No Child Left Behind Act Of 2001

The cold war fueled competition between the United States of America in a variety of fields, including armories, nuclear weapons, education, and space exploration. The successful launch of Russia's Sputnik spacecraft in October 1957 prompted calls for reform in the United States' national education system. President John F. Kennedy proposed developing pupils who could compete with other students around the world. The president's ideas ensured that pupils of various races, religions, and social backgrounds received a great education. President Lyndon B Johnson, on the other hand, amended Kennedy's program before presenting it to Congress." President Lyndon Johnson signed into law the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA)” (Harris, 2002). The law became part of Johnson’s administration policy of War on Poverty.

By the year 1981, the country was still at risk due to the weakening of the American School system compared to other education systems around the world. The notion of equal education for all irrespective of class, economic background or race had not been achieved. The National Commission on Excellence met and reviewed the data on quality learning and teaching in secondary schools, colleges, public and private universities. In 1994, the ESEA was restructured leading to the signing of Improving America’s School Act (IASI). The new Act focused on the need for all students not just the disadvantaged children or those at risk of failing in school. Research indicates the school needs to focus on all children for learning for all to occur (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). The IASI encouraged district and states schools to connect federal programs in introducing reforms while retaining equity for needy students. The IASI ended the ‘special service’ and ‘regular classroom’ a de facto student’s segregation in schools.

Representative Boehner John A was the sponsor of the No Child Left Behind bill and introduced to the Senate on 22nd March 2001 (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The House Education and the Workforce Committee in conjunction with the judiciary discussed the bill before presenting their report to the Senate and Congress. The bill received a bipartisan support in Congress and passed after a short time. President George W. Bush in 2002 assented into law the (NCLB). The new law was a further improvement of the original ESEA aimed at large investments in the education system in the US.

The NCLB improved federal government’s role involvement in education focusing more on report cards, annual academic report, qualification of teachers as well as funding (Harris, 2002). There was a particular emphasis that states and schools improve the performance of particular groups of students. Such students include special education, English language learners, students from minority and poor communities, average students as well as those who trail their peers. All American children regardless of income, ethnicity, and background should receive quality and high standard education. NCLB’s goal is to “close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind” (Maleyko & Gawlik, 2011). The NCLB brought about local control and involvement of parents as the cornerstone of education.

Cost

The NCLB policy cost not only the American government money but also time. Much time is consumed in staff time, administrative time and instructional time. Consequently, the students lose out on time required for instructions and are not ready for testing. More time is spent during test administration, shipping tests which are a valuable time that could have been spent in teaching and giving instructions. The testing shifted the focus from learning to testing. Interruption cost the language learners and Title 1 students an average of 7.5 days every semester (Judson, 2013). The researchers indicate that the policy led to increased awareness of subgroup students but experience little benefit.

Effectiveness

The proponents of the NCLB argue that schools and students can identify areas that need improvement due to accountability requirement of the law. Also, the law allows the teachers, students and the government to improve on education. The NCLB mandated that school could attain the 100% students reaching required proficient levels by the year 2014 (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The quota included all students regardless of their social-economic backgrounds or disabilities. Accountability and testing ensure that the groups in marginalization get necessary funding and resources needed to achieve better grades in school. The schools are kept on track towards their goals using the AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress). When schools miss achieving the AYP, they are subjected to cascade and severe sanctions. The penalties include transfer opportunities to other school or students receive free tutoring.

The law led to the employment of highly qualified teachers (Sottile, Williams, McKee & Damron, 2005). The teachers must have state certification and a bachelor’s degree in their teaching subjects. Since the year 2002-03, the federal government hired qualified teachers using the funds provided under Title 1 (Murnane, 2007). All teachers by the year 2006 had degrees or higher degrees and must have had proven teaching ability through an evaluation test. The paraprofessionals are distributed among learning institutions with concentrated wealthier and poverty schools.

In the end, the critics of NLCB raises several problems as the law continues to mature, but the Congress has no reauthorization or improvement plan. For example, the Title 1 under the ESEA was charged with raising students’ performance but did not mandate accountability in academic outcomes (Murnane, 2007). The Congress established the NCLB to address the issue. The NCLB goals were to bring accountability for teachers and schools working together to close the gap for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. The high and worthy no child left behind policy experienced bipartisan congressional support thus controversial implementation.

Social Welfare Analysis including Frameworks used in Policy Analysis

Economic Analysis

The original law emphasized on increased investments in education and met NCLB ambitious goals of students’ achievement. The ESEA allowed the federal government to fund the nation’s parochial and public school thus providing 90 percent funds for their budget. The Title 1 under the law ESEA offered guidelines for education to the disadvantaged students. An estimated 12.5 million in both public and private school benefited through Title 1 provisions. After the implementation of the NCLB law, the funds sent to the secondary and elementary rose from $ 3 billion to $9.5 billion. The federal government does not meet the budget required to support the law implementation entirely. In the financial year 2007, for instance, the Title 1 budget was $25 billion, but the Treasury did not fund it fully. In 2015, the budget was at $ 14.5 billion (U.S. Department of Education, 2014).

Political Analysis

Before the ESEA the local and state governments had exclusive powers to make policy decisions on matters education. Today, the Federal government increasingly involves itself in regulating education issues that should be left to the local districts (Judson, 2013). The federal government today provides over 70 percent of the total funds needed in the elementary and secondary schools. The national footprint in the K-12 education relies heavily on standardized tests. The emphases are on reading and mathematics test thus narrowing down the curriculum. The schools tend to allocate less time to subjects such as arts, foreign language and social studies that are not explicitly tested (Manzo, 2005).

