Great Schools, Helping Hands: No Child Left Behind
Every administration claims that they care about the children of this nation. We constantly hear elected officials (and those who want to get elected) talk about the importance of good education and promise us initiatives that will give us great schools. But how many of them actually know how to make a quality school system a reality? Which government programs are actually helping our children “win the future?”
“No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) was an education reform program instituted by George W. Bush with the expressed goal of making sure that every child living in America received an education that would prepare him or her for a productive future, regardless of their socioeconomic background.
The efficacy of NCLB has been fiercely debated since its inception. Many argue that large, sweeping government initiatives are never the most effective way to guarantee good schools. A “bottom-up” approach that gives more authority and responsibility to teachers and administrators at the local level has long been looked upon as an alternative model.
When Did It Start?
The bill was proposed on January 23, 2001, a mere three days after Bush took office. It received strong support in congress, from Senators and Representatives on both sides of the aisle. John Boehner and George Miller in the House and Judd Gregg and Ted Kennedy in the Senate coauthored the bill.
It was signed into law in 2002.
What Did It Entail?
Standardized Testing
The bill first set aside money for every state to administer standardized tests to all their students. These results were then used as a baseline to establish each school's effectiveness. They would also measure “AYP” or “Adequate Yearly Progress.”
In order for a school to receive Title I funding under the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, they must demonstrate AYP every year. This means that the students in one grade must do better on their standardized tests than the class the year before them.
This can be a difficult (some say unrealistic) goal to live up to year after year. Schools that fail to meet AYP guidelines risk losing funding. Failure also results in the label “in need of improvement.” Schools are to respond to this by developing a comprehensive two-year plan to remedy their shortcomings. Once adequate test scores are achieved, the label is removed and funding is secure.
Student Options
If a school continually fails its standardized test goals, then students are given the option to transfer to different schools in the district, if any exist. This may result in an unfair burden falling upon a few great schools, as a mass exodus from a weak school could flood the better one. The flip side to this is that with a reduced load at a suffering school, it could have a chance to recover.
Teachers and Administration
NCLB guidelines call for schools to provide “highly qualified” instructors for all students. However, it is noticeably vague on what constitutes a “highly qualified” teacher. Each state is left to decide this for itself. Vague language is a major criticism that is often leveled against NCLB.
Teachers are especially at risk under NCLB due to the fact that continued failure to meet testing scores can result in their removal, and in fact, the entire staff can be reshuffled if school leadership believes that it will result in better scores. Administrators and educators at great schools know that it's not always that simple.
Effectiveness and Criticism
The effectiveness of NCLB has been and continues to be a source of contention between academic and educational professionals. The NCLB central office claims that the program has increased test scores and attention to the needs of minority students (partially through the increased freedom of allowing them to move to better-performing schools if any are available).
However, many educational professionals point to vague language and an over-reliance on standardized test scores as major weaknesses in the NCLB model. The Obama administration has said that NCLB will be replaced and has instituted other programs in its stead while developing new legislation.
Many instructors and staff at great schools agree that large-scale national programs will never be as effective as smaller, grassroots advocacy, the kind that parents and devoted citizens undertake.