THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2002

ROBERT E . CLEARY

Is this law helping or hurting education in the United States?

Until recently, the federal government has had minimal involvement in education in the United States. Throughout most of American history, there was no general federal policy toward education. The government’s stance on education reflected the nature of the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States:“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.”

To be sure, there were important federal contributions to education, including land grants for elementary and secondary schools in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, land grants for colleges in the Morrill Act of 1862, the “G.I.” bill of 1944, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and the Higher Education Act of 1965. But these acts were limited in scope and nature and in the main provided only peripheral support to education, less than ten percent of total costs, even after the legislation of 1965.

In 2002, however, the Bush administration broadened significantly the federal government’s role in education in this country by taking the lead in securing the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act. This major revision of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 was a dominant feature of the George W. Bush election campaign and a top priority in his first year in office. The measure sailed past the House of Representatives by a vote of 384 to 43, and the Senate by 91 to 8. In a nutshell, the No Child Left Behind Act aims to improve school performance, especially that of poorly performing elementary schools, by establishing a rigorous system of testing and evaluation of students and schools.

To many Americans, too many schools have been getting a failing grade. But a number of American schools are of excellent quality. Many wealthy suburban municipalities operate high schools that send 90 percent of their graduates to colleges with the curricula and reputations to attract many more applicants than could be enrolled, including thousands of prospective students from abroad.

However, American education is doing something wrong.While some neighborhood elementary schools are excellent, others are terrible. The poor schools often are located in inner cities and in minority areas, or in rural minority areas. In addition, states and localities have been running into increasing problems funding their elementary and secondary schools, thus calling the tradition of local control of public education into question.And when American students take standardized tests, such as the SAT, their average scores gradually have gone down year after year.Moreover, when they have taken tests also taken by students from other countries, US students have ranked 13th, 17th, 28th, or even lower, depending on the test. The performance of US students on the National Science Foundation’s “Third International Mathematics and Science Study,” for example, has lagged substantially behind that of students from a number of East Asian and European countries.

“A NATION AT RISK”

A 1981 report by the National Commission on Excellence in Education warned that “...the educational foundations of our society are presently being eroded by a rising tide of mediocrity that threatens our very future as a Nation and as a people.” This document, titled “A Nation at Risk,” was produced during President Ronald Reagan’s administration. More recently, during the George H. W. Bush and Clinton administrations, in “America 2000” and “Goals 2000,” federal initiatives aimed to increase emphasis on elementary and secondary school mathematics and science education, along with increased standardized testing and improvements in the high school graduation rate.

The No Child Left Behind Act takes these efforts a step further by holding states accountable for improving the education of all students. The Act’s central focus resides in a program of state-administered testing of students in reading and mathematics in grades three through eight, plus once in high school, along with national testing of a smaller sample to provide a benchmark for measuring a school’s performance. Testing in science is to begin in 2007. States also have to measure and report separately the performance of minority children, the disabled, and students whose native language is not English, along with total scores. At least 95 percent of students in each subgroup in the district over a minimum number must be tested.

States are required to establish a minimum level of proficiency in key subjects and schools must make continued progress in bringing students (reporting each subgroup separately) up to that level within a period of 12 years. Failing schools are subject to sanctions, including loss of students, the reallocation of school funds for tutors or to cover transportation expenses for students transferring to another school, replacement of staff and leadership (after six years), and even takeover by the state.

The number of students demonstrating proficiency must increase every year. As part of this thrust, schools must close the gap between the reading proficiency scores of white students and minorities. All students must score as proficient by 2014, although the Act proposes to have all students reading proficiently by the third grade. The Act also aims at placing qualified teachers (those certified in their subject area) in every classroom by 2006.

THE LAW HAS ITS STRENGTHS...

