NCLB and IDEA: Key U.S. Education Laws Explained

Overview of No Child Left Behind

One of the most recent and controversial pieces of educational legislation passed by Congress is No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The rationale behind NCLB is to use standardized testing and other quantitative benchmarks on a regular basis to monitor the extent to which students are making adequate progress in school. To receive federal funding, all states must test at least 95% of students enrolled in public school grades 3–8 and at least once in high school. There must also be reports on the results of historically underserved subgroups such as English language learners; students in historically discriminated-against racial and socioeconomic groups; and special education students (Klein, 2015; Cortiellia, 2006).

The type of testing to which students are subjected, as well as the required proficiency level, may be determined by the state itself, but schools must make "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) toward those goals and will be penalized if they miss their AYP benchmarks. Students at failing schools must be given the option of transferring to adequate schools or receiving tutoring, although since the law's implementation in 2001 there is little evidence that students have availed themselves of either option on a mass scale (Klein, 2015). Because of the degree of penalization attached to schools, NCLB standardized assessments are often called "high-stakes" testing (Cortiellia, 2006).

Criticisms of NCLB's Standardized Testing Approach

Critics of NCLB, such as educational policy analyst Diane Ravitch, note that the state-by-state method of setting benchmarks means that states can set very low standards. "Most states are now using NAEP's 'basic' achievement level as their definition of proficiency because NAEP's 'proficient' level is far beyond their reach … Tennessee, for example, says that 90% of its 4th-grade students are proficient in reading, while NAEP says that only 26% are" (Ravitch & Chubb, 2009). There have even been documented examples of teachers facilitating cheating among students to pass standardized tests. Virtually all critics of the law also complain that teachers feel pressured to structure their classroom curriculum around helping students pass standardized tests rather than genuinely improving students' foundational skills (Strauss, 2015).

References

Cortiellia, C. (2006). NCLB and IDEA: What parents of students with disabilities need to know and do. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. LD Online. Retrieved from http://www.ldonline.org/article/11846/

IDEA. (2015). NCLD. Retrieved from

Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Education Week. Retrieved from http://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html

Ravitch, D., & Chubb, J. (2009). The future of No Child Left Behind. Education Next, 9(3). Retrieved from http://educationnext.org/the-future-of-no-child-left-behind/

Strauss, V. (2015). How and why convicted Atlanta teachers cheated on standardized tests. The Washington Post. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/wp/2015/04/01/how-and-why-convicted-atlanta-teachers-cheated-on-standardized-tests/