The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), Thesis Paper Example

Introduction

The topic chosen to be discussed will be the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), while it has shown improvement in some areas that hold the schools and the states accountable for their students’ achievements, it borders on the issues of focusing too closely on test scores, actual education.  (Gardiner, Canfield-Davis, & Anderson, 2008) Many contend that with restricted assets States will center their endeavors on raising the scores of the lower achieving students, as opposed to raising the scores of all students.

The most recent NCLB results, demonstrate all subgroups with generally equivalent increases, appear to discredit this thought.  Whether in light of the fact that it is politically unpalatable to reallocate assets towards minority students, on the grounds that it is essentially hard to refocus assets.  (Kaniuka, 2009) In addition, many contend it is impractical to reallocate sources to just minority students, or because there is still vulnerability over how to impact intense change in the scores of minority youth altogether.  (Whitney, 2014) The scores of Latinos, African Americans, and Caucasians appear to be climbing at generally the same rate.

The goal of the paper is to look at several different resources, as well as the education theory of the achievement gap that has increased under the NCLB.  However, the main goal is to evaluate if NCLB is a policy driven by accessibility or accountability, as proposed by Aske, Connolly, and Corman (2013).  Their study, that provides support for this paper looks to the educational accountability that NCLB is intended to have for schools and states.  It provides the purpose that access to public education for children, should be the primary driving factor.

However, because NCLB forces schools to shift their priorities from accessibility to a well-rounded education, and to obtaining high test scores, many of the schools are considered failing in all other subgroups (health, physical education, special education, and college readiness).  (Anderson, Butcher, & Schanzenbach, 2011) The questions that are needing to be answered are Does the NCLB act allow students to get a well-rounded education or does an emphasis on testing distract from this?  In addition, the goal of this paper is to examine, the achievement gap, as well as the lack of accountability in improving inner-city schools where funding and resources are at the lowest.  Does the No Child Left Behind Act improve inner-city schools in a manner that makes them as effective as those in a suburban or rural setting?

Literature Review

The contentious NCLB brought exam-based school accountability to scale throughout the United States.  This study draws results from multiple data sources to identify how the new accountability systems developed in response to the NCLB have influenced student achievement, finances of school districts, as well as measures of school and teacher procedure.  The results show that NCLB most likely brought desired gains in the mathematics achievement of younger students, mainly those deriving from disadvantaged backgrounds.  However, we find lack of evidence that NCLB improved any student achievement in reading.  School district expenditure increased substantially in response to NCLB, and these rises were unmatched by federal revenues.  The results suggest that NCLB may have led to increases in teacher compensations and the share of teachers holding graduate degrees.  Suggestions show that NCLB moved the allocation of instructional time toward reading and math, the subjects targeted by new systems of accountability.  (Crawford, 2004)

Under President Obama’s administration, states have been able to request waivers in meeting the main goal later than 2015.  In some states, that were granted waivers, new systems for accountability were developed to measure student achievement and show that schools were progressing toward the general objective.  Some states even planned to present continuous growth over a number of years, considering the English language learner, the cognitively impaired, and poverty struck students.  (Novak, 2003)

In the present educational growth model, students are being compared with each other from one school year to the next.  Still, without having reached the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the past or not meeting the present goals is overwhelming for any school principal.  To make matters even worse, punitive sanctions have been put on schools that have been considered underperforming.  (Marsh, 2000)

Presently, teachers are being held responsible for the progress that students make in their classrooms.  Many teachers are concerned, that the new teacher evaluation initiatives proposed by each state now connect student achievement data with teacher evaluation systems.  (Margolin & Buchler, 2004)

An unintentional outcome of teaching to the test is that many school curriculums are getting rid of enrichment programs life the fine arts, physical education, and even recess in order to make time for more teaching of literacy, mathematics, sciences, and technology.  Many English language learners (ELLs) are given short time from access to the curriculum as they are expected to be fluent within a year of coming in the US.  All school districts across the country have been mandated by the Federal Department of Education to train all teachers of ELLs.  Many states have created intense training programs.  These have been time consuming for teachers, and taxing to their communities.  (Manzo, 2004)

Principals are becoming more liable for student achievement in their schools as laws continue to evolve.  More initiatives are being requested as greater expectations are put upon schools.  In the past, principals needed their schools to achieve the AYP.  Schools throughout the nation are presently given one to five ratings, with one indicating the high performance targets and five, to the low performance, and may need backing to avoid a state takeover.