Holding schools and school districts accountable for the quality of education they provide is the chief principle of the No Child Left Behind Act. The key to the Act’s strategy is the use of measurement tools; i.e., standardized tests to be given on a regular schedule, the use of benchmarks, and a system of incentives and punishments keyed to the production of higher test scores. Is the law accomplishing its purpose? Average reading and mathematics test scores tended to increase in 2004, as compared with 2003. Thus, on some fronts, the early results are quite positive:

Greater quality control—As new or revised standardized tests go into effect in every state, educators, parents, and others interested in education have more reliable tools to measure the achievement of students, as well as the achievement of schools. The fact that test scores of subgroups must be reported separately emphasizes this point. So does the creation and use of benchmarks, like the requirement for a specified proficiency standard.

Increased focus on the education of subgroups— The new law mandates expanded emphasis on the education of subgroups of minority students, disabled students, and students whose native language is not English. Presumably, this attention will result in improved educational opportunity for such students, and eventually improved proficiency in key classes, but with the exception of some isolated particulars, it is too early to tell on this point.

More federal funds for education—Even critics of the law concede that appropriations for elementary and secondary education have increased. For fiscal year 2004, Congress appropriated 40 percent more money to support programs for needy and disadvantaged students under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act than it had appropriated in fiscal year 2001. Some critics argue, however, that the monies being appropriated fall short of the initial promises. In fact, for fiscal year 2003, President Bush proposed a $90 million reduction in funding for No Child Left Behind programs.

Increased emphasis on teacher certification—By including teacher certification as one of the yardsticks used to measure schools, growing numbers of teachers are returning to school to pursue certification credentials on a part-time basis while retaining their teaching positions. The hope, of course, is that students in every school will benefit from having access to qualified teachers.

... AND WEAKNESSES

Criticisms of the No Child Left Behind Act came as quickly as its provisions were put into effect. The criticisms cover a wide range of issues:

Too much emphasis on testing—Some researchers point out that this testing of schools may be mistaken by parents as the testing of their children, and crucial educational decisions may be made on the basis of this misunderstanding. Some educators, moreover, term the testing provisions rigid and inflexible, and are concerned that teachers are now required to carve out time to “teach to the test.”Many schools and school districts feel that they must forego other activities, including “subsidiary” learning activities like field trips, assemblies, and student performances.

Inflexible standards—In some cases, the law’s requirements result in schools being labeled as “failing,” even when this does not really seem to be the case. A leading example is Midwood High School in Brooklyn, NY, a school that has a high graduation rate and often wins science awards. Midwood was deemed failing and in need of improvement because its small number of disabled students did not meet the proficiency standard established for them.

Diminished states’ rights—Historically, each state has set its own standards and decided how and when to test its schools. The new law now tells states and localities how often they must test students, and how the results are to be reported. As of spring 2004, some 20 state legislatures were considering resolutions challenging aspects of the new law or requesting waivers from its provisions.

In defense of the new law, the US Department of Education points out that it allows states to write their own standardized tests and to set their own proficiency standards, but critics note that this flexibility is tied to a rigid system of punishments for “failing” schools. Schools that do not meet proficiency standards for any subgroup for two years in a row must provide tutors for students in the group or even facilitate student transfers to “better” schools. Opponents of the law argue that these requirements remove any incentive for straying too far from the national norm in adopting tests and setting standards.

Rigid emphasis on subgroups—Some educators argue that emphasis on a subgroup will not necessarily improve the education of students within that group. Other educators view the requirement on reporting each subgroup separately as onerous. Particularly resented is the mandate that a school doing well on the majority of yardsticks will be listed as not making “adequate yearly progress” if it fails to meet its proficiency standard for even one subgroup. Under the law as originally implemented, students with limited English proficiency who did well on the English language proficiency test “graduated” out of this subgroup, and their scores were not included in the group average. Thus, the subgroup would then find it more difficult to achieve a passing grade.

A different criticism relates to the education of gifted children, as there is no special emphasis in No Child Left Behind on education for this group. This has prompted a number of school districts to scale back their gifted programs in order to be able to spend more time on minorities and other subgroups. In Connecticut, for example, 22 percent of all school districts reduced or abolished programs for the gifted. Such a situation may be deemed desirable by educators who consider gifted programs to be elitist, but many educators are unhappy with this development. And, just as many educators point out that an emphasis on subgroups does not necessarily improve proficiency in these groups, a number observe that there is virtually no evidence that the emphasis on testing will improve “education” for the majority of students who do not fall in one of the subgroups, a category that includes many white students.

