The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (The No Child Left Behind Act of 2004) was a 2002 United States act of Congress promoted by the presidential administration of George W. Bush. It reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act and included Title I provisions applying to disadvantaged students. It mandated standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals could improve individual outcomes in education. To receive school funding from the federal government, U.S. states had to create and give assessments to all students at select grade levels.
The act did not set national achievement standards. Instead, each state developed its own standards. NCLB expanded the federal role in public education through further emphasis on annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, and teacher qualifications, as well as significant changes in funding. While the bill faced challenges from both Democratic Party and Republican Party politicians, it passed in both chambers of the U.S. Congress with significant bipartisan support.
Some of its provisions, such as restructuring schools that failed their students six years in a row, were controversial. After more than a decade, bipartisan criticism had increased so much that a bipartisan Congress stripped away some features of NCLB and turned the rest over to state governments in the 2015 Every Student Succeeds Act.Layton, Lyndsey (December 11, 2015) "Obama signs new K–12 education law that ends No Child Left Behind". Washington Post
Background The No Child Left Behind Act was billed as a successor to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which had been signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965. Its goal was to provide additional resources to low-income students, but following its enactment, the nation repeatedly fell short of meeting the law's goal of providing full educational opportunities to students.
Concerns regarding the U.S. education system culminated with the release in 1983 of a report entitled A Nation at Risk, written by President Ronald Reagan's National Commission on Excellence in Education.Nichols, S. L., Berliner, D. C., & Noddings, N. (2007). Collateral damage: How high-stakes testing corrupts America's schools. Harvard Education Press. This report suggested that America's economic security would be severely compromised unless there was a major reorientation of the education system and an increase in the set of academic standards that students were expected to achieve.
Though many Republican groups historically opposed the active role of the federal government in education, lobbying efforts, public opinion, and other political developments in Washington (such as the Republican defeat in the 1996 presidential election) caused congressional Republicans to push for federal educational reforms that emphasized standardized testing and other accountability measures. At the time, increased attention was being paid to the state of education in the nation because prior to the 2000 presidential election, then-candidate George W. Bush made a number of campaign promises related to bipartisan education reform.Sanger, D. E. (2001, Jan 24). Bush pushes ambitious education plan: Would use U.S. aid to force schools to meet standards. New York Times (1923–).Kernell. (2007). Going public: New strategies of presidential leadership (4th ed.). CQ Press.Hoff. (2008). Bush impact on schools to outlive term; NCLB law key element of President's domestic legacy. Education Week, 28(15), 1–1.
The increased focus in the U.S. on educational standards and accountability reflected international education policy developments and debates. After World War II, international organizations such as the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the World Bank, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) devoted their attention to global educational development. From the 1960s onward, these organizations increasingly focused on learning outcomes and evaluation procedures that included the evaluation of education systems against defined standards of performance. The 2001 NCLB Act was part of this global movement toward greater accountability in education.
Legislative history President George W. Bush first proposed the use of federal aid to create a plan by which to hold schools accountable for the educational outcomes of their students on January 23, 2001; however, as it was initially described, the act faced significant criticism from interest groups such as the Education Trust because of its inclusion of vouchers. Vouchers would enable parents to choose a different school (public, private, or otherwise) for their child to attend if their district failed to meet state standards; however, critics stated that this move would take funds away from schools that needed the most funding. The NCLB Act was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives on March 22, 2001, and it was coauthored by the representatives John Boehner, George Miller, and the senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg. As it made its way through the House of Representatives and the Senate, the bill faced a number of challenges, ranging from Democratic appeals for more funding, to Republican pushback on the increased role of the federal government in the realm of education. Despite this, the Act garnered bipartisan support in both chambers of the legislature, and it was passed in the House of Representatives on December 13, 2001 (voting 381–41), and in the U.S. Senate on December 18, 2001 (voting 87–10). It was signed into law by Bush on January 8, 2002.
