No Child Left Behind or Every Child Left Behind?

No Child Left Behind was one of the first laws that President G.W. Bush pressed for after his election in 2002. This is a reenactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act originated by President Lyndon Johnson. As part of this act, each state determines how they will measure the progress annually towards the goal of 100% of students on grade level by the year 2014. (U.S. Department of Education, 2008).

The name Annual Yearly Progress came from the goal of student achievement that each school and district works towards reaching until a 100% on grade level is obtained in the year 2014.

No Child Left Behind was a bipartisan act that was supported by President Bush and Senator Ted Kennedy. President Bush and Senator Kennedy express to a group in Congress January 8, 2002,

“As of this hour”, said the president, “America’s schools will be on a new path of reform, and a new path of results.” Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass., shared the president’s enthusiasm. “This is a defining issue about the future of our nation and about the future of democracy, the future of liberty, and the future of the United States in leading the free world,” the legislative icon had proclaimed on the Senate floor. “No piece of legislation will have a greater impact or influence on that. (Rudalevige, 2003)”

They did not understand what a firestorm was created that day. The underlying premise of this legislation was to create accountability from states that have taken money from the federal government over the years and had not shown any marked improvement in their educational outcomes.

Andrew Rudalevige, from the Department of Political Science of Dickinson University, wrote in a white paper, ACCOUNTABILITY AND AVOIDANCE IN THE BUSH EDUCATION PLAN:

THE ‘NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001, about the new requirements that states have to meet in order to receive money for education. These changes would move the control of education from the communities and the states to the federal government. Rudalevige explains,

No Child Left Behind imposes new federal requirements for annual testing of students in grades three through eight while sanctioning districts and schools whose student populations as a whole or even in part did not meet specific measures of “annual yearly progress” on those tests. These mandates mark an important expansion of federal authority over states and local schools, which pay for more than ninety percent of education costs in the United States (Rudalevige, 2003, p. 4).

No more would the education of children reflect the values and goals of the state or community but now would be dictated by federal government. This is another move towards the nationalizing of our country through education.

Annual Yearly Progress is an accountability system that each state develops “based on academic standards and assessments that includes achievement of all students. Includes sanctions and rewards to hold all public schools accountable for student achievement” (National Title I Directors' Conference , 2003).

In theory, accountability for all students should be a valid response that should not have issues with for compliance. The problem lies in the goal of 100% of students achieving at grade level. This is an unattainable goal when the make up of the student population is taken into account.

The American Federation of Teachers in a policy brief July 2004, states,

The adequate yearly progress (AYP) formula does not give schools sufficient credit for improvements in student achievement. Its implementation does not allow schools to present valid and reliable evidence of student progress and the mandated interventions for schools not making AYP are not based on scientific research and are sometimes punitive rather than constructive; (AFT Teachers Union, 2004).

Annual Yearly Progress is a black and white vehicle with no gray area for those who are not able to achieve at a regular pace in school. There are provisions for students with severe disabilities but not for those students who have gaps in their ability to learn. Annual Yearly Progress makes no concession for these students or means for this group to show progress.

Some call No Child Left Behind and its Annual Yearly Progress a time bomb waiting to explode. The question is what is going to happen to the states whose schools have so many of the children who are just below grade level that they can’t in any universe meet the 2014 mandate?

The Quandary

President Obama on his website says,

Obama and Biden believe teachers should not be forced to spend the academic year preparing students to fill in bubbles on standardized tests. He will improve the assessments used to track student progress to measure readiness for college and the workplace and improve student learning in a timely, individualized manner. Obama and Biden will also improve NCLB's accountability system so that we are supporting schools that need improvement, rather than punishing them (Obama for America).

Obama could have been elected on this stance alone. People are disillusioned with No Child Left Behind. The cost to states in educational testing alone has taken away from the revenue that could provide resources for classrooms. The time element, as President Obama notes, of teachers preparing students by teaching them to find answers in a test booklet and bubble them onto an answer sheet could have been spent remediating skills that students have not acquired. Every school now teaches to the test until after the mandated assessment has been given then real teaching takes place. The pressure is a trickle down effect from Superintendents to Principals then to teachers who try not to pass it on to students.

President Bush in his last policy address states in an article, Bush Calls for Resolve on NCLB Renewal, by Alyson Klein that Congress should stay the course on No Child Left Behind. He believes this is his eight-year legacy. Others would believe it was his eight-year folly. The article continues to report that Conservative members of President Bush’s party have not approved of the “over reaching of federal authority” (Klein, 2009).

The No Child Left Behind Law was to be renewed in 2007 but legislatures have not been able to come up with a compromise that they can agree. Pressure from constituents is another aspect that has kept it from going forward.

As an educator, I would be pleased if states took back the responsibility for education. Having a set of standards for each grade level is a good product of the law. If the test were truly valid and reliable, testing on the standards would not be a hindrance to education. In fact, if the testing was about the individual student, not a measure of the school, No Child Left Behind would reach its goals.

References

AFT Teachers Union. (2004, July). NCLB: Its Problems, Its Promise . Retrieved January 10, 2009, from AFT Teachers Policy Brief: http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/downloads/teachers/PolicyBrief18.pdf

Klein, A. (2009, January 8). Bush Calls for Resolve on NCLB Renewal. Retrieved January 11, 2009, from Education Weekly: http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2009/01/08/18nclb.h28.html

National Title I Directors' Conference . (2003). No Child Left Behind, Accountability and Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Retrieved January 10, 2009, from Ed Gov.: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ayp203/edlite-index.html

Obama for America. (n.d.). Education . Retrieved January 10, 2009, from Obama Biden: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/education/

Rudalevige, A. (2003). The Politics of No Child Left Behind. Retrieved January 10, 2009, from Hoover Institute : http://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/3346601.html

U.S. Department of Education. (2008, December 16). No Child Left Behind Questions and Answers. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from Ed Gov: http://answers.ed.gov/cgi-bin/education.cfg/php/enduser/popup_adp.php?p_sid=biCz1Gli&p_lva=&p_li=&p_faqid=4&p_created=1095255813&p_sp=cF9zcmNoPSZwX3NvcnRfYnk9JnBfZ3JpZHNvcnQ9JnBfcm93X2NudD0xMTUmcF9wcm9kcz0mcF9jYXRzPSZwX3B2PSZwX2N2PSZwX3BhZ2U9MQ**