No Child Left Behind

¶ … No Child Left Behind Act

Analysis of articles that focus on the impact of "No Child Left Behind Act" on key stakeholders of education in the United States.

January 8, 2002 was the date the No Child Left Behind Act was signed into law by President Bush; this bill reauthorized ESEA, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which was the fundamental federal law for grades one through twelve. ESEA, which includes Title 1, the United States government program for the aid of students considered 'disadvantaged', dates to 1965 and subsequent reenactment in 1994. At the time the NCLB act was signed there was considerable national concern about public education; this bill established new requirements for all public schools, expanding the government's educational role with a focus on underprivileged students.

Within NCLB, new measures held both schools and states to higher levels of responsibility for educational progress and the law included goals to improve student achievement, significantly altering education (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). The four key precepts of NCLB include: (a) school instructional plans must be research-based; (b) parents are to be informed concerning educational options; (c) schools and states should establish growth targets; and (d) schools are accountable both for teacher qualifications and performance of students (Byrnes, 2009). In this literature review, we will analyze articles that focus on the impact of "No Child Left Behind Act" on key stakeholders of education in the United States. Specifically, this literature review focuses on the impact on state education, schools, teachers and students, and examines the best and worst articles published recently on this subject.

Body of the literature review

Impact of NCLB on teachers

To study the impact of NCLB on teachers we have chosen two articles. Out of the two, the more flawed study is "Literature review: Has the No Child Left Behind law produced more qualified teachers," which is carried out by Lyttle. This article has endeavored to find the effect of NCLB has had on teachers. However, it has drawn inferences based on presumptions and the data in the articles it has referred to do not fully support the conclusions drawn. The aim of the NCLB to provide to a good value to teachers and an improvement in their levels on one hand and overall improvement in quality of life sought by education on the other hand has been explored in the article. The results, according to the article have been disappointing. While it is true that teachers have been able to reach much better standards in mathematics, reading and literacy, there has been an absence of effect of the this improvement on the overall from a professional outlook as long as the teachers are concerned. This paper is written coherently and there aren't apparent grammatical mistakes. However, academic qualifications of the author, Lyttle were missing, though the work seemed to follow the rigor required of normal coursework. I took up this article because of its critical analysis on the disconnect between the literacy levels and education value NCLB aims to achieve (as regards its impact on teachers), however it rates only a poor second to the other article as it fails to support its facts with data from the articles to draw its conclusions that it has referred to while doing this work. It is hence not advised as a first preference to be referred to in rigorous research study

The second study that does a better job is, "Using multiple evaluation measures to improve teacher effectiveness: State strategies from round 2 of No Child Left Behind waivers." The article is written by Partee. There are many results sought by NCLB through its program on all the stakeholders. The improvements sought on the teachers is sought to be measured by a series of tests that seek to evaluate the teachers' improvement in many areas. This article has taken the pains to uncover the fact that the standardized tests that have sought to evaluate the teachers are not possibly the best reflection of their improvement. There are far too many parameters that go into making of good teacher than can be assessed solely through standardized tests that the students undergo. The effect that a teacher has had on a students learning capacity is in turn assessed through standardized tests that cannot be a final marker of the overall influence the teacher has had on the student. Partee is Associate Director for Teacher Quality at the Center for American Progress, a non-partisan research and educational institute, clearly unquestionable credentials in addition to being a former educational consultant and the insights provided by the article are of wider value than simply explaining the impact of NCLB on teachers. This article can be rated highly according to me on this topic under study because it studies the metrics across many states and through in-depth evaluation points out the inadequacy of standardized tests to serve as an appropriate measure of NCLB on teacher's improvement both academically as well as in overall professional development and quality of life.

