No Child Left Behind: Impact on Teachers, Students, and Parents

Introduction to the No Child Left Behind Act

The federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, implemented by President George W. Bush, aims to bring all students up to the proficient level on state tests by 2014 and to hold states and schools fully accountable for results. NCLB requires all districts and schools that receive Title I funds to meet state "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) goals for their entire student populations and for specified demographic subgroups, including major ethnic and racial groups, students from low-income families, limited English proficient (LEP) students, and students with disabilities. If these schools do not meet AYP goals for two or more consecutive years, they are considered schools "in need of improvement" and face consequences, including fines and loss of privileges.

NCLB requires states to align tests with state academic standards and to test students annually in reading and math at the elementary level. It also requires the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) reading and mathematics tests to be administered to a sample of fourth and eighth graders in each state every other year, enabling cross-state comparisons. NCLB additionally requires school districts to hire teachers who are "highly qualified" to teach core academic subjects in Title I programs. Finally, states must issue annual report cards for both schools and districts.

This Act redefined the federal role in K–12 education, with special emphasis on closing the achievement gap between groups of students. The Act is based on four principles (Department of Education, 2005):

1. Stronger accountability for results
2. Increased flexibility and local control
3. Expanded options for parents
4. Emphasis on teaching methods that have proven to work

President Bush implemented the Act to counter the belief that many young men and women, especially those in urban areas, fall behind and never reach their potential. His argument was as follows (Kafer, 2004): "Too many children in America are segregated by low expectations, illiteracy, and self-doubt. In a constantly changing world that is demanding increasingly complex skills from its workforce, children are literally being left behind. It doesn't have to be this way."

The Act also affects teachers and schools in a significant way. Under NCLB, "qualified" teachers are required to hold a bachelor's degree, be state certified, and demonstrate subject-area mastery — either by holding a college degree in the subject they teach or by passing a state test on that subject (Kafer, 2004). These provisions have resulted in the elimination of some effective teachers who are unqualified on paper, while those who meet the requirements but do not teach well are rewarded. The problem is especially challenging in urban schools, where one teacher may be responsible for multiple subjects.

If the NCLB Act is successful, by 2014 all children attending public schools will be proficient in reading, math, and science (Heath, 2002). This places considerable pressure on those employed in the public school system. All schools in districts that accept Title I federal funds are required to produce detailed annual reports on the progress of all children, including four subgroups: minority children, children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and children from low-income families. Any district that does not effectively and steadily raise all students to the state-defined level of proficiency risks losing control of its schools.

Supporters of NCLB believe the law will bridge the academic achievement gap between rich and poor students by taking measures to ensure that low-performing schools improve test scores across all racial and income groups (The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University, 2006). However, opponents argue that the law sets unrealistic goals and unfairly punishes poor schools for failing to meet them, since the negative consequences apply only to Title I schools — those that receive federal funding due to a high number of low-income students. Critics also contend that the federal government has failed to provide sufficient funds to allow schools to implement the required strategies.

Results of the Act

Long-term results from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) — known as "The Nation's Report Card" — showed 30 years of modestly rising test scores and a narrowing achievement gap (American School Board Journal, 2006). "Today's report card is proof that No Child Left Behind is working," said Education Secretary Margaret Spellings. "It is helping to raise the achievement of young students of every race and from every type of background."

NCLB has focused attention on the performance of poor, minority, and low-performing students (American School Board Journal, 2006). While this attention is beneficial, it can also have negative consequences. According to a report by the Harvard Civil Rights Project, NCLB's accountability mandates have had a disparate impact on large urban districts with large low-income and minority populations. These districts have been motivated to adopt quick fixes in an attempt to avoid fines and criticism. "NCLB, a law designed to end the achievement gaps among racial, ethnic, and economic groups, too often disrupts serious reform efforts in favor of short-term test preparation and drill strategies," the report stated.

Under the NCLB Act, detailed information about the performance of schools and subgroups of students must be made available to anyone who requests it (Heath, 2002). As a result, teachers are likely to consult this information before applying for a position at a given school, district, or in a particular state. This carries a potentially negative implication for urban schools, which are often underperformers. Talented teachers may be reluctant to work at a school with a high dropout rate or a record of poor performance, since their own evaluations will be tied to those outcomes.

