No Child Left Behind Act: Pros, Cons, and Impact

Introduction to the No Child Left Behind Act

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was formerly known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which was enacted in 1965. Signed by President Lyndon Johnson, the ESEA provided monetary grants to local educational agencies to meet the individual educational needs of disadvantaged children. It also provided resources for libraries, academic research, state education departments, and related projects (Kafer, 2004). In January 2002, President George W. Bush signed a sweeping amendment to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965.

Widely recognized as the No Child Left Behind Act and ratified with bipartisan support in Congress, this legislation marked a significant departure in efforts at every level to raise the quality of public education (Ritter & Lucas, 2003). The Act requires states to test every student annually in grades 3 through 8 in reading and mathematics, to disaggregate scores by race, sex, English-language proficiency, disability status, and socioeconomic background, and to make that data publicly available (Kafer, 2004).

Congress anticipated that enacting No Child Left Behind would result in greater accountability for outcomes, more flexibility for schools, districts, and states in how they use federal funds, a wider range of educational options for families from disadvantaged backgrounds, and an emphasis on research-based teaching methods. The Act strongly stresses early literacy, raises the credentialing standards for teachers, and guarantees that every child attending school in the United States will be taught English (Jerry, 2003). Many regard NCLB as President Bush's most significant domestic education achievement, citing the nobility of its goals, while others — particularly at the local and school levels — have expressed serious reservations about its real-world consequences (Martin, 2004).

Under the No Child Left Behind Act, advocates argue that parents of English language learners can expect: that their children receive a quality education from a highly skilled teacher; that their child is taught English and core subjects such as reading, language arts, and mathematics at the same academic level as all other students; and that they are informed if their child has been identified for an English language acquisition program, with the right to accept or decline enrollment. Parents may also select an alternative English language acquisition program, transfer their child to a different school if the current one is found to be in need of improvement, and request supplemental services such as tutoring if the school has been designated as "in need of improvement" for two consecutive years. Children are also subject to annual assessments to measure English language progress, and parents receive information on how their child is performing on academic assessments (Paige Outlines No Child Left Behind Act's Ten Key Benefits for Parents of English Language Learners).

Proponents argue that immigrants come to this country in search of a better life for their families. With No Child Left Behind, parents become more engaged in their child's academic progress, helping to fulfill the aspirations of both parent and child. Research cited by supporters shows that students who are unable to read or write in English have a significantly higher likelihood of dropping out of school and often face reduced opportunities throughout their lives. An improved standard of K–12 education will ensure that every child who aspires to attend college is academically prepared, providing greater flexibility and more choices for parents.

Under the Act's accountability provisions, states must explain how they will close achievement gaps and ensure that every student, including those with disabilities, attains academic proficiency. States must also publish annual report cards at the state and school-district level to inform parents and communities about progress. Schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress for two consecutive years must offer public school choice; after four years, they must take corrective action; and after five years of insufficient annual growth, they must make fundamental changes in how the school operates (Paige Outlines No Child Left Behind Act's Ten Key Benefits for Parents of English Language Learners).

Supporting Viewpoints

A report published in March 2004 by the Council of the Great City Schools — a national coalition of more than 60 of the country's largest urban school districts — found that students in major urban schools had posted significant gains on statewide math and reading assessments following the enactment of NCLB. Additional state test results published for 2003–2004 showed students earning higher scores on state examinations. Although the full impact of No Child Left Behind had yet to be realized, parents had already begun to see encouraging results from its accountability and standards provisions (Boehner, 2004).

A nonpartisan report by the Education Commission of the States found that states were making progress in implementing the education reforms under No Child Left Behind. However, the report's authors cautioned that states still faced significant work to ensure every classroom had a highly qualified teacher by the 2005–2006 deadline. Among the findings reported by the Associated Press (Ben Feller, July 14, 2004): 98% of states were on track to define what constitutes a persistently dangerous school, enabling parents to transfer their children to safer schools; 92% of states were on track to publicly report disaggregated student performance data; 53% of states were on track to identify schools requiring improvement before the start of the new school year; and 22% of states were on track to place a highly qualified teacher in every classroom. More than 100 African American and Latino school district superintendents from across the country wrote to federal leaders expressing strong support for the Act and cautioning against weakening it, as had been suggested by the National Education Association and other critics. Together, these superintendents oversaw the education of more than three million American students (Boehner, 2004).

Proponents also point out that NCLB addresses learning difficulties at an early stage. Children who are proficient in the early grades tend to perform better in later years. Approximately $1 billion is allocated annually through the Reading First initiative to help states and local school districts establish high-quality, comprehensive reading programs for every child in kindergarten through grade three. Under the Act, every state tracks the progress of each child from third through eighth grade in reading and math, and parents receive report cards showing which districts are succeeding and why (No Child Left Behind Act Aims to Improve Success for All Students and Eliminate the Achievement Gap).

Parents also gain information about the quality of instruction in their child's classroom, how their child is progressing compared to peers, and the qualifications of their child's teachers. They receive alternatives when their child's school is not meeting expectations, including the option of transferring to a higher-performing school or accessing supplemental services such as tutoring, after-school classes, remedial instruction, or summer school. Additionally, federal education spending increases under NCLB, and teachers gain access to more data about each student's strengths and weaknesses to inform lesson planning and professional development. School districts also gain flexibility to redirect federal funding toward improving teaching practice, adopting new technologies, and maintaining safe, drug-free schools (No Child Left Behind Act Aims to Improve Success for All Students and Eliminate the Achievement Gap).

