no child is left behind essay

No Child Left Behind: An Overview

• Share article

When most people think about the No Child Left Behind Act, they think of two things: former President George W. Bush, and standardized testing. But the politics, policy, and history of the law are far more complicated than that.

UPDATE: NCLB has been replaced. For information about the latest education law, read our explainer on ESSA, the Every Student Succeeds Act .

The No Child Left Behind law—the 2002 update of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act—effectively scaled up the federal role in holding schools accountable for student outcomes.

In December 2015, Congress passed the Every Student Succeeds Act to replace NCLB. ESSA moved in the opposite direction—it seeks to pare back the federal role in K-12 education. For more information on ESSA, read this explainer . See also our full coverage of ESSA and what it means for states and school districts.

NCLB was the product of a collaboration between civil rights and business groups, as well as both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill and the Bush administration, which sought to advance American competitiveness and close the achievement gap between poor and minority students and their more advantaged peers. Since 2002, it’s had an outsized impact on teaching, learning, and school improvement—and become increasingly controversial with educators and the general public.

Here are a few frequently asked questions about the law, its history, and its policy implications.

What is ESEA?

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was part of President Lyndon B. Johnson’s Great Society program. Passed in 1965 , it created a clear role for the federal government in K-12 policy, offering more than $1 billion a year in aid under its first statutory section, known as Title I, to districts to help cover the cost of educating disadvantaged students. The law has been reauthorized and changed more than half a dozen times since that initial legislation. And, for the most part, each new iteration has sought to expand the federal role in education.

What is NCLB?

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which passed Congress with overwhelming bipartisan support in 2001 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, is the name for the most recent update to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. The NCLB law—which grew out of concern that the American education system was no longer internationally competitive—significantly increased the federal role in holding schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students, such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority children, whose achievement, on average, trails their peers. States did not have to comply with the new requirements, but if they didn’t, they risked losing federal Title I money.

What do states and schools actually have to do under the law?

Under the NCLB law, states must test students in reading and math in grades 3 through 8 and once in high school. And they must report the results, for both the student population as a whole and for particular “subgroups” of students, including English-learners and students in special education, racial minorities, and children from low-income families.

States were required to bring all students to the “proficient level” on state tests by the 2013-14 school year, although each state got to decide, individually, just what “proficiency” should look like, and which tests to use. (In early 2015, the deadline had passed, but no states had gotten all 100 percent of its students over the proficiency bar.)

Under the law, schools are kept on track toward their goals through a mechanism known as “adequate yearly progress” or AYP. If a school misses its state’s annual achievement targets for two years or more, either for all students or for a particular subgroup, it is identified as not “making AYP” and is subject to a cascade of increasingly serious sanctions:

• A school that misses AYP two years in a row has to allow students to transfer to a better-performing public school in the same district.
• If a school misses AYP for three years in a row, it must offer free tutoring.
• Schools that continue to miss achievement targets could face state intervention. States can choose to shut these schools down, turn them into charter schools, take them over, or use another, significant turnaround strategy.

The law also requires states to ensure their teachers are “highly qualified,” which generally means that they have a bachelor’s degree in the subject they are teaching and state certification. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money had to be highly qualified. By the end of the 2005-06 school year, all school paraprofessionals hired with Title I money must have completed at least two years of college, obtained an associate’s degree or higher, or passed an evaluation to demonstrate knowledge and teaching ability. States are also supposed to ensure that “highly qualified” teachers are evenly distributed among schools with high concentrations of poverty and wealthier schools.

Jan. 8, 2002 – President George W. Bush signs the No Child Left Behind Act April 2005 – U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings, who had helped shepherd the NCLB law through Congress as a top domestic policy advisor in the White House, announces plans to offer states limited flexibility from parts of the law if they could prove they were moving the needle on student achievement. Sept. 2007 – U.S. Rep. George Miller, D-Calif., one of the original architects of the NCLB law and the chairman of the House education committee, unveils the first major, comprehensive NCLB reauthorization draft bill . It ultimately fails to gain traction, thanks in part to opposition from teachers’ unions. March 2010 – The Obama administration releases its own blueprint for revising the law, which would give states much more control over how to intervene in most schools, in exchange for setting high standards and putting in place teacher evaluations based in part on student outcomes. The blueprint fails to catch fire on Capitol Hill. Fall 2011 – President Barack Obama offers states flexibility from key mandates of the NCLB law, in exchange for embracing his education redesign priorities. Meanwhile, the Senate and House education committees get moving on reauthorization measures, but neither bill ultimately makes it over the legislative finish line. June 2012 – More than half of states have been granted waivers, so the majority of the country is no longer operating under the NCLB law as written. July 2013 – The U.S. House of Representatives passes a bill to renew the NCLB law , with only Republican support. The legislation, which is never taken up by the Senate, would significantly water down the federal role in K-12 accountability. March 2015 – Most states begin applying to renew their NCLB waivers, even as Congress wrestles with a reauthorization of the law.

What are some of the main criticisms of the current law?