To receive a positive AYP determination or to reach all current goals, schools and school districts are required to meet a student participation requirement, an additional attendance or graduation requirement, and either the state’s performance goal or the school’s own improvement goal.  Those who fail to meet their performance goals have to follow a necessary course of action, of improvement or restructuring based on their status of liability.  (Luizzi, 2006)

The NCLB Act of 2001 is perhaps the most far reaching education policy in the US over the last few decades.  The features of this legislation impelled states to conduct annual student assessments connected to state standards, in order to identify schools that are falling short to meet AYP and to integrate sanctions and incentives based on each school’s AYP status.  A fundamental encouragement for this reform is the notion that publicizing detailed information on school-specific test performance and connecting that performance to the chance of meaningful sanctions can improve the emphasis and productivity of public schools.  (Levin, 2001)

NCLB has been controversial from the time of its enactment. Critics state that NCLB has led educators to turn resources away from important but untested subjects like social studies, fine arts, and music and to focus instruction within math and literacy on the particularly narrow set of topics that are represented on the high stakes tests.  Some claim that high stakes testing may lead school personnel to intentionally fabricate student test scores.  Although there have been hundreds of research studies of test based liability policies in the US over the past two decades, the evidence on NCLB is limited.  This is because it is a newer policy and because the national scope of the policy makes it difficult to find a reasonable control group from which to assess the national policy.  (Ravitch, 2009)

Discussion

At no other point in the history of education reform have the principals been more impacted by a federal law as they have been by the NCLB.  The pressure to meet the requirements of their respective state departments of education has been devastating. Parents, business entrepreneurs, as well as the community at large have also been impacted by NCLB’s requirements for partnerships and student achievement.

Parents are supposed to be committed to schools, students are expected to graduate with higher scores on standardized tests, and schools are expected to meet AYP goals as determined by each state’s Department of Education.  Educators have begun to question the effectiveness of NCLB’s demands for liability –which influence student testing, teacher performance, school improvement, parent involvement, and even business partnerships.  (Reeves, 2008)

Under NCLB, accountability has become paramount, requiring the use of all kinds of student statistics, including test results from various sources, reading scores, writing samples, and classroom observations.  This has led to decisions that increase student achievement particularly in urban schools, where more students derive from minority groups.  NCLB initially was enacted to close the achievement gap between African American students, Latino students, ELL, and students with learning disabilities, compared to that of their Caucasian white counterparts.  Much of the most recent research has indicated that in the case of African American and Latino students, this gap has actually gotten wider rather than diminished.  (Ayers, 2004)

Under NCLB, by the year 2014, students were supposed to be considered proficient by meeting requirements set by each state’s Department of Education in Language Arts, Reading, Math, Sciences, and Technology.  Principals have had to create individual student success plans for all of those who require improvement.  Students need to prove their competency through high stakes testing in order to advance to the next level, and only obtain advanced placement through standardized national tests such as the Scholastic Achievement Test (SAT) and the Graduate Record Exam (GRE).