Critics argue that, rather than supporting well-rounded, progressive, or diverse programs that work for all children, NCLB and any federal legislation mandating uniformity through grade-level testing implicitly discourages the continuation of programs tailored to individual student needs (Martin, 2004). The Act penalizes schools when students fail to meet benchmarks, rather than rewarding them when they succeed (Clarke, 2004). Critics also identify difficulties in directing financial assistance to states, districts, and schools effectively (Tony, 2002).

Under NCLB, Title I federal funding — resources used to provide supplemental educational services to low-income students in high-poverty schools — does not follow children who transfer to non-Title I schools that perform better. As a result, higher-performing schools have no financial incentive to enroll low-performing students (Snell, 2004). The Act has also been criticized for focusing on punitive measures rather than support, emphasizing mandates rather than assistance for successful programs, and favoring privatization over teacher-led, family-centered solutions (No Child Left Behind Act/ESEA).

Although NCLB's title suggests a commitment to meeting the needs of each individual student, superintendents across the country have found this to be a significant challenge in practice. When states released their lists of schools that had failed to meet targets, a recurring pattern emerged: many schools were meeting their objectives across nearly every subgroup except two — students with limited English proficiency and students with disabilities. By requiring these groups to meet the same objectives simultaneously as all other students, the law has been criticized for imposing a one-size-fits-all approach that ignores individual student circumstances. By definition, students with limited English proficiency are not yet fluent in English, and students with disabilities have individual needs that led to their classification in the first place (Schwartzbeck, 2003).

A second concern relates to how students with disabilities and limited English proficiency are assessed and counted. According to critics, significant disparities exist from state to state in the types of accommodations available and how these subgroups are counted toward adequate yearly progress. The broader challenge for school leaders is how to address the needs of these students without scapegoating them, while still accepting responsibility for improving their performance (Schwartzbeck, 2003).

Critics also raise questions about students with disabilities sitting for tests designed for their grade level when such tests may be wholly inappropriate for their abilities. Regarding students with limited English proficiency, LEP status is inherently transitional: a student enters the school system without English fluency, enrolls in a language program, acquires English, passes a fluency test, and exits the LEP category. Yet schools are still held accountable for improving the number of such students passing state assessments, leading many states to adopt varying statistical methods to count students with limited English proficiency — including counting them for up to three years after they exit LEP programs. Critics argue that these statistical adjustments do not address the underlying accountability challenge (Schwartzbeck, 2004).

A further objection concerns the law's mathematical aspirations. The federal government declared that by 2014, every child would perform at or above national standards. Under a normal distribution, however, students will always be divided — roughly half above and half below the median. Critics warn that within a few years, virtually no school would be deemed successful, because schools struggling with test performance would continue to push more students into higher-performing schools, ultimately dragging those schools below the threshold as well (Monroe, 2003).

Additional problems cited by detractors include the tendency of some states to lower their standards or simplify their assessments, while others have used creative statistical strategies to inflate their scores. Many states have also structured their accountability plans so that little improvement is expected in the short term, with dramatic gains projected for later years — a design that critics view as an accounting trick rather than genuine reform. The highly qualified teacher requirement also draws criticism: the definition may disqualify genuinely effective teachers who lack the specified credentials, while certifying others who meet the legal requirements but cannot teach effectively (Kafer, 2004). This problem is particularly acute in rural areas, where teachers often cover multiple subjects.

At the local level, implementation of school-choice provisions and supplemental services has been uneven. Participation in both programs is rising, but only a small proportion of eligible students take part. The school choice option has not performed well in part because of insufficient capacity and resistance from school administrators. Many low-performing schools in both rural and urban districts have few or no higher-quality options available for students who wish to transfer. Researchers have found that some districts failed to notify parents at all, gave parents minimal time to weigh their options, or offered only schools performing as poorly as — or worse than — the school the child was leaving. There were also instances of discouragement or ambiguous language in letters sent to parents (Kafer, 2004).

Is No Child Left Behind working efficiently? To me, the answer is yes. The No Child Left Behind Act has evolved over time, requiring schools to offer more activities and more comprehensive educational programs. It benefits students by directly addressing the persistent failure of schools to improve student performance. Many people are working to support the instructional programs and teaching methods that advance student learning and academic achievement. Funds are available to help teachers strengthen existing skills and develop new expertise in reading instruction (No Child Left Behind: www.tqnyc.org).

One of NCLB's greatest strengths is that it puts information in the hands of teachers, parents, and the public, empowering them to demand change and improvement (Kafer, 2004). More teachers than originally anticipated have been found to be highly qualified, and many states and school districts are making genuine progress in providing paraprofessionals with the additional training they need. The focus on educating every child is sharper than it has ever been. From Ohio to Georgia, New Mexico to North Carolina, and Maryland to Illinois, test scores are improving and persistent racial and ethnic achievement gaps are beginning to narrow (No Child Left Behind Is Working).