Major portions of the NCLB law have proven problematic, particularly as the law has matured without any congressional update or reauthorization. For instance, it’s unclear that the two main remedies for low-performing schools did much to improve student achievement. In many cases, students did not take advantage of the opportunity to transfer to another school, or get free tutoring. States and districts also had difficulty screening tutors for quality. Some districts, including Chicago, successfully petitioned to offer their own tutoring services. States also generally shied away from employing dramatic school turnaround strategies for perennially failing schools.

The NCLB law has also been criticized for growing the federal footprint in K-12 education, and for relying too heavily on standardized tests. And others say its emphasis on math and reading tests has narrowed the curriculum, forcing schools to spend less time on subjects that aren’t explicitly tested, like social studies, foreign language, and the arts.

Education advocates also claim the law has been underfunded. The original legislation called for major increases in education spending to offset the cost of reaching NCLB’s ambitious goals for student achievement, but federal spending never reached the lofty levels outlined in the law. By fiscal year 2007, for example, annual funding for the main NCLB program, Title I, was supposed to rise to $25 billion. It never got there. In fiscal year 2015, for example, Title I receives about $14.5 billion.

What’s more, many states and districts have ignored parts of the law, including the requirement to ensure that highly qualified teachers are evenly distributed between poor and wealthier schools.

In order to improve implementation of the NCLB law, President George W. Bush’s second secretary of education, Margaret Spellings, allowed states to apply to participate in pilot projects to try out changes to the law, including a growth-model pilot that let states consider student progress in rating schools instead of comparing different cohorts of students to one another.

What happened to the 2013-14 school-year deadline for all students to be “proficient”?

By 2010, it was clear that many schools were not going to meet NCLB’s achievement targets. As of that year, 38 percent of schools were failing to make adequate yearly progress, up from 29 percent in 2006. In 2011, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, as part of his campaign to get Congress to rewrite the law, issued dire warnings that 82 percent of schools would be labeled “failing” that year. The numbers didn’t turn out to be quite that high, but several states did see failure rates of more than 50 percent. In Congress, meanwhile, lawmakers saw the need for a rewrite, but were unable to bring a bill across the finish line. So that year, the Obama administration offered states a reprieve from many of the law’s mandates through a series of waivers.

What do the Obama administration’s NCLB waivers do?

What’s more, schools that don’t make AYP have to set aside a portion of their federal Title I dollars for tutoring and school choice. Schools at the point of having to offer school choice must hold back 10 percent of their Title I money. The waivers, which are now in place in 42 states, Puerto Rico, and the District of Columbia, allow states to get out from under many of the mandates of the NCLB law in exchange for embracing certain education redesign priorities. For instance, waiver states no longer have to aim toward the (now past) 2013-14 deadline for getting all students to proficiency, or offer public school choice or tutoring for schools that miss achievement targets.

In exchange, states had to agree to set standards aimed at preparing students for higher education and the workforce. Waiver states could either choose the Common Core State Standards, or get their higher education institutions to certify that their standards are rigorous enough. They also must put in place assessments aligned to those standards. And they have to institute teacher-evaluation systems that take into account student progress on state standardized tests, as well as single out 15 percent of schools for turnaround efforts or more targeted interventions.

The Obama administration has made a number of adjustments to its initial waiver requirements, especially in the area of teacher evaluation, which has been the biggest struggle for states. If the NCLB law has not been reauthorized by the time President Barack Obama leaves office, it’s not clear if a new administration will continue with the waivers or put its own accountability plan in place.

NCLB Terms to Know

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP): The yardstick at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act. Under the NCLB law, states must test students in math and reading in grades 3-8 and at least once in high school. Schools must report on the performance of different groups of students, such as racial minorities, as well as the student population as a whole. Students are expected to reach annual achievement targets, known as adequate yearly progress, or AYP.

Title I: The section of the law providing federal funding to school districts to educate disadvantaged children. The Title I program was initially created under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and is now part of the No Child Left Behind Act, the most recent reauthorization of that law. Highly Qualified Teacher: Under the NCLB law, every teacher in a core content area working in a public school had to be “highly qualified” in each subject taught, by the 2005-06 school year. Under the law, highly qualified generally means that a teacher is certified and demonstrated proficiency in his or her subject matter.

Choice: Under the No Child Left Behind Act, schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (meet achievement targets) for two years in a row must allow their students to transfer to a better-performing school in the district.

Waiver: Comprehensive flexibility that the U.S. Department of Education has granted to more than 40 states and the District of Columbia from key requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act (the current version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) in exchange for embracing certain Obama administration education-redesign priorities on teachers, testing, standards, and school turnarounds.

Supplemental Education Services (SES): This is the No Child Left Behind Act’s legal term for “free tutoring.” Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (meet achievement targets) for three consecutive years, even if it’s just for a particular subgroup of students, must offer free tutoring to all students. And schools must set aside 10 percent of their Title I funding to pay for the tutoring services. States with waivers don’t have to abide by this requirement.

Subgroups: Different groups of traditionally overlooked students, including racial minorities, students in special education, English-language learners, and low-income children. Under the NCLB law, schools must break out results on annual tests by both the student population as a whole, and these “subgroup” students. Schools that don’t meet achievement targets for subgroup students are subject to increasingly serious sanctions.

