No Child Left Behind Act - Revision history

Admin at 01:58, 30 November 2018

2018-11-30T01:58:13Z

Admin at 01:57, 30 November 2018

2018-11-30T01:57:45Z

Pklt292 at 18:38, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T18:38:15Z

Pklt292 at 18:03, 28 February 2018

2018-02-28T18:03:04Z

Morgannoel18 at 09:27, 28 October 2017

2017-10-28T09:27:22Z

Nicole: Created page with "The first major legislative initiative proposed by the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new law, dubbed the No..."

2017-02-01T18:38:37Z

Created page with "The first major legislative initiative proposed by the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new law, dubbed the No..."

New page

The first major legislative initiative proposed by the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new law, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has fundamentally altered the federal government’s role in education. The federal role now includes funding (it provides approximately 9 percent of the money spent on public education) and regulating the standards employed by states to evaluate student progress.

Receiving bipartisan support from Congress, NCLB expanded federal aid to schools to over $22 billion. The bill also requires states to establish standardized testing for students in grades 3–8. Students must show adequate yearly progress, or schools risk losing funding or being forced to reorganize. Parents will be given the option of seeking tutoring or transferring their children to other schools.

The standards used to measure student progress are set by the states subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Education. While the states will set the standards for reading, math, and science, the National Assessment of Educational Progress will assess state compliance and determine any sanctions to be imposed on those that fail. State progress will be reported to Congress by the U.S. secretary of education.

In order to implement this standards-based education policy, a significant amount of local control over educational standards has been ceded to the states and federal government. This represents a major shift for most states, which have traditionally permitted local communities to control education policy.

It is too early to fully assess the impact of NCLB. Preliminary data indicate that most states are struggling to comply with the act’s requirements and various organizations representing state and educational interests are pressing Congress to modify the act’s provisions.

{| class="wikitable"
|-
| '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
David C. Bloomfield and Bruce S. Cooper, “NCLB: A New Role for the Federal Government,” T.H.E. Journal Online, http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=4416.
|}

==== Joseph R. Marbach ====

SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:58, 30 November 2018
Line 9:		Line 9:

	And as David Cohen and Susan Moffit (2010) have observed, the federal government’s ambitious goals in NCLB were not matched by sufficient attention to how teachers and administrators could realize these goals; there was a large disconnect between policy and practice. NCLB ultimately forced states to change many of their educational practices, but political resistance and capacity gaps at the state level meant that these changes were often more superficial than substantive. NCLB did not generate as much meaningful school improvement or progress in closing student-achievement gaps as was originally hoped, making it abundantly clear that most state departments of education were ill-equipped to monitor compliance with their own policies or engage in effective district- and school-level interventions.		And as David Cohen and Susan Moffit (2010) have observed, the federal government’s ambitious goals in NCLB were not matched by sufficient attention to how teachers and administrators could realize these goals; there was a large disconnect between policy and practice. NCLB ultimately forced states to change many of their educational practices, but political resistance and capacity gaps at the state level meant that these changes were often more superficial than substantive. NCLB did not generate as much meaningful school improvement or progress in closing student-achievement gaps as was originally hoped, making it abundantly clear that most state departments of education were ill-equipped to monitor compliance with their own policies or engage in effective district- and school-level interventions.
−	Though the impact and lessons of NCLB have been hotly debated, many observers highlight the need for states to expand their capacity to support school reform and for the federal government to be less prescriptive about school turnaround measures. Despite the implementation and political challenges engendered by NCLB, one of its enduring legacies is the institutionalization of assessment and accountability in state education systems and an invigoration of the state role in school reform. The Bush administration’s aggressive push on school reform (which was embraced and extended by the Obama administration), however, eventually led to a political backlash against test-based accountability and against federal involvement in education more generally, which resulted in an ESEA reauthorization (the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016) that rolls back the federal role in K-12 schooling in important ways.	+	Though the impact and lessons of NCLB have been hotly debated, many observers highlight the need for states to expand their capacity to support school reform and for the federal government to be less prescriptive about school turnaround measures. Despite the implementation and political challenges engendered by NCLB, one of its enduring legacies is the institutionalization of assessment and accountability in state education systems and an invigoration of the state role in school reform. The Bush administration’s aggressive push on school reform (which was embraced and extended by the [[Obama, Barack\|Obama]] administration), however, eventually led to a political backlash against test-based accountability and against federal involvement in education more generally, which resulted in an ESEA reauthorization (the Every Student Succeeds Act of 2016) that rolls back the federal role in K-12 schooling in important ways.

