001). Additional opponents of the NCLB state that it has actually lowered educational standards, causing an obsession with students “teaching the test” rather than focusing on genuine educational goals due to the higher standards to obtain federal educational funding (Imazeki and Reschovsky, 2004 as cited by Hursh 2007). Still other critics such as research submitted by Duncombe, Lukemeyer, and Yinger, (2008) state that the standards required by the Federal government are to high and the money provided to obtain those goals too low to possible meet the standards in a timely and complete fashion. In contrast to the information submitted by Duncombe the U.S. Department of Education’s data shows that Title I spending increased by 40.8 percent between 2001 to 2008 (U.S. Dept. Ed., 2010 as cited by Guis, 2012). Involvement in NCLB is voluntary, but states that refuse to comply loose all Federal funding. Those choosing to participate have an increased per student expenditure in order to meet the requirements of Title I funding (Guis, 2012). Guis (2012) conducted state-level research into the educational expenditures needed in order comply with NCLB versus the amount of Title I funding actually received. According to Guis (2012) from 1987 to 2007 NCLB significantly impacted public school spending at the state-level with an increase in expenses of almost $10 billion dollars which was quite more than the increase in federal discretionary educational spending from 2002-2007.
Additional issues with standardized test give support to the supposed “failure of NCLB”. According to Hursh (2007) AYP does not provide useful information as to whether a school is making satisfactory progress towards overall improvement and it often punishes urban schools with higher poverty levels. Student test scores usually correlate with a family’s income, therefore tests in lower income schools are significantly lower than middle class areas, not reflecting adequately on curriculums being taught or student achievement (Hursh, 2007). Additionally, standardized tests are unreliable in determining student learning and NCLB causes a narrowing of curriculum and a resulting disconnect between education and a child’s everyday life, interests, and culture (Hursh, 2007).
Adding to the opposition of NCLB, the biggest occurred January 7. 2008 as the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled, 2-1, that it was an unlawful unfunded mandate. This ruling came in the Pontiac School District et al. v. Secretary of the United States Department of Education (2008) ruled that the NCLB law does not clearly state the liabilities states incur and is not clear if the state must pay additional costs associated with compliance with NCLB (). As a result of the ambiguity of the law stats cannot rely make an informed decision as to whether or not to participate in NCLB and accepting the associated the federal funding. Regardless of the state-level opposition and political criticisms, the advancements and improvements of NCLB cannot be overshadowed. Since NCLB took effect in 2002 student test scores have continued to increase, with those of minority being of the greatest increase over the past ten years (NAEP, 2004). The overall achievement gap between White and minority students has decreased between 1999 and 2004 (NAEP, 2004). Additional national standards note that the nation is on track to reach its foal of universal grade level proficiency in math and reading by 2014 (NAEP, 2004).
While there is still some debate in the overall teacher effectiveness upon "teaching the test” and the ever present achievement gap still exists there are advancements and improves to the U.S. educational system that gives credit to the NCLB act. The focus on math and reading proficiency has allowed for minority children to perform at higher rates than before. There s still a gap between affluent White children and minorities the gap is decreasing and accountability efforts are causing state and local school systems to frequently test and identify children and schools in need of improvement and make adequate and meaningful progress towards a nation wide standard for reading and writing grade level competency.