Supersubgroups: Under the Obama administration’s NCLB waivers, some states choose to combine several “subgroups” for accountability purposes, resulting in what’s known as “supersubgroups.” Some civil rights organizations say lumping together different types of students, such as English-language learners and students in special education, makes it much tougher to see how individual groups are progressing relative to other groups of students and the student population as a whole.

Focus School: A term that came about as part of the Obama administration’s No Child Left Behind Act waivers, not the original 2002 law. It refers to schools with stubborn achievement gaps or weak performance among “subgroup” students, such as English-language learners or students in special education. States must identify 10 percent of their schools as “focus” schools.

Priority School: A term that came about as part of the Obama administration’s No Child Left Behind Act waivers, not the original 2002 law. It refers to schools identified as one of the lowest performers in the state and subject to dramatic interventions, including potential leadership changes. States must identify at least 5 percent of their schools as “priority schools.”

NCLB Research and Resources

• The text of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 , including shortcuts to various parts of the bill dealing with accountability, teacher quality, and more.
• All of the information from the U.S. Department of Education about waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act , including which states have them, and what their waiver plans look like.
• “It’s All Relative: How NCLB Waivers Did, and Not Transform School Accountability,” by Anne Hyslop, who at the time was a policy analyst at the New America Foundation, but has since gone to work for the Education Department. An examination of which schools have been identified as underperforming through the Obama administration’s NCLB waivers and how accountability looks different than it did under the original NCLB law. ( View an Education Week summary. )
• “The Impact of No Child Left Behind’s Accountability Sanctions on School Performance: Regression Discontinuity Evidence from North Carolina,” by researchers Thomas Ahn and Jacob Vigdor. A look at how schools fared under NCLB’s original interventions, including public school choice and free tutoring. ( View an Education Week summary. )
• “States’ Perspectives on Waivers: Relief from NCLB, Concern about Long-term Solutions,” by Jennifer McMurrer and Nanami Yoshioka for the Center on Education Policy. An examination of state attitudes toward waivers. Highlights state’s concerns about how the waivers might effect a potential reauthorization. ( View an Education Week summary. )
• “Mapping State Proficiency Standards Onto the NAEP Scales: Variation and Change in State Standards for Reading and Mathematics, 2005-2009.” A look at how the standards and expectations set under the No Child Left Behind Act compare to those of the nation’s report card, the National Assessment for Educational Progress. ( View an Education Week summary. )

Education Issues, Explained

Education Week Resources

The latest news about the Every Student Succeeds Act including, archives, Commentaries, and special features. “Sheen Fades as NCLB Waivers Near Three Year Mark,” by Alyson Klein. Examines the promise and pitfalls of the waivers, after three years of implementation. August 2014. “NCLB Waivers: The Twists, Turns, and Terms to Know,” by Alyson Klein. An interactive look at the changes the Obama administration has made in waiver policy and implementation. August 2014. “Waiver Plans Would Scrap Parts of NCLB,” by Michele McNeil. Explores the divergent accountability systems proposed under the first round of NCLB waivers. December 2011. A comprehensive look at President George W. Bush’s legacy on education and where NCLB fits in. By David Hoff. December 2008. “Framing the Debate,” by Lynn Olson and David Hoff. An explanation of what policymakers saw as the shortfalls of the No Child Left Behind law right before it was due for a 2007 rewrite. December 2006.

How to Cite This Article Klein, A. (2015, April 10). No Child Left Behind: An Overview. Education Week . Retrieved Month Day, Year from https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/no-child-left-behind-an-overview/2015/04 Stacey Decker, Deputy Managing Editor for Digital contributed to this article.

Sign Up for EdWeek Update

Edweek top school jobs.

Sign Up & Sign In

The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools [with Comments and Discussion]

• The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools [with Comments and Discussion] (Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2010, No. 2)
• Data and programs

Subscribe to the Economic Studies Bulletin

Brian a. jacob and brian a. jacob walter h. annenberg professor of education policy; professor of economics, and professor of education - university of michigan, former brookings expert thomas s. dee tsd thomas s. dee professor - stanford university discussants: caroline m. hoxby and cmh caroline m. hoxby stanford university helen f. ladd helen f. ladd former brookings expert, susan b. king professor emeritus of public policy, samford school of public policy - duke university.

The controversial No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) brought test-based school accountability to scale across the United States. This study draws together results from multiple data sources to identify how the new accountability systems developed in response to NCLB have influenced student achievement, school-district finances, and measures of school and teacher practices. Our results indicate that NCLB brought about targeted gains in the mathematics achievement of younger students, particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds. However, we find no evidence that NCLB improved student achievement in reading. School-district expenditure increased significantly in response to NCLB, and these increases were not matched by federal revenue. Our results suggest that NCLB led to increases in teacher compensation and the share of teachers with graduate degrees. We find evidence that NCLB shifted the allocation of instructional time toward math and reading, the subjects targeted by the new accountability systems.

