This paper examines three key title provisions of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act as they applied to marginalized student populations in the United States between 2002 and 2015. Specifically, it reviews Title I (Migrant Education Program), Title III (language instruction for English language learners), and Title VII (Native American education). The paper summarizes how each title allocates federal funding, outlines program requirements, and identifies similarities and differences in their approaches. It also evaluates unintended consequences of the legislation, including the concentration of limited resources on struggling students at the expense of those performing at or above grade level. The paper concludes with a summary of key findings and their implications for diverse learners.
From 2002 through 2015, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was the primary law in the United States governing general education for students in grades K through 12. Some of its provisions — particularly those affecting minorities and migrant children — were contentious because they penalized schools that failed to demonstrate sustained improvement, a requirement that disproportionately affected schools already serving marginalized learners with limited English proficiency.
The purpose of this paper is to summarize the NCLB legislation as it pertains to Migrant Education (Title I), TESOL education (Title III), and Native American education (Title VII). An evaluation and analysis of the research is used to identify similarities and differences that have helped educators distinguish the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students. The paper concludes with a summary of key findings concerning this legislation.
Title I of the NCLB provides funds to establish and improve educational programs for children of migratory workers and distributes formula grants to state educational agencies based on per-pupil expenditures. According to the Virginia Department of Education, "The purpose of the MEP is to design and support high-quality and comprehensive educational programs that provide migratory children with the same opportunity to meet the challenging state academic content and student achievement standards that are expected of all children" (Education of migratory children, 2020, para. 2).
Beyond this, the Migrant Education Program (MEP) also works to ensure that all migrant students succeed in graduating high school with a diploma or by completing a general education equivalency program, helping to prepare them to become contributing members of American society. Title I allocates federal funds to the states using a formula that accounts for the estimated number of eligible migratory children aged 3 through 21 who reside within a state during a given year (Education of migratory children, 2020).
Title III of the NCLB — Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students — provides federal formula grants to state education agencies, which then determine local need and make subsequent subgrants to charter schools and school districts that apply to their states for funding (Wright, 2019). The provisions of Title III nearly doubled funding for students with limited English proficiency; however, because Title III federal funds are distributed on a broader basis, the net effect has been to reduce the total funding available to individual eligible students (Wright, 2019).
Notably, in contrast to earlier education legislation, the provisions of Title III do not distinguish between bilingual and nonbilingual programs. They only require that students with limited English proficiency be enrolled in some type of "language instruction education program." For the purposes of Title III, such a program is defined as an instructional course:
. . . in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (as cited in Wright, 2019, p. 4)
Based on these requirements, language instruction education programs for students with limited English proficiency must satisfy two basic requirements: (1) they must teach English, and (2) they must teach academic content as set forth in state-level English language proficiency and academic standards (Wright, 2019). This means that programs offered under Title III may provide instruction in students' native language, but this element of the curriculum is optional (Wright, 2019).
It is important to note that while Title III is specifically silent on dual language programs or transitional bilingual education, its provisions do permit this type of programming. Wright (2019) concludes that "Title III gives the ultimate authority to each state to determine what programs it will and will not support" (p. 6). A growing number of educators agree that authorizing local determination over how best to use Title III funds represents a step in the right direction (Wright, 2019).
This section of the NCLB has been praised as one of the most important pieces of legislation designed to improve Native American education in recent years. According to one educator, "Under Title VII, Native education stakeholders work with schools and higher education institutions to ensure that culture-based education is included in school curricula and that it meets the educational needs of American Indian, Alaska Native, and Native Hawaiian students" (Still, 2017, p. 2). Funding under Title VII has made it possible to develop and administer culturally sensitive supplemental education programs for Native American students that incorporate their local cultures into curricular offerings (Still, 2017).
"Culture-based programs for Indigenous students"
"Unintended consequences of NCLB title provisions"
The title provisions of No Child Left Behind reviewed above are intended to address the educational needs of an increasingly diverse cohort of young American learners. Given the dramatic demographic changes the United States has experienced in recent years, it is clear that this type of legislation is desperately needed to help marginalized learners achieve their full academic potential — but the challenges involved are as significant as the need itself.
You’re 56% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.