Over-emphasis on paper qualifications for teaching—The way the new law defines a “qualified” teacher has drawn criticism. A teacher who provides instruction in multiple subjects, a common practice in elementary schools,must have certification in every subject taught. This poses a major problem for many elementary schools and their teachers, particularly in rural areas where it is difficult to secure such training while staying in the classroom. Ironically, Montana’s “Teacher of the Year” in 2003 was deemed unqualified under the No Child Left Behind provisions in 2004.

FINE-TUNING THE LAW

By the spring of 2004, what originally had been perceived as a campaign strength was looking increasingly like an election-year liability for the Bush administration. The White House and the Department of Education responded to this situation with a series of policy changes regarding the Act and its implementing regulations. For example, the Department of Education now allows school districts to include the scores of students who have “graduated” out of the limited English subgroup in the averages for this group for two years after the student has exited the group. As of 2004, the regulations were amended to require a 95 percent overall participation rate in the standardized testing procedures, relaxing the previous requirement that 95 percent of each group of students be tested for a school to avoid being labeled a “failing school.” The administration also eased the requirements for teacher certification. Teachers who originally had to be certified by 2006 are being given until 2007 to comply with the provisions of the law to show they are “highly qualified” in the subjects they teach.

On balance, the No Child Left Behind Act currently seems to be helping the American educational system advance toward the goal of a quality education for all.

All this comes, however, at a substantial price. A majority of educators seem to regard No Child Left Behind as rigid to the point of being onerous. Educational programs for the gifted, as well as a variety of “subsidiary” activities for all students, are being squeezed or even eliminated in some schools. Just as important, and perhaps even more important, there seems to be substantial “teaching to the test” under the new law. In other words, the emphasis on quality may be dysfunctional as teachers expend much effort and time drilling for what is expected on the standardized test, rather than on more wide-ranging educational experiences. On other points, including whether allowing students to transfer out of “failing” schools will result in overall educational gains, it is still too early to judge the results.However, preliminary analysis of the 2004 mathematics and reading scores indicates the possibility of a pattern of improvement over the previous year.

The problems of the No Child Left Behind Act likely will lessen as tests improve over time.However, the situation could also be assisted by greater flexibility in the law and implementing regulations. It clearly is possible, for example, to require testing every second year in elementary school, rather than every year. This step would result in substantially more leeway for school districts and lessen the constant attention to “the test.” Another enhancement would be to “sweeten the pot” with additional federal money. Given the current national government budgetary situation, huge increases for education are not possible, but whatever can be done here would help ease the pain of increased federal involvement in what traditionally was a state and local area.

Overall, an evaluation of the issues of fundamental importance indicates that the advantages of No Child Left Behind outweigh the disadvantages. This conclusion does not hold across the board, however, but tends to vary by school district and state. Districts and states that work with the requirements of the new law, while making an effort to minimize its problematic consequences (“teaching to the test,” losing sight of the gifted, etc.), are more likely to benefit from its provisions. Those who do not, however, are not as likely to so bene- fit. Consequently, educators and legislators might well be advised to take advantage of the possibilities where they can and maximize their gains, despite any qualms about missing links between proficiency scores and “quality education,” or a de-emphasis on states’ rights.

Recent American history teaches us that presidential initiatives in the field of education tend to be rather short-lived.New reforms may emerge in the near or distant future, but are likely to profit from the current efforts. At the very least, future education reform efforts likely will pay greater attention to possible problems, especially on the issue of states’ rights; include expanded consultation with educators, particularly with regard to the annual testing requirement; and provide more flexibility on the benchmarks devised to measure a “failing school.” Yet, on balance, the No Child Left Behind Act currently seems to be helping the American educational system advance toward the goal of a quality education for all.

Robert E. Cleary (CC ’74) is professor emeritus of public affairs at The American University, where he also has served as dean, provost, and acting president. He was president of the Cosmos Club in 1997.

Return to COSMOS 2004 Table of Contents
Return to COSMOS Journals
Return to COSMOS Home Page