Economic Studies

Brookings Papers on Economic Activity

August 20, 2024

Andrew J. Seligsohn, Rebecca Silliman

August 19, 2024

Online only

9:30 am - 11:00 am EDT

Home — Essay Samples — Education — Educational System — No Child Left Behind Act

Essays on No Child Left Behind Act

The issues of standardized testing in no child left behind act, a study of the objectives of the united states' act no child left behind, made-to-order essay as fast as you need it.

Each essay is customized to cater to your unique preferences

+ experts online

No Child Left Behind Act in America: a Balance Opinion

How two education policies no child left behind and bloomberg's a-f school grading have managed to close the gap in the united states, the no child left behind policy: goals and impact, let us write you an essay from scratch.

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Relevant topics

• Middle School
• High School
• Homeschooling
• Single Sex Schools
• Extracurricular Activities
• Education Inequality
• Early Childhood Education
• Distance Education
• College Students
• Vocational Education

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

2016 Theses Doctoral

Were Children Left Behind? Essays on the Impact of No Child Left Behind on State Policy and School Closure

Davidson, Elizabeth Kate

Since 2002, the rules and regulations of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act have dictated state and local education policy, influenced state and local reform efforts, and led to significant investments in building the capacity of state and local education agencies to meet its mandates. Using a nationally comprehensive data set on school- and student subgroup-level NCLB outcomes, these three studies are the first national studies exploring the ways in which state officials’ interpretations of NCLB policy led to significant cross-state variation in school and subgroup outcomes across the country. I also investigate the extent to which NCLB accountability pressures and incentive structures led state and local officials to use school closure as a remedy for schools’ persistence poor performance. I conduct the latter analysis for all U.S. public schools and separately for a subset of U.S. public schools, all U.S. charters schools, in order to account for the idiosyncrasies of charter school governance and oversight. I find that significant cross-state variation in the share of schools identified as “failing” according to NCLB rules can largely be explained by variation in states’ NCLB implementation decisions, and that schools determined to have “failed” according to NCLB rules are more likely to close than schools that never “failed.” For all public schools and for charter schools only, a school determined to have “failed” according to NCLB rules is significantly more likely to close than a school determined to have never “failed.” Combined, these studies provide insight into the ways in which states’ NCLB implementation decisions had significant and lasting impact on school outcomes and state and local reforms.

• Educational change--Evaluation
• Educational law and legislation
• Education and state
• School management and organization
• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (United States)

More About This Work

• DOI Copy DOI to clipboard

The difference between the Every Student Succeeds Act and No Child Left Behind

By The Understood Team

Expert reviewed by Lindsay Jones, JD

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) is the main federal law for K–12 general education. It covers all students in public schools.

When it was passed in 2015, ESSA replaced the controversial No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The two laws are different, but they have some things in common. This chart shows the differences between them.

ESSA is fairly new, so it may be a while before you know how it will impact your child’s education.

Under ESSA, states have a bigger role in holding schools accountable. To find out how to get involved with your state’s accountability plan, contact your local Parent Training and Information Center .

Explore related topics

The No Child Left Behind Act Critique Essay

• To find inspiration for your paper and overcome writer’s block
• As a source of information (ensure proper referencing)
• As a template for you assignment

No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was introduced by the U.S. Congress in December 2001. In spite of the benefits and advantages expected by children, schools, and the states, NCLB becomes a real problem for modern society and children, lower educational achievements and progress of students. The aims and goals of this Act, narrow performance based on accountability become the main threat for schools and educational establishments.

The main limitation of this act is that test-based accountability systems and the accountability provisions in NCLB are ineffective and do not reflect the real needs and educational goals of students. In his article, T. Rueter questions: “Who says that a standardized test is the only way to measure student achievement? What about portfolios, exhibitions, essays, student-initiated projects, and teacher evaluations? (2005). Defined in this way, the problem of “low expectations” suggests the solution presumably built into the provisions of NCLB: higher expectations. However, the law requires not higher expectations—which, after all, cannot be legislated—but rather documented success, across the board and against a set of external standards. Expecting every child to succeed is one thing; requiring that success is another. Supporters regard NCLB as a much-needed push in the right direction: a set of measures that will drive broad gains in student achievement and hold states and schools appropriately accountable for student progress. A number of critics see it essentially as a disingenuous set of demands, framed in an appealing language of expectations, that will force schools to fail on a scale large enough to rationalize shifting public dollars to private schools—that is, as a political effort to reform public education out of existence (Herszenhorn 2001).

. NCLB threatens rural schools and the poor district around the country. Rural school leaders pointed out that teachers in small high schools often teach multiple subjects: history, geography, and American government, for example, or biology, chemistry, and physics. Requiring these teachers to prove themselves “highly qualified” in every subject they teach, which generally means having a separate college degree in each subject, could force thousands of them either to go back to school or, more likely, to move to more populated areas where they can teach a single subject (Tompkins 2003). Apart from the need to find and hire teachers with multiple certifications, rural schools struggle to compete with more generously funded urban and suburban districts to attract good teachers. The average teacher in a rural area makes only 86 cents for every dollar earned by his or her counterpart in urban and suburban schools. In 13 states, the pay gap is more than $5,000 a year (Tompkins, 2003). Tompkins (2003) predicts that under NCLB hard-to-staff schools will become harder to staff, as teachers in schools “needing improvement” look to move to schools in prosperous communities that can afford to pay more. The real losers then will be the students left behind in sub-par schools without the financial wherewithal to attract good teachers.