The states experience difficulties in testing for quality and hiring teachers. Some of the districts such as the Chicago succeeded in petitioning the state and federal govern to have local tutoring services. The remedies for the low-performing school played no role in improving students’ academic achievement. The students could not take advantage of the transfer opportunities to other school or receive free tutoring. The states, also, stopped crafting turnaround strategies for the perennial failing schools.

Policy/Program Evaluation

The Department of Education in the U.S. directly controls a significant amount of policies concerning local schools nationwide. The ESEA policies determine the certification of teachers and assessment schedules in school (U.S. Department of Education, 2014). The ministry offer directions on how many states must spend before accessing funds from the federal government. Further, the nation expressed dissatisfaction with Obama administration which refused to offer condition-based waivers to States government as provided by the law. Instead, the Obama administration wanted the White House to have powers to advance preferred agenda on education that includes testing standards that may be outside the current law process. The government involvement and intervention over the past fifty years have produced negative outcomes. The policymakers at the local and state governments can closely relate to students and their families. The Congress needs to empower the states whether to withdrawal from the federal policy under NCLB and formulate their programs. Every Child Achieves Act of 2015 (ECAA) was a good policy for states to create accountability systems but maintain standard testing in sciences, mathematics, and reading.

Current Proposals for Policy Reform

The NO Child Left behind Act over the last decade experienced considerable education system oversight from the federal government. The local and states schools need to follow federal government’s test schedules, teacher evaluation standards, accountability programs, sanctions and other regulations (Hursh, 2005). Despite the efforts and regulations in place, the system of education in the US remains unfair and unequal especially among the low-income population (Gay, 2007). The NCLB policy needs significant changes to the federal policy on education. Rules and regulations are burdensome and not working to improve proficiency rate in schools. The labor, religious, advocacy, disability, and over one hundred civil rights groups called for reforms in the education system. The House Education and Workforce Committee in the Senate presented the Student Success Act. Other members such as the chairman of the Senate Health Committee presented authored ESEA reauthorization discussion draft. The proposals are similar but intended to reauthorize the NCLB policy quickly. The proposals, however, do not address the federal government excessive involvement and intervention in education. The local and state district will continue to miss the opportunity where they can advance their conservative principles.

American Values and Relevance to Saint Leo University

Education is important to every American citizen as it becomes a foundation of the American Dream. Education is the cornerstone of successful individuals and nation. Therefore, education stakeholders including parents, teachers, students and the government must play their roles. An education system that is of high quality, healthy and equitable to all is essential the future of the American nation. If the country was to offer the quality education services according to their ethnicity or social-economic status it could be a threat to the fabric of the nation. The inequality in education would be producing unqualified workforce, a population that is under-ambitious, increased crime and spark the racial unrests. The NCLB policy aimed at equality in education but is yet to achieve fully its intended goals and that of the American dream.

At Saint Leo University, one of the core values promoted by the school is community values. The students learn to respect each other enhance the spirit of belonging and unity based on mutual trust. The students learn to acquire social responsibility skills that are challenging them to listen, change and serve others. The American values help all students with unique talents respect each other with dignity and work hard to succeed in life and building the nation. The people maintain the integrity that demand members live their mission and promises. The students, staff, and faculty need, to be honest in their dealings thus consistent in their talk and actions. Consequently, the world will be peaceful with equal access to resources in education, health and development projects. The gap between the rich and the poor, racial discrimination will come to an end.

Conclusion

The NCLB was a well-intentioned piece of legislation that tries to improve the education standards for the disadvantaged students in the public school. “NCLB’s goal is to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice so that no child is left behind (Hursh, 2005).” The NCLB ended up creating serious problems in the education system. The public policy faces criticism than the solution created. The flaws began with the hasty implementation of the law thus need reauthorization with a particular focus on the nature of public education. The education ministry and all the stakeholders must work hard to reorganize and restructure NCLB to find sensible solutions towards the great vision of equal education.



References

Gay, G. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of NCLB. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 279-293. Gil, D. G. (1992). Unraveling social policy. Rochester, VT: Schenkman.

Harris KG (2002) Implementing No Child Left Behind: Virginia Revisits Educational Accountability. Retrieved on 19th February 2017 from http://dls.virginia.gov/pubs/briefs/brief34.htm

Hursh, D. (2005). The growth of high-stakes testing in the USA: Accountability, markets and the decline in educational equality. British Educational Research Journal, 31(5), 605-622.

Judson, Eugene. (July 01, 2013). The Relationship Between Time Allocated for Science in Elementary Schools and State Accountability Policies. Science Education, 97, 4, 621-636

Lagana-Riordan, C., & Aguilar, J. P. (2009). What’s missing from No Child Left Behind? A policy analysis from a social work perspective. Children & Schools, 31(3), 135-144.

Maleyko, G. & Gawlik, M. A. (2011). No Child Left Behind: What We Know and What ‘ We Need to Know. Education, 131(3), 600-624.

Manzo, K.K. (2005, March 16). Social studies losing out to reading, math. Education Week. pp. 1, 16, 17, 24, 25.

Murnane, R. J. (2007). Improving the education of children living in poverty. Future of Children, 17(2), 161-182.

Ravitch, D. (2009). The Death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education. New York: Basic Books.

Sottile. J. M. Jr., T.L.Williams, J.G. McKee, & N. Damron. (2005). The impact of a teacher education program: A critical review. Hawaiian International Conference on Education.

U.S. Department of Education (2014). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html