Impact of NCLB on Schools

To study the impact of NCLB on schools we have chosen two articles. Out of the two, the more flawed study is carried out by Center on Education Policy in 2010. The study is titled, "How many schools have not made adequate yearly progress under the No Child Left Behind Act?" The NCLB calls for an assessment called AYP (adequate yearly progress). Overall, the improvement sought in the schools was poor as reflected in this article. At least thirty percent of the schools failed to make the grades sought by AYP. Even as the results varied vastly across states, about one fourth of the schools in thirty five states had failed to live up to AYP markers. In D.C. And nine other states as many as half of them failed to reach these yearly desired levels. In the study no specific reasoning has been accounted for this outcome, though variation in states' laws has been stated as one of the possible reasons causing this huge disparity in results. The inferences are rather cursory; there is a lack of strong connect between the results and the data approached for the study, though a lot of data has been accessed. Hence in my opinion this study, carried out by Center on Education Policy, is comprehensive, however, lacks depth and rated lower than the other study taken up for assessing the impact of NCLB on schools. This study can still be of importance when discussing NCLB as it gives important statistics and hence understanding about possible effect of state laws on the effect NCLB has on schools.

The second study that does a better job is, "School restructuring under No Child Left Behind: What works when?" carried out by Hassel and his colleges in 2006. This article has studied failing schools comprehensively and assessed reasons thereof. This probably why it offers five ways of bringing those schools back into the mainstream and passing the criterion laid down by the NCLB. The suggested ways are turnarounds, chartering, state takeovers, contracting, and a generic category known as "other." The article also discusses the steps to bring about the desired course correction. It calls for a four-step affirmative strategy to resolve issues faced by failing schools, those are to take charge and choose the appropriate path for change followed by implementation of the plan and hence improve on the failures encountered. The authors worked for Public Impact, a firm that worked in the pursuit of education policy and management. They have undertaken to prepare this study for Learning Point Associates and The Center for Comprehensive School Reform and Improvement, with the aim of helping the failing schools perform better. This is a better article compared to the article discussed above as it concentrates on the proper courses and corrective steps that ought to be taken to help schools pass the NCLB criterion. The emphasis is on overall improvement rather than solely passing the NCLB tests. This article rises above the discussions on NCLB to offer suggestions for those that fail to meet the standards and aims of NCLB.

Impact of NCLB on Students

To study the impact of NCLB on schools we have chosen four articles. Out of the four, the more flawed study is, "Is No Child Left Behind effective for all students," which is carried out by Randolph and Wilson-Younger in 2012. This study has discussed many points offered as views from parents and teachers on the role of NCLB on Students. The complaints blame the NCLB most eloquently on the following points- the goals desired by the NCLB of the students are unattainable, lofty; in order to reach these scores through tests, schools are cutting down on the syllabus; subjects other than math's, literacy and reading, like science, social studies, foreign languages and health are gaining lesser importance and this is leading to poorer quality of overall education and knowledge; the last concern is that, whereas the law seeks to improve the grades of the students, adequate support in the form of desired funds' increase is missing causing the law to fail miserably even as demands increase. This paper also raises the concern of the parents that the students are being prepared solely towards making grades rather than developing their analytical skills. According to me, this paper is the last amongst the ones chosen to study the effect of NCLB on students This work, according to me is very poor as against academic standards on more than one count- the authors Randolph and Wilson-Younger, do not exhibit their academic credentials fully save to say that one of them has the credentials of a doctorate. The work cannot be used as a valid reference for serious academic work as it also uses very sub-standard language.

The second study that does a slightly better job is, titled, "recommendations to support high-quality early education programs through reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act," which is carried out by Ewen and colleagues in 2007. This study is better than the earlier one on assessing the impact of NCLB laws on students. In this article there is emphasis on the early days of education that has a dominant effect throughout one's life. Their concern is about the marginalized students who are less advantaged than the ones who are better off financially and how the early disadvantage stay with them all along their student lives. The article appreciates the fact that NCLB has taken note of this fact and has made conscious efforts by providing funds to alleviate the situation. This paper makes an effort to improve the efficiency of fund utilization towards this goal. The two authors' credentials are missing, making it a suspect for academic reference but that they work for CLASP (Center for Law and Social Policy), an organization in the domain of repute, be taken into consideration while ranking it. This article, according to me is only slightly better than previous one for its aspersions on NCLB laws and its effect on student because of missing credentials of the author as also for the fact that the study makes speculative guesses rather than concentrating on facts to which it should have resorted. The best use of this low quality work is best made of for newer ideas.