The requirement that students in schools “needing improvement” be allowed to transfer elsewhere has drawn protests from rural and urban schools leaders alike. Although NCLB gives families the right to take students, and the federal government the right to make money, out of struggling schools, it does not guarantee students any new places to go. Letters went out in the spring of 2003 to families of 228,000 children in New York City entitled to transfer out of “failing” schools (Herszenhorn 2001). The year before, 6,400 students in such schools requested transfers, but only 1,507 received them because students were permitted to transfer only within their districts and the New York City Board of Education was obligated to approve only as many transfers as it had seats available (Herszenhorn, 2003).

Consequently, rich districts do not have to open their doors to students from poor districts. Because the greatest disparities are between school districts rather than between schools within a single district, students in struggling schools are unlikely to end up in significantly better schools unless they can transfer to other districts. The promise of free tutoring for poor children in failing schools also has not materialized for thousands of children in New York City (Gross, 2003). A group of parents filed a class-action lawsuit claiming that children assigned to failing schools in New York City and Albany were denied the opportunity to transfer or to receive the supplemental services required by NCLB. A federal court judge in Manhattan dismissed the suit in 2003 with the argument that Congress never intended “to create individually enforceable rights” with the law and that the opportunity-to-transfer option might not be available to all students (Herszenhorn 2001).

Many states, wracked by mammoth budget crises, are leaving schools to fend for themselves in the face of the underfunded test-score mandates. Eisenhower Elementary in Oklahoma City is a case in point. At the end of the 2002-2003 school year, 600 teachers in Oklahoma City lost their jobs and seven schools were closed. More than half the city’s 70 elementary schools failed to make adequate progress under the requirements of the federal law and 11 schools were deeming failing (Herszenhorn 2003). Although the school, which serves many low-income students, received federal funding for tutoring and other supports designed to raise test scores, the city sent layoff notices to half the school’s teachers days before standardized tests were given. Not surprisingly, student performance fell short of Principal Angela Houston’s hopes.

Then there is the matter of test scoring. Millions of students in at least 20 states had been affected by errors in scoring standardized proficiency tests, and concluded, The standards and accountability movement has not reckoned with such fundamental moral questions as the relationship between those who set the standards of accountability and those who fail to meet them. Instead, it focuses narrowly on the relationship between schools and taxpayers and all too often takes as the measure of accountability the mere act of reporting out test scores. the problem is that “annual high-stakes testing impedes learning. It produces rote memorization and a “drill and grill” curriculum. Between pre-testing and the actual testing, students may be involved in 3 to 4 weeks of test-related activities distinct from normal instruction” (Rueter 2005). The stakes have been raised for students but support for learning remains tied to highly inequitable and in many places wholly inadequate systems of funding. Addressing this problem will require a broad public consciousness of responsibility to young people, including and especially those harmed by systems of “accountability” In disproportionate numbers, the victims are poor children who tend to start school far behind their wealthier peers for a host of reasons and in this way are set up to fail before they even start school.

In sum, NCLB is ineffective and even dangerous for modern education and students. It deprives many low-class students of a chance to compete with middle and upper-class students. Narrow performance based on accountability, testing, and restricted curriculum are the main threats created by NCLB.

Gross, J. (2003). Free tutoring reaches only fraction of students. The New York Times. Web.

Herszenhorn, D. M. (2000). Rich states, poor cities and mighty suburbs. The New York Times, p. A39.

Herszenhorn, D. M. (2003). City begins informing parents about school-transfer rights. The New York Times. Web.

Rueter, T. (2005). “Disastrous” No Child Left Behind Act Should be Repealed. Web.

Tompkins, R. B. (2003). Leaving rural children behind. Education Week, 22 (28), p. 44.

• Language Testing Methods Analysis
• Teaching Culturally Diverse Children
• Accountability Issues and Standards of Curriculum
• Evaluating the No Child Left behind Act
• No Child Left behind Ethical Issue
• A Berlin Childhood by Walter Benjamin
• KWL Strategy in the Prediction Reading
• Education Today: Brief Analysis
• "Fouled Out" by Eyal Press Review
• Instructional Technology: How People Learn
• Chicago (A-D)
• Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2021, October 8). The No Child Left Behind Act Critique. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-no-child-left-behind-act-critique/

"The No Child Left Behind Act Critique." IvyPanda , 8 Oct. 2021, ivypanda.com/essays/the-no-child-left-behind-act-critique/.

IvyPanda . (2021) 'The No Child Left Behind Act Critique'. 8 October.

IvyPanda . 2021. "The No Child Left Behind Act Critique." October 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-no-child-left-behind-act-critique/.

1. IvyPanda . "The No Child Left Behind Act Critique." October 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-no-child-left-behind-act-critique/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "The No Child Left Behind Act Critique." October 8, 2021. https://ivypanda.com/essays/the-no-child-left-behind-act-critique/.

