Policy Initiative of No Child Left Behind NCLB

Policy Initiative/No Child Left Behind (NCLB)

This paper will examine the NCLB (No Child Left Behind) policy initiative.

The Policy

On 8th May, 2002, George W. Bush signed the NCLB Act into law. The Act represents the 1965 ESEA's (Elementary and Secondary Education Act's) most extensive reform ever. The federal government's role in kindergarten to secondary school education has been redefined through the Act, which is expected to help forge the achievement divide between minority and disadvantaged pupils and their fellow pupils. A nationwide Act such as the NCLB guides state standard development (Case Assignment Module ). These represent a form of course benchmarks, having a significant influence on course planning and development. This title's aim is ensuring every child has an equal, significant, and fair chance at obtaining superior quality education as well as (at least) reaching proficiency on difficult state-level academic tests and achievement benchmarks (Title I - Improving The Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged). Incorporation of technology in schoolrooms, by means of stand-alone programs or enhancement, must fulfill state benchmarks (e.g., National Educational Technology Standards (NETS)) for educators as well as learners. NCLB also applies the notions of accountability, flexibility and choice, in reauthorizing other key ESEA initiatives (Archived: Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001). The novel law, for instance, combines Eisenhower's class-size cutback and professional development programs to form a novel teacher quality improvement program, whose focus is employing research-supported practices for preparing, training, and recruiting high-quality educators.

Issues/Policy Levers

Numerous lawmakers are compelled to assert that NCLB boosts learner performance, with the Congress (i.e., the Lever Control) reconsidering the role of the federal government (the Lever, in other words) in the area of school reform. One needs to consider how advocates and policymakers are to assess the impacts of NCLB. Concentrating on 4th graders' performance (which has depicted strongest gains beginning from the early part of the seventies), scholars have revealed that initial growth in test scores has mostly faded since NCLB's passing in the year 2002. Mathematical achievement gains have continued after 2002, though their growth has been slower (Fuller, et.al, 2007). Apparently, performance in a number of states has been steadily climbing. However, the bar that defines proficiency in a majority of states is kept considerably lower, as compared to the definition by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The federal-state result gap has widened since the year 2001. NCLB expects America's lowest performing school districts or schools to display highest academic gain by means of AYP (adequate yearly progress). Concurrently, the policies overlook the funds deficit of these schools and their population (the poorest children are enrolled in them). The most heavily-financed American public schools dedicate almost ten times the amount per pupil that the nation's poorest schools devote. This financial imbalance gives rise to resource imbalance. Ultimately, the inadequately financed schools which cater to maximum "at-risk" children are characterized by the largest size of class; inferior-quality and fewer instructional materials; smaller libraries; inferior-quality educational courses; minimum extracurricular activities; and less counselors (Sennett, 2010). Also, more significantly, such schools continue to have inadequately-qualified instructors, directly influencing student test scores -- a major reform component of NCLB. Moreover, a large number of these rural and urban districts lack the tax source necessary for providing superior-quality education. The Act has been unable to tackle the above school-based disparities.

Policy Program / The Advancement Project

Although the zero-tolerance discipline at schools has not proven effective in improving student behavior or school safety, numerous successful alternative interventions and preventive plans are being applied across the nation. Since the year 2003, Padres y Jovenes Unidos' students, community organizers, and parents have, with Advancement Project's support, conducted a campaign for altering disciplinary practices and policies in Denver's Public Schools. Following years of research, organization, advocacy, and public education, they have persuaded the school district to cooperate and create new disciplinary policies which do away with unnecessary student ticketing, suspension, and expulsion (Test, Punish and Push Out: How Zero Tolerance and High-Stakes Testing Funnel Youth into The School). Several communities are driving back student criminalization by limiting law enforcers' role in school settings and resorting to alternative means of tackling student behavior. Numerous proven strategies exist to avoid perverse incentives across high-stake examination and rendering more meaning to school accountability. For instance, researchers have discovered that states utilizing multiple-measure systems of assessment instead of systems solely relying on students' test scores depicted improved student performance and instruction. Grassroots institutions across America are opposing educational inequities, whilst endeavoring to make sure that low-income and non-White students enjoy the same opportunities as their peers.