The third study chosen for this paper that does a far better job then the previous two is, "Is the No Child Left Behind Act working? The reliability of how states track achievement," which is carried out by Fuller and his colleagues in 2006. In this study the results are inferred empirically. Hence, I rate this work as the second best one. This paper has attached importance to the capability of the states to follow the directives stated in the NCLB. They found that there was a large variation in the tests conducted by different states as also even within some states themselves. Consolidating adherence to NCLB laws hence made assessments difficult, according to this paper. The authors were employed with Policy Analysis for California Education, a reputed educational reform agency under the aegis of University of California, Berkeley. There is limited use of this work as it was undertaken not long after NCLB was implemented and hence the results which were acquired for this study may not exhibit full impact of the NCLB laws on the students. It is only because of this reason that this work has been rated second by me.

The fourth study that does the best job amongst the chosen studies is titled, "The No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: A Progress Report," which was carried out by The National Council on Disability in 2008. I consider this source to be the best amongst the chosen articles as it touches upon the effect of the NCLB laws on all the stakeholders and has acquired authenticated data for the rigorous analysis it has engaged in. Relevance and connect between IDEA (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act) and NCLB can also be found in this work. In this work, the fact that dropout rates has decreased amongst students with disabilities has been shown because of implementation of NCLB. The study suggests greater flexibility for the states in implementing the law, but at the same time cautions on maintaining the high standards it seeks to achieve. This is the best paper according to me amongst the four chosen in this work as it uses valid data, uses scientific rigor to analyze the information, finds the connect between NCLB and IDEA and also suggests the way ahead for success of the law across the country.

Impact of NCLB on State Education

To study the impact of NCLB on schools we have chosen two articles. Out of the two articles, Spellings in 2007 does a better job overall. His study is titled, "Building on results: A blueprint for strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act." I have rated this paper as the better of the two studies I undertook for study of the impact NCLB has on state policy as it does not base its inferences on assumptions that hover around NCLB. Instead, it suggests concrete steps that need to be taken to achieve the aims stated in the NCLB. The students, according to the NCLB need to improve upon their literacy skills and mathematics. According to this report, the implementation of NCLB has been effective in improving the grades achieved by the students. It cites authentic, relevant figures and data to this effect. It has suggested offering more strength and flexibility to state laws, encouraging rigorous work by the students in the middle school and the high school to improve their competency and acquire better grades than prescribed. It however, emphasizes the importance of adherence to core NCLB values and aims while achieving better grades. Though, Spelling is an expert in the field and her opinion does carry deep insights, her remarks lean on the side of the laws, NCLB, specifically, as she is the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education, an appointee of the federal government and her bias may be understandable. Her access to data cannot be questioned and should be given due importance. However, the inferences cannot be fully absolved of bias to substantiate the achievements of the government through this effort to improve education levels in the country.

The second study chosen for this paper that also does a good job is titled, "The unraveling of No Child Left Behind: How negotiated changes transform the law," which is carried out by Sunderman in 2006. This paper that stops short of discussing the general discussions about NCLB and its implementation. It is not a paper discussing the merits, demerits, or achievements of the paper. It rather emphasizes on the developments and hurdles that were encountered even as the law was being finalized. Gail Sunderman, the main researcher of the Harvard Civil Rights Project, has enumerated the difficulties posed by the diversity that abounds in the field of education in the country, the variations in suggestions offered by each state through the correspondence of the federal government with each state and hence inability to enforce a uniform education law. The process of enacting the legislation has been attended to in this paper thoroughly, thereby underlining the difficult negotiations that have preceded the making of the NCLB law. The laudable point of this work is that the analysis stands the test of expected academic rigor. The paper highlights the point that the congressional representatives failed to respond adequately to the obvious difficulties that should have been anticipated by a country as large and diverse as ours. The only point that this paper fails to do is that it is not very stringent in its assimilation and reliance on the data on offer. That is where this paper comes a close second to the paper discussed previously on the impact of NCLB on State Education.