24/7 writing help on your phone

To install StudyMoose App tap and then “Add to Home Screen”

No Child Left Behind

Save to my list

Remove from my list

No Child Left Behind. (2016, Aug 10). Retrieved from https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay

"No Child Left Behind." StudyMoose , 10 Aug 2016, https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay

StudyMoose. (2016). No Child Left Behind . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay [Accessed: 21 Aug. 2024]

"No Child Left Behind." StudyMoose, Aug 10, 2016. Accessed August 21, 2024. https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay

"No Child Left Behind," StudyMoose , 10-Aug-2016. [Online]. Available: https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay. [Accessed: 21-Aug-2024]

StudyMoose. (2016). No Child Left Behind . [Online]. Available at: https://studymoose.com/no-child-left-behind-essay [Accessed: 21-Aug-2024]

• Analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Pages: 4 (950 words)
• the negative legacy left behind by some cultures and those in power Pages: 6 (1740 words)
• The Present Education System: Children Left Behind Pages: 7 (1870 words)
• Right and left-handedness in humans Pages: 2 (403 words)
• The Fateful Left Turn: One Moment, Life Altered Forever Pages: 2 (525 words)
• The Day My Father Left Us: A Personal Narrative Pages: 5 (1291 words)
• "My Left Foot" by Christy Brown Pages: 3 (800 words)
• Victims of crime today feel left out ignored and are crying for Pages: 9 (2543 words)
• Left Brain vs Right Brain Learning Styles Pages: 4 (1111 words)
• Words Left Unspoken Pages: 3 (663 words)

👋 Hi! I’m your smart assistant Amy!

Don’t know where to start? Type your requirements and I’ll connect you to an academic expert within 3 minutes.

• 1-844-845-1517
• 1-424-210-8369

• PLACE ORDER

• 12 Angry Men August 20, 2024
• SYSTEMS SECURITY I August 19, 2024
• Chronicles of Maya Angelou’s Childhood: Champion of the World August 18, 2024
• Health Psychology August 17, 2024

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ESSAY SAMPLE

Sample by  My Essay Writer

Before addressing the needs of students, the NCLB first requires each state to set out their standards of achievement of basic skills. States then give their assessments to all their students in each of the grades. It should be noted that the federal government does not set out the specific achievement standards. Instead, it is up to each state to develop their own standards, which are critiqued by the federal government (The University, 2005). The state standards are used to provide a basis for which funding will be given by the federal government. This process helps to ensure that the students who are not achieving the basic requirement in the state’s tests will be eligible to receive support through NCLB (The University, 2005).

Due to the fact that the program has a course of action if each school is not meeting the standards set out in the federal  Adequate Yearly Progress  (AYP), this program is extremely effective at identifying the schools that are struggling to meet the standards. The exact courses of action that the government takes when the standards are not being met are outlined in the next section. However, essentially, for each year that the school does not meet the relevant standards, there is a new course of action, to the point where the school could be turned over to the state officer for it to operate (The University, 2005). Because this plan ensures schools that are not operating to a level that facilitates a high level of student achievement are either fixed or shut down, the NCLB is helping to ensure that students at all schools are receiving high-quality education (The University, 2005).

The act is essentially putting some of the onus on school staff to ensure that students are achieving, rather than putting all of the pressure on the students. This is a major step forward because without some of the responsibility for student achievement being placed on the school itself, the school staff might not feel obligated to make a focused effort on improving the overall grades of students in the school.

The program appears to be successful, as exemplified in the way it identifies teachers who are not doing a good job. The NCLB sets out to provide only “highly qualified” teachers for all of the students (Crawford, 2004). The states are assigned the task of identifying who is the highest qualified teachers. This can help ensure that the teachers are kept to the high standards that are set out in the NCLB. Each of the states is responsible for deciding what constitutes a high standard for a teacher (Crawford, 2004).

Furthermore, the act meets the needs of students because it sets out a reasonable level that the students should be accomplishing. This helps to ensure that the appropriate level of achievement is realized so that the student can meet the standards needed for being successful in college (Crawford, 2004). Also, this program succeeds because it sets one standard that should be accomplished by all students, rather than having various standards to be met by different demographics of students. This is necessary because the point of having these standards is to ensure the students are given the best opportunity to be successful in college – and because colleges do not mark at a lower standard for students who are disadvantaged, all students should need to meet the same standard at the elementary and high school levels.

One of the areas where the program does not serve the students well is in the area related to record keeping. This act was established in 2001, during the George W. Bush presidency, and it provides access of student contact information to military recruiters (Crawford, 2004). This unusual addition to an act that is designed to improve the outcomes for students is contradictory in that the recruiters are allowed to contact the students. However, students are able to opt out of allowing the recruiters to have access to personal information (Crawford, 2004). This component does not serve as an addition to meeting the needs of students. However, it does provide some students with a career option, which does have some value to the intent of the program.

