No Child Left Behind Act

¶ … No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) first reauthorized President Lyndon Johnson's Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 a variety of issues have emerged that lend themselves to further study. There have been a number of negative, as well as positive, consequences presenting themselves in the various school systems throughout America. One of the positive aspects of the NCLB is that it "allows federal funds to be used for innovative programs that will boost achievement" (Single Sex Classes 72).

Creating these innovative programs is now the bane of teachers everywhere. Not only do these teachers and instructors have to create innovative ways to teach materials to all students so that 'no child will be left behind', they must also worry about test scores and the disciplining aspect of their students. The teachers must be creative because, even though the Federal government stated that monies would be made available for the various mandates and standards set by the Act, what the Federal government states, often is not what takes place.

Many experts believe the Act has many fine qualities to it, and that its purpose was very well meant, however, it could be that the act does need some modifications. One study surmised "the moral of this story is that making and maintaining a policy based on poor -- or incomplete -- science can have disastrous consequences for the very individuals that policy makers seek to help" (Zimmerman, Brown, 2004, p. 604).

How the Act as passed by the Federal government affects schools systems throughout the U.S. And especially the school system in Jefferson County Public Schools in Kentucky is the focus of this paper and it is my intent to ascertain specific monies provided by the Federal government to fund the required aspects of the NCLB as it pertains to this particular school system. It is my further intent to show how the standards were interpreted by this school system, what mandates were set to comply with those interpretations, and both the direct and indirect costs to the school system of meeting those mandates. Comparing those costs to the monies provided should present a clear picture of what exact effects the Act has had on the school system.

The Act presents strategies for the states and school districts in order to facilitate the improvement necessary to be in compliance with the Act, and some of those strategies have proven helpful. One recent article showed that "Districts viewed strategies to improve achievement proposed in NCLB as helpful, such as extending the school day, using new curricula, engaging in planning for improvements, and using outside experts for help" (Lewis, 2008, p. 72). Therefore, the effect of the Act is this regard is positive. The same article states, "many districts, however, do not have the resources to implement them. Almost all (97%), for example, said they did not have the money to extend the school day or year" (Lewis, p. 72). The above statement provides an excellent example of the effects on local school systems by Federal mandates.

Since the act was meant to assist every student in achieving certain goals, and the Act states that every student should be afforded an equal opportunity to obtain an education, it makes sense in order to achieve these lofty goals that all children be given every tool possible to assist them in becoming better educated. Many of these tools are cost effective and valuable to the students (and the teachers) but the expense of providing them still has to be borne by someone. Since the Federal government was the entity placing the standards in place, many experts believe that the Federal government should bear the burden of paying for those extra tools and programs not formerly provided by the schools.