No Child Left Behind and Its Effects on Urban School Districts
No Child Left Behind and Its Impact on Urban School Districts
No Child Left Behind and Its Impact on Urban School Districts
Introduction
The purpose of this discussion is to assess the effects that the “No Child Left Behind” act has had on school districts (and the students in those school districts) across the nation, particularly urban school districts, with an emphasis on the effect it has had on minorities, especially African Americans.
Overview of No Child Left Behind
In 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (referred to as NCLB throughout this discussion) in order to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002). In particular NCLB was meant to address the achievement gap separating minorities and non-minorities (NCLB, 2002). NCLB is a continuation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (NCLB, 2002). The foundation of NCLB rests on four factors: accountability, increased local control, research-based instructional approaches, and parental choice (Knaus, 2007).
Under NCLB, schools which receive federal funding (Title I funds) must make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP), or be subject to consequences. Title I is a federal grant program aimed at high-poverty, low-achieving schools. AYP is primarily measured by standardized test scores of students in grades 3-12. For AYP to be met, a certain percentage of students in each subgroup must prove themselves proficient on standardized tests. Subgroups are based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Although the subgroups tracked vary by state, the most common are White, African American, Latino, Asian, Native American, economically disadvantaged, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and students with disabilities. When AYP is not met for two consecutive years, the school is classified as “in need of improvement,” and are required to take additional steps to help meet standards (Great
No Child Left Behind and Its Impact on Urban School Districts
Introduction
The purpose of this discussion is to assess the effects that the “No Child Left Behind” act has had on school districts (and the students in those school districts) across the nation, particularly urban school districts, with an emphasis on the effect it has had on minorities, especially African Americans.
Overview of No Child Left Behind
In 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (referred to as NCLB throughout this discussion) in order to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2002). In particular NCLB was meant to address the achievement gap separating minorities and non-minorities (NCLB, 2002). NCLB is a continuation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (NCLB, 2002). The foundation of NCLB rests on four factors: accountability, increased local control, research-based instructional approaches, and parental choice (Knaus, 2007).
Under NCLB, schools which receive federal funding (Title I funds) must make “adequate yearly progress” (AYP), or be subject to consequences. Title I is a federal grant program aimed at high-poverty, low-achieving schools. AYP is primarily measured by standardized test scores of students in grades 3-12. For AYP to be met, a certain percentage of students in each subgroup must prove themselves proficient on standardized tests. Subgroups are based on ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Although the subgroups tracked vary by state, the most common are White, African American, Latino, Asian, Native American, economically disadvantaged, Limited English Proficiency (LEP), and students with disabilities. When AYP is not met for two consecutive years, the school is classified as “in need of improvement,” and are required to take additional steps to help meet standards (Great
References: Bell, A. L., & Meinelt, K. A. (2011). A Past, Present, and Future Look at No Child Left Behind. Human Rights, 38(4), 11-14. Carroll, M. (2008). Educating expelled student after no child left behind: Mending an incentive structure that discourages alternative education and reinstatement. UCLA Law Review, 55(6), 1909-1969. Forte, E. (2010). Examining the assumptions underlying the NCLB federal accountability policy on school improvement. Educational Psychologist, 45(2), 76-88. doi: 10.1080/00461521003704738 Freeman, E Great Schools. (2013). No child left behind (NCLB) requirements for schools. Retrieved from http://www.greatschools.org/definitions/nclb/nclb.html#implement Jennings, J Kozol, J. (2005). The shame of the nation: The restoration of apartheid schooling in america. New York: Crown. Lagana-Riordan, C., & Aguilar, J Leung, R. (2009, February 11). The ‘texas miracle.’ CBS News. Retrieved from http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500164_162-591676.html Losen, D.J., & Skiba, R.J O’Rourke, A.V. (2008). Picking up the pieces after PICS: Evaluating current efforts to narrow the education gap. Harvard Latino Law Review, 11, 263-278. United States Department of Education. (2009). NAEP 2008 trends in academic progress. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/main2008/2009479.asp Usher, A Webley, K. (2012). Why It 's time to replace no child left behind. Time, 179(3), 40-44.