No Child Left Behind

In January of 2002, President George W. Bush enacted sweeping education reform under the No Child Left Behind Act, NCLB. NCLB was not revolutionary in idea, but rather, the first of many proposed ideas actually implemented as policy. Federal interest in education was cemented by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, and later reauthorized in 1994 by the Clinton Administration in the beginning of a wave of change (Rudalevige 2). The NCLB blueprint introduced to Congress in January of 2001 "borrowed liberally from several competing proposals made in the waning years of the Clinton Administration" according to Andrew Rudalevige of Dickinson College (Rudalevige 5). Bush's win in 2000, however, was the triggering event necessary for a policy window, as he managed to persuade enough Republicans to accept this
traditionally Democratic issue.

Yet, this crucial bi-partisanship resulted in future ramifications, as many secondary aspects were overlooked in favor of principle agreements. With such a tentative alliance between the two parties, NCLB relied on a strange combination of both ambiguity and exact detail in order to appease both sides (Rudalevige 8). The bill lacks many controversial definitions, but sets extremely specific goals. Both parties continually relied on the word accountability, a concept that was difficult to oppose but easily manipulated to fit each side's different goals (Rudelevige 9). NCLB also includes a plethora of exact numerical aims, including one hundred percent student proficiency within the next twelve years (Fact Sheet: NCLB 1). Republican influence is not completely absent, however, and NCLB reflects a reluctance to change institutional venues and allow for too much federal power over the states. The act especially emphasizes state flexibility and maximizes parental choices, focusing on more individual liberties (Fact Sheet: NCLB 2, 5). Democratic influence is more obvious, as NCLB exercise more federal paternalistic interest in education since the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Yet, Congressional Democrats were opposed to the relatively vague block grants allotted to states, pushing for stronger central governance, thereby, less personal liberty in exchange for a more universal equity amongst states. There exists a delicate balance between the needs for both state experimentation and national rigor. As a result of this tentative alliance, many key issues were postponed until implementation.

No Child Left Behind expands the federal role in education policy and is particularly aimed towards improving educational standards for disadvantaged students (EdWeek: NCLB 1). NCLB claims to focus on a more equitable view of education, holding all students, teachers, and schools, or more broadly, districts and states, to the same national standards. Its primary aspects concern student achievement, teacher qualifications, and accountability. The Department of Education's rule-making process and enforcement practices have resultantly grown in importance in determining how seriously states and schools will take these requirements (Rudalevige 2). The laws ultimate effectiveness may depend on how closely the states, districts, and schools stick to these principles (EdWeek: NCLB 2). Yet, NCLB has grown increasingly controversial since its implementation, and state and local governments have come out in general protest against the act. In 2004, thirty one states introduced bills challenging different aspects of NCLB (Mantel 40). Connecticut in particular has threatened to sue on grounds that the federal government is in violation of a NCLB provision in which states cannot be forced to use their own money to implement the law (Mantel 42). Budgeting issues continue to remain one of the most disputed issues, as many blame the supposed inefficiency of NCLB on lagging funds.

The federal government assumed unprecedented power in public education through NCLB, but remains less fiscally responsible than the states. Although federal education spending includes a supposed thirty three percent increase, most states feel this is not adequate to implement the sudden changes NCLB requires (Mantel 36). The Center on Education Policy's annual yearly report claims that the recent presidential and congressional decisions to cut federal education spending will only serve to further aggravate opposition and fuel criticism (CEP 10). Additionally, states attempting to adhere strictly to new regulations will have the highest needs and costs, while those with lower standards will have the lowest costs (Mathis 4). NCLB's emphasis on state flexibility and vague block grants also assumes that each state and district will responsibly and knowingly invest these funds. Yet, the Department of Education administers four major state grant programs, and up to fifty percent of federal funding can be transferred between these programs or to Title I (Fact Sheet: NCLB 3). Some legal scholars, however, make claims that the federal government cannot be sued in order to force adequate funding of the law. Previous Secretary of Education, Richard Riley states that states have the responsibility of providing education resources to meet new standards (Mathis 5). State and local governments could reject NCLB mandates, but they would resultantly lose federal funding. Although these incentives often pushed states into compliance in the past, the coalition against NCLB is growing.