Concurrently, schools need to present AYP for all students.  If students do not have adequate test scores, then the school faces severe consequences.  The school is warned, or identified as needing improvement.  This has a snow ball effect that also impacts school culture, in that parents have the option of transferring their higher performing students out of a particular school, and as a consequence, the best qualified teachers leave struggling students without role models or adequate teachers.  More substantially, schools have lost funds for the same federal programs that were meant to help underprivileged students.  Schools where students scored low were instructed to restructure their educational programs, or replace their administration.  (Cloud, 2007)

Principals bettered their students’ achievement and retained academic responsibility by aligning the school curriculum to tests which were methods of assessment.  To prepare students for testing, principals pursued advice on curriculum, revised instruction, and continually re-assessed student progress through proficiency requirements.  Another way that principals increased students’ achievement was to hire teachers who were better qualified.  They were licensed in their discipline areas and received professional training that was current and closely connected to the assessment content.  Even when parental involvement in schools was further increased, and financial resources were desired, principals were put under pressure to provide their teachers with continuing professional development.  Many NCLB policies were not funded.  So, a school identified as underperforming lost their federally funded programs.  (Dee & Jacob, 2010)

Under NCLB, parental involvement was expected by schools because it enables parents to help with their children’s homework, study habits, and attendance records. In addition, NCLB presented benefits by funding programs for businesses to partner up with schools through student internships, and to offer possible opportunities future employment.  (Hoff, 2007)

As the U.S. population was fluctuating in conditions of ethnic participation among schools, principals were not.  The National Association of Elementary School Principals (NAESP) (2008) reported that there were over 30,000 principals in grades K through 8 schools.  The NAESP also reported that there were nearly 9,000 to 12,000 ethnic minority principals of which about 2% were Native American, Alaskan Native, or Asian/Pacific Islanders in 2008 (NAESP, 2010).  In 2010 there was a growth in the numbers of ethnic minority principals, however because the number of white principals increased proportionately, there was no significant change in these proportions of mainstream and non-mainstream principals consisting of 11% African American, 6% Hispanic, and 2% Native American, Alaskan Native, or Asian Pacific Islanders.  (U.S. Dept. of Labor, 2010).

Recommendations

Regarding to the fluctuating demographics, one conflict that stands out is the role of the principals in schools.  While there is significant research on Caucasian or European white principals, less is known about how elementary principals, particularly those from under-represented groups such as Asian Americans, African Americans, Latinos, and Native Americans interpret such laws in the decisions they make, the curriculum, instruction, assessment, and professional progression they undergo, as well as the leadership they present.  (Louie, 2012)

Furthermore, NCLB claims quality changes in schooling that will equalize the playing field, providing equitable education to all students. So, understanding the full force of the effect of this policy, over time and from the mouths of principals daily engaged in follow up, is a necessary and worthy task.  (Noblit, 2001)

The School Development Program (SDP) was founded in 1968 by James Comer, a psychiatrist from Yale University.  SDP was committed to the total progression of all children by creating a learning environment that supported the children’s physical, mental, psychological, ethical, and social development.  The approach was based on the theory that children learn better when they form strong relationships with the adults in their lives including parents, teacher, and members of church and other community groups.  There was a strong sense of community in the SDP, with structures and guidelines that improved school governance, management, and relationships among all of its stakeholders.  The climate was conducive to collaborative thinking, creative problem solving, and parent engagement.  In this setting staff behaviors toward parents and students became more positive (Comer, 2004).

SDP addressed the above issues with ten elements grouped under three headings: 1) three mechanisms (the School Planning and Management Team, the Student and Staff Support Team, and the Parent Team); 2) three operations (The Comprehensive School Plan, the Staff Development Plan, and Assessment and Modification); and 3) four guiding principles (no-fault, problem solving, consensus decision-making, and collaboration).

SDP was first implemented in two elementary schools in New Haven, Connecticut. Since 1968, the model has been used in more than 1150 schools, both nationwide and abroad.  In 2009, approximately 600 schools were at different phases of implementing the model (Comer School Development Program, 2009), which was primarily an approach for elementary schools serving disadvantaged students.  SDP had the following components: 1) periodic assessments, which allowed the staff to modify the program to meet needs and opportunities; 2) problem solving by use of a “no fault” approach; 3) decisions through consensus rather than voting; and 4) collaboration between the school planning and management team, and principals, who were the team leaders (Comer School Development Program, 2009).