Provisions of the act According to the Department of Education, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 aimed to increase school accountability for student educational outcomes and reduce disparities between lower-performing and higher-performing students and districts. To achieve these goals, the NCLB Act required all federally funded public schools to administer a standardized test annually to students in selected grades. To improve student outcomes, the act identified several strategies school districts could employ, such as teacher professional development, educational technology, and activities to involve parents.Arlette Ingram Willis. (2019). Response to intervention: An illusion of equity. Language Arts, 97(2), 83–96. The act also required each local agency to determine the average number of students in daily attendance in the K-12 schools it served to allocate grant money effectively for NCLB programs. Additionally, the law emphasized improving the communication of information about student achievement and school performance to parents through reporting systems designed to reflect best educational practices.
Title I
Schools that receive Title I funding through the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores (e.g. each year, fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous year's fifth graders).
If the school's results are repeatedly poor, then steps are taken to improve the school.Dillon, Erin & Rotherham, Andy. . Retrieved August 19, 2009. Schools that miss AYP for a second consecutive year are publicly labeled as "In Need of Improvement," and must develop a two-year improvement plan for the subject that the school is not teaching well. Students have the option to transfer to a higher performing school within the school district, if any exists. Missing AYP in the third year forces the school to offer free tutoring and other supplemental education services to students who are struggling. If a school misses its AYP target for a fourth consecutive year, the school is labelled as requiring "corrective action," which might involve wholesale replacement of staff, introduction of a new curriculum, or extending the amount of time students spend in class. A fifth year of failure results in planning to restructure the entire school; the plan is implemented if the school unsuccessfully hits its AYP targets for the sixth consecutive year. Common options include closing the school, turning the school into a charter school, hiring a private company to run the school, or asking the state office of education to run the school directly.National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance. (2008). Key provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act. Institution of Education Sciences. Retrieved November 18, 2021.
States must create AYP objectives consistent with the following requirements of the law: States must develop AYP statewide measurable objectives for improved achievement by all students and for specific groups: economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. The objectives must be set with the goal of having all students at the proficient level or above within 12 years (i.e. by the end of the 2013–14 school year). AYP must be primarily based on state assessments, but must also include one additional academic indicator, which is defined by the states. The AYP objectives must be assessed at the school level. Schools that failed to meet their AYP objective for two consecutive years are identified for improvement. School AYP results must be reported separately for each group of students identified above so that it can be determined whether each student group met the AYP objective. At least 95% of each group must participate in state assessments. States may aggregate up to three years of data in making AYP determinations.
The act requires states to provide "highly qualified" teachers to all students. Each state sets its own standards for what counts as "highly qualified." Similarly, the act requires states to set "one high, challenging standard" for its students. Each state decides for itself what counts as "one high, challenging standard," but the curriculum standards must be applied to all students, rather than having different standards for students in different cities or other parts of the state.
The act also requires schools to let military recruiters have students' contact information and other access to the student, if the school provides that information to universities or employers, unless the students opt out of giving military recruiters access. This portion of the law has drawn a fair amount of criticism and has even led to political resistance. For instance, in 2003 in Santa Cruz, California, student-led efforts forced school districts to create an "opt-in" policy that required students affirm they wanted the military to have their information. This successful student organizing effort was copied in various other cities throughout the United States.
The act outlines programs and requirements that have the intended purpose of preventing drug and alcohol use by students, as well as programs that would deter students from committing acts of violence in schools. The act also provides funds to states in order to enable students who have been expelled from school for certain offenses to perform acts of community service.
Title II – Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) is education policy from Title 2, Part B, Sections 2201–2203 of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The purpose of MSP is to increase student achievement in science and mathematics by partnering IHE science, math, and engineering departments with elementary and secondary science and math teachers in high-need local educational agencies (LEAs) in order to develop teachers' content knowledge and instructional performance. State education agencies may apply for competitive grants and then IHEs and LEAs may apply for a subgrant of the SEA.
Effects on teachers, schools, and school districts
Increased accountability