Student test results now affect everyone employed by the school district. Elementary teachers must learn how to assess children and use assessment results to inform instruction effectively. If a child does not respond to one method of instruction, the teacher must employ a different approach, using research-based methods throughout. Principals, meanwhile, must redesign their schools, implement research-based curricula, ensure that teachers are trained in research-based instructional methods, and provide core reading knowledge to all faculty. Principals who successfully increase their school's effectiveness must also be prepared for sudden increases in student enrollment.

One positive result of the Act is that it has created a mechanism for identifying what is not working and correcting it (Heath, 2002). Teachers who want to deliver a solid curriculum will have access to one, and ongoing professional training will be provided to help teachers improve their practice.

Impact on Assessment

Testing is a central component of the NCLB Act. Testing data allows teachers to determine whether students are learning the material. This information is valuable to school leaders making management decisions and to parents choosing schools or monitoring their children's academic progress.

The NCLB Act has a significant impact on assessment, which in turn affects teachers, parents, and students. The primary goal of assessment is to evaluate how well a student has mastered course material (Kandlbinder, 2004). This information serves a variety of purposes, but is used mainly to improve student learning or to measure student performance. These purposes make assessment one of the most important elements of teaching. Through the process of assessing students, teachers communicate what is valued in a course, and the recognition that assessment effectively represents the curriculum leads to the insight that teachers can use these signals to shape student learning.

The importance of assessment in learning has long been recognized by educators and is central to the learning experience in students' minds (Rice and Holt, 2002). Assessment tends to drive student learning, so content that has not been formally assessed is often not learned — with the exception of highly motivated, high-achieving students. The predominance of essays and traditional midterm and final examinations in conventional assessment tends to constrain learning because students focus narrowly on what they need to know to pass the class.

It is also important to recognize that assessment tasks that work well for some students do not always serve everyone equally. By creating a range of assessment methods that incorporate oral and written activities, assignments, and exams, specific preferences are not consistently advantaged, resulting in more equitable outcomes (Rice and Holt, 2002). The meaning and purpose of an assessment approach can be made clearer to students by aligning tasks with learning objectives, explaining how those tasks relate to the overall curriculum, and articulating the expected long-term benefits of completing the assessment.

While assessment has the potential to improve learning for all students, it has traditionally acted as a barrier to educational opportunity (Dietel, Herman, and Knuth, 1991). Assessments have labeled students and placed them in negative situations. Traditional tests are frequently criticized as biased and unfair to minority students, and the assessment of language-minority students has been especially problematic.

Conclusion

There are many positive goals associated with the NCLB Act. However, the Act ultimately takes control of classrooms away from the schools, teachers, parents, and communities who are most directly accountable to their children. With fiscally-driven mandates from the national level, schools and teachers are forced to operate in a reactionary and fearful manner, rather than in the creative and individualistic way that is often more effective in the classroom.

With national standards in place, schools are compelled to abandon creative, individualized, and supportive programs — in which teachers learn how each child learns best — and to adopt generic programs designed for all students. Schools are forced to eliminate programs doing excellent work under challenging conditions of poverty and other hardships, replacing them with programs that appear effective simply because the populations they serve face fewer obstacles. Furthermore, many capable teachers who do not meet the law's formal qualifications are replaced by less effective teachers who do meet those qualifications on paper.

Accountability is a worthwhile goal, but the Act does not appear to support a model that truly works for teachers, students, and families at the local level. Instead, it penalizes schools whose resources are already insufficient. The Act does take measures to ensure that special attention is given to improved learning for children who have been ignored or left behind in the school system, and its efforts to reduce the achievement gap are commendable, at least in the short term.

However, this does not mean that NCLB is working. In reality, the accountability system has significant problems that threaten its primary goals over the coming years. As this paper demonstrates, there are as many drawbacks as there are benefits to NCLB, suggesting a clear need for an improved model if the needs of all students are to be genuinely met.