The School Development Program (SDP) did not offer a set of prescriptions or a one-size-fits-all curricular approach.  Instead, developers claimed that each classroom was a small-scaled version of the whole ten-component model.  The Comer process established that children grew along six developmental pathways: physical, cognitive, psychological, language, social, and ethical. SDP had all of the components as defined by NCLB for Comprehensive School Reform efforts.  Scientifically based research methods for teaching and school management, and comprehensive design, including instruction, assessment, classroom management, professional development, parental involvement, and school management.  (Crow, 2002)

In particular, SDP had a strong parental involvement component; parents were viewed as partners in education.  The program encouraged collaboration between the home, the school, places of worship, and the community to support the life of the schools.  The schools that had all of these resources interconnected were well-organized and safe places.  School safety was another provision of No Child Left Behind, which had several components that provided students and staff with a safe environment.  SDP met the requirement of the Safe and Drug Free Schools and Communities Act as defined by NCLB.  Several authors have covered the NCLB and analyzed it from the theoretical and practical perspective.  The below literature review will cover four different aspects of the Act: legislation, theories related to education and practical/ implementation.  The main focus of the below review will be how the Act addresses equality, social justice, and human rights issues, and what the main shortcomings of the policy in practice are.  (Irons, 2007)

Leeper and Tonneson (2008)  reviewed the theoretical background of NCLB. Examining the government initiative from the viewpoint of two theorists: Levine and Gardner, the main finding of the theoretical review is that children learn in different ways, and schools should implement flexible teaching and motivation methods.  The theories developed by a trained pediatrician, Levine, and Gardner, a Harvard educated researchers highlight some of the most important issues with NCLB in practice.  First of all, both authors agree that children learn in different ways.

Levine, according to Leeper  and Tonneson (2008) defined eight different learning systems within humans: “attention control system, memory system, language system, spatial ordering system, sequential ordering system, motor system, higher thinking system, and social thinking system” (Leeper & Tonneson, 2008, p. 21).  For each individual, the development pattern of the above areas is different, therefore, the “one size fits all” approach of NCLB is simply ineffective.  Gardner, on the other hand, redefined intelligence as “a psychological potential to process information” (Gardner, 2004, p. 3).  He, just like Levine assumed that intelligence had different facets: “logical-mathematical, linguistic, interpersonal, intrapersonal, musical, spatial, and bodily-kinesthetic” (Leeper & Tonneson, 2008, p. 22).

Conclusion

Foley and Voithofer (2003) used the Poststructural premises of power and discourse as a theoretical approach to analyze the No Child Left Behind program.  The main focus of the authors’ study was to examine the pre-defined roles of parents, educators, children, and teachers, as well as their relationships pre-conditioned by NCLB.  According to the approach, the policy and recommendations, setting clear objectives and defining responsibilities of different parties.

The authors Foley and Voithofer (2003) found that there are several issues that make the policy that is aiming to create equal opportunities lacking fairness.  As an example, the authors state that “NCLB offers parents the opportunity to move their children out of low performing schools, the implication of such choice is that students must leave their local communities.  This is a problem because education cannot be decontextualized from the environment in which it occurs” (Foley & Voithofer, 2003, p. 12).  This is an important remark, as if parents are able to leave schools that are under-performing, those who can afford traveling and investing into a new school will move, leaving behind the most disadvantaged school population.  Instead of supporting low income and low socio-economic status communities, NCLB neglects them, by not providing them with culturally and socially relevant teaching and context.

Referring to the text of the NCLB Act, the author’s further state that the responsibilities of teachers prevent them from using the flexibility offered by the program: “It is difficult to see how adhering to state standards and assessments through standardized testing offers teachers greater flexibility” (Foley & Voithofer, 2003, p. 13).

Lynch and Baker (2005) reviewed education strategies from the equality of condition perspective.  The authors state that there are five main dimensions of the equality of condition within education: “resources, respect and recognition, love, care and solidarity, power, and working and learning” (Lynch & Baker, 2005, p. 133).  While the NCLB Act addresses working and learning, as well as power, it is not successful in providing respect and recognition, love, care and solidarity for pupils and parents, according to some authors (Foley & Voithofer, 2003).