In determining whether the program meets the needs of the students, it is important to analyze whether the bill is using the correct standards for student achievement. Ultimately, it appears that it does. The act depends on scientifically based research that is used to create the bills and teaching methods (An Act, n.d.). According to the act, this is “research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs” (An Act, n.d.). The research that is attained through science is deemed to be applicable to the environment in which the students are learning. The methods that are not scientific, but are still used, are followed from tradition, non-scientific research and personal findings (An Act, n.d.). These areas are less valuable in designing the standards, but should be used as a guideline anyway, as it provide a more subjective look into the way the schools are functioning, rather than a purely objective take that the scientific research offers. Furthermore, it is important to combine the quantitative information that the scientific research supports, with the qualitative information that the more personal approach takes. For example, the qualitative information about the standards that should be set out are based on cases studies of specific students who had been struggling, and about the ways that they were able to overcome those struggles with the type of learning they were doing (An Act, n.d.). This helps to design the curriculum and the standards of achievement. The non-scientific information that is included also focuses a lot on personal interviews, grounded theory, discourse analysis and action research. However, these are strictly not acceptable bases to decide about how to make decisions based on the act.

Does the program follow all mandates? NCLB has several standards, which will be set out before analyzing whether they are being met. The state-wide standardized test that each school needs to administer is one of the major components to the program. This test is supposed to be carried out annually so the federal government can decide how much money to dedicate to each school district for the education of students. This is set up so that all students are taking the same test while under the same conditions (Elementary, 2008).

Furthermore, the schools that are already receiving funding under the Title I from the Elementary  Education act and Secondary Education Act of 1965 need to make progress annually in their test scores. For example, in each of the years, the fourth graders need to do better on the previous years’ tests in order for them to continue to receive funding. This is meant to ensure that the money is actually generating results, and is not being given to schools without performance outcomes being met (Elementary, 2008).

NCLB aims to ensure that the school’s results improve in many of the years. For example, the schools that do not achieve the AYP for two consecutive years are labeled in the public as being “in need of improvement.” They are required to develop a two-year improvement plan that sets out how the students will achieve more. Also, the students have the option in this arrangement to transfer to another school if that option is available to them (Elementary, 2008). Also, missing the AYP for three years consecutively results in the school having to offer free tutoring and various other education services that aim to accommodate the students who are struggling. Schools that miss the AYP target in four years consecutively are labeled as needing “corrective action.” This could result in there being a complete replacement of the staff at that school, as well as the introduction of new curriculum, and it could also mean students need to spend additional time in class (Elementary, 2008). If the school does not meet the standards that are set out in five consecutive years, then there is planning for restructuring the entire school, and this plan is implemented if the school does not meet the AYP targets in the sixth consecutive year. Options at this point include closing the school down, hiring a private company to take over to carry out NCLB, transforming the school into a charter school, or ask the state office to take over the responsibilities of running the school directly.

The federal government also sets out how each state can create its AYP objectives. For example, the state needs to ensure that the AYP measurable objectives are developed in the first place, at the state level. Each school or school district is not able to develop their own AYP objectives (No Child, 2011). These objectives are designed for all students, including the economically disadvantaged students. Other students that have been identified as needing specific attention in their education include students who have disabilities and students who do not have a complete understanding of English (No Child, 2011). Furthermore, the objectives need to include setting the guidelines so that the students are at the proficient level or above it within 12 years. Furthermore, the AYP needs to be based on the state assessments, and they need to also include another academic indicator (No Child, 2011). The objectives need to be assessed at schools. Each year, the schools’ AYP results need to be reported separately for each of the groups of students who were identified. This is because it needs to be determined whether each of the student groups are meeting the AYP objectives. The state assessments needs to include at least 95% of the group (No Child, 2011). Finally, the states are allowed to take up to 3 years to make the AYP determinations (No Child, 2011).

Ultimately, the bill follows through on its goal of structuring school in a way that helps ensure all students are given an opportunity to succeed. Due to the strict structure of the annual evaluations of each of the schools, the teachers are held accountable for the success of the students. This likely gets them to work harder, and to nurture the students so that they are achieving a high standard. The yearly standardized tests are a top reason to determine whether the school needs to make adjustments, and it works as an effective gauge in determining whether the school needs extra attention. The more the school does not meet the standards, the more attention it is given by the government, which aims to see whether the issues can be fixed (No Child, 2011).

However, schools that are not meeting the standards that are set out can face decreased funding (No Child, 2011), which appears to be counterintuitive. While on the one hand the school feels pressure to perform well, it also faces the challenges of having to cope with less money. During a time where the school needs more money than ever in order to address the issues with students achievement, it does not have the financial resources to add extra tutoring, for example, for students who need the extra help.

The bill is successful because it provides a link between the state’s academic standards and the student outcomes. It essentially holds the standards accountable, and therefore could encourage those who are writing the policies about the bills to do a better job in their formation. Also, it measures all of the students’ performances, and it does so annually to see if the students are improving or not (No Child, 2011). NCLB also provides a foundation so that school districts and schools can significantly enhance the involvement of parents, as well as improved administration by using the assessment data and this guides the instruction, business practices, and curriculum (No Child, 2011).

Are all mandated services being rendered to the child? It is unclear if the government is delivering on all of its objectives. However, in taking a look at various news stories about the issue, the picture becomes clearer. For example, the state of Pennsylvania has proposed to pay teachers according to the test scores that they receive. If the students in the district do poorly, according to this proposal, then they will be paid a lower wage. The state has said that by holding each teacher financially accountable for the success of the students, more success will be achieved (Crawford, 2004).