Advocacy coalitions opposed to NCLB base their claims on unrealistic goals and inconsistency. Ironically, the majority of these coalitions consist of educators and student rights advocates, including The American Association of School Administrators, the Children's Defense Fund, the Learning Disabilities Association of America, and the National Education Association (Mantel 28). Yet others, such as the Citizen's Commission on Civil Rights, the National Alliance of Black School Educators, Just for Kids, the Education Trust, and the Business Roundtable, have come forth in vigorous defense of the act and formed their own coalition called the Achievement Alliance (Mantel 28). NCLB is for the most part the brain child of a power elite, primarily the Clinton and Bush executive administrations. Consequently, there is a larger educational debate beyond the secondary aspects of NCLB, which concerns the issue of who should decide educational policy (Sobol 2). Although the institutional venue has shifted power centrally, away from state and local governments, educational curriculum, goals, and standards remains in the hands of politicians and the bureaucracy. Yet, this growing advocacy coalition, based on primarily educators, is becoming increasingly outspoken.

The myriad of complaints from educators about NCLB reaches beyond the basic funding inadequacies voiced by state and local governments, finding more fundamental flaws with the law. The coalition does not share the same policy core beliefs as the bi-partisan congress responsible for NCLB, claiming that the act places too much emphasis on testing, places overtly strict regulations on teachers, and contains a narrow curriculum. Teachers unions complain that an overemphasis on testing has reduced education to rote drills (Whoriskey 2). The Center on Education Policy reported that in several case studies, the constant pressure to raise test scores caused stress and a negative effect on morale (CEP 4). Additionally, subjects outside of math and reading inevitably lose classroom time, as the threat of failing adequacy tests and being labeled in need of improvement pushes curriculum to focus solely on these two subjects (CEP 2). NCLB also emphasizes teacher credential over classroom experience, and the National Education Association claims that teachers must be equally skilled at understanding how different children learn, and how to tailor instruction accordingly (Potter 1). Yet, the Department of Education continues to push NCLB over these objections, continually citing its main objectives over specifics.

Education reform is a relatively one sided issue, as in there is virtually no opposition in favor against improved public education. The Department of Education relies on this idea to bolster support for NCLB. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings has come out calling the law's opponents "un-American" (Mantel 43). The federal government continues attempts for a policy monopoly, with reports emerging that the Education Department contracted with several radio, television, and print commentators to promote NCLB (Associated Press 1). Yet, the tractability of NCLB is slippery, as it simultaneously changed the policy image of public education and switched venues towards a more centralized power, thereby upsetting the idea of a policy equilibrium. The relationship between its original objectives and its success has yet to be evidenced. Evaluation of NCLB is difficult to follow as the law is continually evolving and does not reach a culmination of its goals until the year 2014.

Bibliography

Associated Press. "Columnist Settles in Propaganda Case." Washington Post 23 Oct.
2006. 28 Oct. 2006 .

Davis, Michelle. "After Four Years, NCLB Impact Seen as Positive and Negative." Education Week 28 Mar. 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 .

"Fact Sheet: No Child Left Behind." The White House. 8 Jan. 2002. 28 Oct. 2006 .

From the Capital to the Classroom Year 4 of the No Child Left Behind Act: Summary and Recommendations. Center on Education Policy. 2006. 1-10. 27 Oct. 2006 .

Glod, Maria. "Closing the Gap, Child by Child." Washington Post 27 Oct. 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 00_pf.html>.

Gonzalez, Miquel. "Confusing, Complex NCLB Requirement." NEA: National Education Association. 12 May 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 .

Gonzalez, Miquel A. "New NCLB Policy Puts Thousands of Teachers' Careers in Jeopardy." NEA: National Education Association. 1 June 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 .

Hickok, Eugene. "The Education Revolution America Needs." Washington Post 27 Oct. 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 1303_pf.html>.

Mathis, William J. "No Child Left Behind: Costs and Benefits." Kappan Professional Journal 84.9 (2003): 679-686. 28 Oct. 2006 .

Mantel, Barbara. "No Child Left Behind." Issues for Debate in American Public Policy. Washington D.C.: CQ P, 2007. 25-46.

"No Child Left Behind." Education Week: Research Center 27 Oct. 2006 .

Potter, Will. "Math and Science Education Depends on Quality Teachers." NEA: National Education Association. 4 May 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 .

Rudalevige, Andrew. "The Politics of No Child Left Behind." Education Next 4 (2003). 28 Oct. 2006 .

Spellings, Margaret. United States. Department of Education. No Child Left Behind: a Road Map for State Implementation. 10 Nov. 2005. 27 Oct. 2006 .

Sobol, "Beyond No Child Left Behind." Education Week 20 Sep. 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 child>.

Whoriskey, Peter. "Political Backlash Builds Over High-Stakes Testing." Washington Post 23 Oct. 2006. 28 Oct. 2006 02601600_pf.html>.