Introduction to the No Child Left Behind Policy

No Child Left BehindTrue or False?

The Origins of NCLB

• ESEA (the Elementary and Secondary Education Act)

is established in 1965– A law that funded programs in schools heavily populated with poor children

• Governor Bush ran on a campaign that stressed that

“no child should be left behind” in the 2000 election

• President Bush’s plans for NCLB were signed into law

in 2002

The First Goal of NCLBcreate accountability

• Each state is to create statewide standards of a level of acceptable

proficiency to be reached by each school district in the subject areas of

math and reading to be tested through the means of standardized tests in

grades 3-8

– A level of 100% efficiency is expected by 2014

• School districts are also expected to meet a proficiency level in all subgroup

categories

– If a district fails to meet the standards in any one of these categories it will be

deemed a “failing” school, after five years must reconstruct

• Funding incentives

The Second Goalincreased flexibility as to where federal funds can be allocated

within the school district

The Third Goalthe three initiatives

The Fourth Goalincreased parental choice in district determination

• If a district is persistently failing, a parent has the option to

transfer their child, or opt for tutoring services, all funded

by the district

• This is done in an attempt to motivate schools to improve

so they do not lose a portion of their budget to students

who require funds to attend alternative schools

The Praises for NCLB

• Test scores have improved

• Increased accountability has motivated districts to change

and move in a more positive direction

• Quality of education has improved through NCLB requiring

districts to use proven educational methods of teaching

• NCLB is designed to offer the highest percentage of federal

funding school districts have seen to date

Criticisms of NCLB

• The funds are worth nothing if they are not enough to

implement the federal mandates“The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but

the funds are not.” –Ted Kennedy

• States are given the incentive to lower their

proficiency standards in order to receive more funding

• The long term effect of standardized tests

Connection to Deborah Stone’s Policy Paradox: The Art of Political

Decision MakingAmbiguity

• Initially there was tremendous bipartisan support the law fell under

great scrutiny there developed a multitude of ways of evaluating

with no clear solution

• Stone claims that in the polis model everyone must figure out what

works best for the whole of the people involved (the students) but

when there are multiple theories of what is “best” a very ambiguous

situation is created

Connection to Deborah StoneEquity

• The goal of equity in relation to NCLB is to distribute the funds as fairly as

possible amongst school districts

• The law appears to follow a system of rank-based distributions by

distributing more funds to the schools that perform higher on their tests,

however many argue they are being short-changed by this system

– Loopholes have resulted in the appearance of certain districts performing

better than others districts when in reality they may be performing worse

– Districts may lose the same amount of funding for failing in one subgroup area

as another district that failed in all subgroup areas

Connection to Deborah StoneNumbers

• Numbers provide us with a means of measuring

– In terms of NCLB, proficiency is the figure most commonly

measured

• But how can it be fairly measured?

– There are many different statistics, that can be used in many

different ways to favor a particular side or political actor’s POV

– The numbers need to be deeply analyzed to determine an

equitable way of allotting the federal funds to improve

education—the main purpose of the law