The students are given the proper options if the school that they are in is not achieving to the level that it should be. For example, students are allowed to transfer to a better performing school if they have the option, even if that school is away from the area in which they live (Crawford, 2004). This option, however, is only available if the school fails to meet the AYP for at least two years. Also, the students are eligible at this point to receive free tutoring, or to attend after-school programs (Crawford, 2004).

In determining whether the services are being met, it is important to look at the accountability systems that were in place prior to the act being initiated, and compare student performances from that time, to the student performances now. The programs prior to NCLB showed that when accountability to teachers and the school system were established, students tended to achieve better results (Crawford, 2004). Furthermore, in analyzing the state test scores from before and after the implementation of the NCLB act, it becomes clear that the program has had a positive impact. However, the act has been criticized as causing states to lower the achievement level, and this reduces the effective instruction that is expected of the schools because teachers simply “teach to test” (Crawford, 2004). The testing, however, has been credited as providing information about the students that leads to improved success. Based on the knowledge that is gathered through the testing, the state is able to design the standards to improve on the deficiencies in the realization of specific outcomes (Crawford, 2004).

Does the program offer parental support? The program provides information for parents by making sure that the states and the various school districts are giving the parents detailed report cards on the schools, and the districts need to explain to the parents the AYP performance of the school (An Act, n.d.). The parents also need to be informed about the teacher that is teaching their child if that instructor has not been deemed a “highly qualified” instructor.

Under the  Individual Education Plan  (IEP), parents have the right to see whether their children are achieving under the Free Access to Public Education (FAPE). This helps parents to see whether the schools are following the standards set out by the state. Some parents have raised concerns about whether enough attention was given to the IEP. Parents in Illinois challenged School District 140, saying it the school’s NCLB testing was not being carried out (An Act, n.d.). The parents were concerned the students were not being given the additional education that NCLB says it will give to students who are not achieving the standards that the state sets out. The parents feared they were not being given the supports they were promised, and this was resulting in the continuation of a low standard of education. The case concluded that more accommodations should be given to the students in the school district who were not meeting the academic standard (An Act, n.d.).

Conclusion NCLB has shown very positive results, according to the test scores and the various responses from people within the education system. The program has improved student success, which was the program’s goal from the start. One of the biggest reasons for that change in student outcome is the attitude of teachers. The NCLB does have a component where it will give money to the school districts that need to provide tutoring, but mainly the initiative ensures that teachers are meeting the standards that are set out by the act. This results in a greater emphasis on ensuring students are achieving well in school. Prior to the NCLB act, instructors were not held accountable often enough for the quality of the lessons they were giving. This frequently led to students not receiving the proper instruction for them to be able to achieve a high grade on the school’s test. Furthermore, the teachers were likely less engaged with the students, because they did not feel the pressure of ensuring their class did well on test scores. Another one of the major strong points in the program is the fact that teachers are fired if they are not doing a good job. This helps ensure the students are receiving the highest possible level of education.

However, the program could benefit from a change in the policy surrounding the withdrawal of funds when the school is not meeting the criteria. This component of NCLB is counterintuitive because the government is withdrawing funds right when the school might need it the most. If there funds were withdrawn from a specific category, such as teacher’s salaries, such as how the State of Pennsylvania is proposing, then the withdrawals might be justified. However, this policy would not be fair to the teachers who are working hard, and it could encourage them to leave their jobs, and that is exactly what the NCLB act should not initiate, because quality teachers can be difficult to find.

References “ 10 states freed from some ‘no child left behind’ requirements .” (2012). CNN.

“ An act .” (n.d.). U.S. Government Printing Office.

Crawford, J. (2004).  No child left behind : misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners.  National Association for Bilingual Education.     

“ Elementary and secondary education .” (2008). Ed.gov.

“ No child left behind .” (2011). Education Week.

“The University of the State of New York.” (2005).  Federal Legislation and education in New York State 2005 .

• Tags NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ESSAY SAMPLE

By Hanna Robinson

Hanna has won numerous writing awards. She specializes in academic writing, copywriting, business plans and resumes. After graduating from the Comosun College's journalism program, she went on to work at community newspapers throughout Atlantic Canada, before embarking on her freelancing journey.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Related Posts

College Essay Examples | January 21, 2022

Trying to find Single Netherlands Woman to Marry

College Essay Examples | February 6, 2022

Types of Romantic relationship

College Essay Examples | April 20, 2022

Obtaining Older Hard anodized cookware Women

College Essay Examples | September 24, 2017

PRIMARY HISTORICAL CONTEXT IN THE SADLER REPORT SAMPLE ESSAY

Begin typing your search term above and press enter to search. Press ESC to cancel.

8 Shockingly Easy Shortcuts to Get Your Essay Done Fast

Free 6-page report.

• Get your essay finished
• Submit your work on time
• Get a high grade

No thanks. I don't want the FREE report.

I’ll risk missing the deadline.

Get that Essay Finished in No Time