No Child Left Behind: Policy Analysis and Impact on At-Risk Youth

Introduction to the No Child Left Behind Act

On May 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act into law. The Act represents the most extensive reform ever made to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Through NCLB, the federal government redefined its role in kindergarten through secondary school education, with the stated aim of closing the achievement divide between minority and disadvantaged pupils and their peers. A nationwide act such as NCLB guides state standard development, establishing course benchmarks that carry significant influence over course planning and development.

The Act's core objective is ensuring every child has an equal, meaningful, and fair chance at obtaining a high-quality education and, at minimum, reaching proficiency on rigorous state-level academic assessments and achievement benchmarks (Title I — Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged). The incorporation of technology in classrooms — whether through stand-alone programs or as enhancements — must fulfill state benchmarks such as the National Educational Technology Standards (NETS) for both educators and students.

NCLB also applies the principles of accountability, flexibility, and choice in reauthorizing other key ESEA initiatives. The law, for instance, combined the Eisenhower class-size reduction and professional development programs into a new teacher quality improvement program, with a focus on employing research-supported practices for preparing, training, and recruiting high-quality educators.

Policy Levers and Measured Outcomes

Numerous lawmakers have asserted that NCLB boosts student performance, with Congress — functioning as the lever of control — reconsidering the role of the federal government in school reform. A central question is how advocates and policymakers should assess the Act's impacts. Focusing on the performance of fourth graders, which showed the strongest gains beginning in the early 1970s, researchers found that the initial growth in test scores has mostly faded since NCLB's passage in 2002. Mathematical achievement gains continued after 2002, though at a slower rate (Fuller et al., 2007). Performance in a number of states has climbed steadily; however, the proficiency bar in most states is set considerably lower than the definition used by the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The gap between federal and state results has widened since 2001.

NCLB requires America's lowest-performing school districts and schools to demonstrate the greatest academic gains through Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). At the same time, the policy overlooks the funding deficits of these schools and the populations they serve — the nation's poorest children. The most heavily financed American public schools dedicate nearly ten times the per-pupil spending of the nation's poorest schools. This financial imbalance creates a resource imbalance with serious consequences.

Inadequately funded schools that serve the greatest number of at-risk children are characterized by larger class sizes; fewer and lower-quality instructional materials; smaller libraries; inferior academic courses; minimal extracurricular activities; and fewer counselors (Sennett, 2010). More significantly, these schools continue to employ inadequately qualified instructors, which directly influences student test scores — a major component of NCLB's reform agenda. Furthermore, many rural and urban districts lack the tax base necessary to provide high-quality education. The Act has been unable to address these persistent school-based disparities.