Examining the above theories, it is important to review which dimensions of education the Act strengthens, and which ones it neglects.  Based on the premise that children’s cognitive development differs from one individual to another, it seems that applying a standardized assessment to measure school performance is not the best approach.

References

Ayers, W. (2004). Teaching the personal and the political: Essays on hope and justice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Batagiannis, S. C., & Laidroo, I. E. (2010). Scholar-Practitioner Dialogue: Implementing Student-Centered, Authentic Professional Learning Communities in Urban Schools. scholarlypartnershipsedu, 2(2), 6.

Comer, J. (2004). Leave no child behind: Preparing today’s youth for tomorrow’s world. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

Crawford, J. (2004). No child left behind: Misguided approach to school accountability for English language learners. Paper presented to the Forum on Ideas to Improve the NCLB Accountability Provisions for Students with Disabilities and English language learners, September 14, 2004, Washington, DC.

Crow, G., Hausman, C., & Scribner, J. (2002). Reshaping the role of the school principal. In J. Murphy (Ed.), The educational leadership challenge: Redefining leadership for the 21^st century (pp. 189-210). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Dee, T. & Jacob, B. (2010). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, fall, 149-207.

Dee, T. S., Jacob, B., & Schwartz, N. L. (2012). The effects of NCLB on school resources and practices. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 0162373712467080.

Foley, A., & Voithofer, R. (2003). Bridging the gap? Reading the no child left behind act against educational technology discourses. American Educational Research Association National Conference, Chicago, Illinois.

Frey, A. J., Mandlawitz, M., & Alvarez, M. E. (2012). Leaving NCLB behind.Children & Schools, 34(2), 67-69.

Hoff, D. (2007). Not all agree on meaning of NCLB proficiency. Education Week, April 18, 2007.

Kanpol, B., & Abbott, J. (2010). Constructing a University/Public School Partnership: Scholar-Practitioner Pursuits. scholarlypartnershipsedu, 1(1), 3.

Lee, J., & Reeves, T. (2012). Revisiting the impact of NCLB high-stakes school accountability, capacity, and resources state NAEP 1990–2009 reading and math achievement gaps and trends. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 34(2), 209-231.

Levin, H. (2001). Learning from school reform. Paper. Presented at the International Conference on Rejuvenating Schools Through Partnership, May 22-24, 2001, Hong Kong.

Louie, V. (2012). Keeping the immigrant bargain: The costs and rewards of success in America. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Luizzi, B. (2006). Accountability and the principalship: The influence of no child left behind on the middle school principals in Connecticut. Dissertation: Teachers College, Columbia University.

Manzo, K. (2004). Reading programs bear similarities across states. Education Week, 23, 1-5.

Margolin, J. & Buchler, B. (2004). Critical issue: Using scientifically based research to guide educational decisions. North Central Regional Educational Laboratory, Learning Points Associates.

Marsh, D. (2000). Educational leadership for the twenty-first century: Integrating three essential perspectives. In M. Fullan (Ed.), The jossey-bass reader on educational leadership (pp. 126-145). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Noblit, G. (2001). The school development program and school success. In G. Noblit, W. Malloy, & C. Malloy (Eds.), “The kids got smarter”: Case studies of successful Comer schools (pp. 109-130). Creskill, NJ: Hampton Press.

Novak, J., & Fuller, B. (2003). Penalizing diverse schools? Similar test scores but different students bring federal sanctions. (Policy Brief 03-04). Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis for California Education.

Ravitch, D. (2009). The schools we deserve: Reflections on the educational crises of our time. New York: Basic Books.

Reeves, D. (2008). Waiting for NCLB. Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, March 2008.

United States Department of Labor. (2010). Current population survey, 2010. Washington, D.C: Bureau of Labor Statistics.