← Older revision		Revision as of 01:57, 30 November 2018
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	The first major legislative initiative of the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new bi-partisan law, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), fundamentally altered and expanded the federal government’s role in education. The centerpiece of the law was the requirement that states, as a condition of accepting federal funds, establish academic standards to guide their curricula and adopt a testing regime that was aligned with those standards. States had to test all students in math and reading in grades 3-8 every year (as well as once in high school) beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, and by 2007-08 states also had to test students in science. States were free to develop and use their own standards and tests, but every school, school district, and state had to make student test results publicly available and disaggregated for certain groups of students including: major racial and ethnic groups, major income groups, students with a disability, students with limited English proficiency, and migrant students.	+	The first major legislative initiative of the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]. This new bi-partisan law, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), fundamentally altered and expanded the federal government’s role in education. The centerpiece of the law was the requirement that states, as a condition of accepting federal funds, establish academic standards to guide their curricula and adopt a testing regime that was aligned with those standards. States had to test all students in math and reading in grades 3-8 every year (as well as once in high school) beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, and by 2007-08 states also had to test students in science. States were free to develop and use their own standards and tests, but every school, school district, and state had to make student test results publicly available and disaggregated for certain groups of students including: major racial and ethnic groups, major income groups, students with a disability, students with limited English proficiency, and migrant students.

	NCLB explicitly required that states use this information to identify schools that failed to meet proficiency targets and to track achievement gaps. States were required to establish a timeline (with regular benchmarks) for making “adequate yearly progress” toward eliminating these gaps and moving all students to state proficiency levels within 12 years (by 2014). The law’s accountability provisions required states to take a number of escalating actions with Title I schools that did not reach state performance objectives. These actions included allowing students to transfer to another public school in the district, offering free tutoring, or (after several years of underperformance) replacing staff, adopting a new curriculum, or “reconstituting” the school with a new governance structure (e.g. reopening as a charter school). In exchange for meeting these new federal demands, NCLB provided a significant increase (approximately 50 percent in its first year) in federal education spending.		NCLB explicitly required that states use this information to identify schools that failed to meet proficiency targets and to track achievement gaps. States were required to establish a timeline (with regular benchmarks) for making “adequate yearly progress” toward eliminating these gaps and moving all students to state proficiency levels within 12 years (by 2014). The law’s accountability provisions required states to take a number of escalating actions with Title I schools that did not reach state performance objectives. These actions included allowing students to transfer to another public school in the district, offering free tutoring, or (after several years of underperformance) replacing staff, adopting a new curriculum, or “reconstituting” the school with a new governance structure (e.g. reopening as a charter school). In exchange for meeting these new federal demands, NCLB provided a significant increase (approximately 50 percent in its first year) in federal education spending.

@@ Line 20: / Line 20: @@
 ==== Patrick McGuinn, Drew University ====
-Last Updated: 2006
+Last Updated: February 2018
 SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:27, 28 October 2017
Line 16:		Line 16:

	==== Joseph R. Marbach ====		==== Joseph R. Marbach ====
		+
		+	Last Updated: 2006

	SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]		SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-The first major legislative initiative proposed by the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new law, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), has fundamentally altered the federal government’s role in education. The federal role now includes funding (it provides approximately 9 percent of the money spent on public education) and regulating the standards employed by states to evaluate student progress.
+The first major legislative initiative of the Bush administration in 2001 reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. This new bi-partisan law, dubbed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), fundamentally altered and expanded the federal government’s role in education.    The centerpiece of the law was the requirement that states, as a condition of accepting federal funds, establish academic standards to guide their curricula and adopt a testing regime that was aligned with those standards.   States had to test all students in math and reading in grades 3-8 every year (as well as once in high school) beginning with the 2005-2006 school year, and by 2007-08 states also had to test students in science.   States were free to develop and use their own standards and tests, but every school, school district, and state had to make student test results publicly available and disaggregated for certain groups of students including: major racial and ethnic groups, major income groups, students with a disability, students with limited English proficiency, and migrant students.
-Receiving bipartisan support from Congress, NCLB expanded federal aid to schools to over $22 billion. The bill also requires states to establish standardized testing for students in grades 3–8. Students must show adequate yearly progress, or schools risk losing funding or being forced to reorganize. Parents will be given the option of seeking tutoring or transferring their children to other schools.
+NCLB explicitly required that states use this information to identify schools that failed to meet proficiency targets and to track achievement gaps.  States were required to establish a timeline (with regular benchmarks) for making “adequate yearly progress” toward eliminating these gaps and moving all students to state proficiency levels within 12 years (by 2014). The law’s accountability provisions required states to take a number of escalating actions with Title I schools that did not reach state performance objectives.  These actions included allowing students to transfer to another public school in the district, offering free tutoring, or (after several years of underperformance) replacing staff,  adopting a new curriculum, or “reconstituting” the  school with a new governance structure (e.g. reopening as a charter school). In exchange for meeting these new federal demands, NCLB provided a significant increase (approximately 50 percent in its first year) in federal education spending.
-The standards used to measure student progress are set by the states subject to approval by the U.S. Department of Education. While the states will set the standards for reading, math, and science, the National Assessment of Educational Progress will assess state compliance and determine any sanctions to be imposed on those that fail. State progress will be reported to Congress by the U.S. secretary of education.
+The aggressive implementation approach of the Bush administration’s Department of Education succeeded in getting states to comply with federal mandates and intervene to a greater extent than ever before in districts with low-performing schools. States built new data gathering and dissemination systems that resulted in an unprecedented degree of transparency in public education. By holding states clearly accountable for the performance of their public schools, NCLB also prompted state departments of education to expand their capacity to monitor local districts, provide technical assistance, and intervene where necessary.  State education agencies, however, struggled mightily to comply with the law’s programmatic mandates and meet its timetables for moving students to academic proficiency and a large number of schools across the country were identified as “in need of improvement” and forced to apply “corrective measures.” As intended, NCLB also forced states and districts to focus more attention and resources on chronically low-performing students and schools, though to widely varying effect.
-In order to implement this standards-based education policy, a significant amount of local control over educational standards has been ceded to the states and federal government. This represents a major shift for most states, which have traditionally permitted local communities to control education policy.
+Overall, however, a variety of concerns were raised about the design and implementation of the test-based accountability system at the heart of NCLB and the ways in which it fell short of its goals and produced unintended negative consequences in American classrooms. Paul Manna has highlighted how NCLB created perverse incentives that led schools and states to adopt counterproductive compliance behaviors such as teaching to the test, narrowing the curriculum, focusing on “bubble kids” rather than student growth, and lowering standards, which undermined NCLB’s ultimate goals.  NCLB also renewed doubts about whether states had the political will to address the problem of underperforming schools. States used their discretion under the law to manipulate (or “game”) their accountability systems by lowering their standards, making their tests easier, and/or decreasing their proficiency cut scores.
 {| class="wikitable"
 |-
 | '''BIBLIOGRAPHY:'''
-David C. Bloomfield and Bruce S. Cooper, “NCLB: A New Role for the Federal Government,” T.H.E. Journal Online, http://www.thejournal.com/magazine/vault/articleprintversion.cfm?aid=4416.
+Cohen, David K. and Susan L. Moffitt, The Ordeal of Equality: Did Federal Regulation Fix the Schools? (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2009); Dee, Thomas and Brian A. Jacob, “The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity. Fall (2010): 149-207; Manna, P. 2006. School’s In: Federalism and the National Education Agenda. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press; Manna, P. 2011. Collision Course: Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local Realities. (Washington, DC: CQ Press; McGuinn, P. 2006. No Child Left Behind and the Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas; McGuinn, P. 2016. “From No Child Left Behind to the Every Student Succeeds Act: Federalism and the Education Legacy of the Obama Administration.”  Publius: The Journal of Federalism (Volume 46, Issue 3,  July 2016, Pages 392–415).
 |}
-==== Joseph R. Marbach ====
+==== Patrick McGuinn, Drew University ====
 Last Updated: 2006
 SEE ALSO: [[Education]]; [[Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965]]