Child Left behind Act

President George W. Bush signed No Child Left Behind (NCLB) into law on January 8, 2002, declaring a new era in U.S. public education. The legislation enjoyed overwhelming bipartisan support in the post-September 11, 2001, context. Since then, support has eroded and the policy has been criticized on many fronts.

While NCLB is revolutionary in some respects, it also contributes to a long history of attempts to address educational disparities evident in U.S. public schools. These disparities—also referred to as the “achievement gap”—show white and Asian students generally outperforming their African American and Latino/a counterparts and students from wealthier communities outperforming those from poorer ones. The root cause of this “gap” has been variously attributed to poverty, racism, discrimination, inequitable resource distribution, poorly managed schools, unqualified teachers, and low expectations.

NCLB reauthorized and renamed legislation that had been in place since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Under ESEA, federal resources were tunneled into economically disadvantaged school districts for compensatory educational services. Education was seen as a tool for combating poverty and diminishing institutional barriers.

A fundamental shift in thinking is traceable to a report entitled “A Nation at Risk” issued in 1983 during the Reagan administration. The report alleged that U.S. public schools were tolerating mediocrity and urged states to take action. It shifted the focus from “inputs” (such as resources) and began to focus on “outputs,” which placed emphasis on testing to ensure that performance standards were being met. Funding was linked to higher expectations and greater accountability. What followed was a “standards and testing” movement.

President Bush referred to the “soft bigotry of low expectations,” and NCLB targeted expectations. The original legislation rested on four major pillars: stronger accountability, more local freedom, proven methods, and choices for parents.

Stronger accountability rests on mandatory testing in reading, math, and science to measure achievement and provide evidence of progress. In addition to these annual measures, NCLB required universal proficiency in reading and math by 2012. Tests would determine whether schools and school districts were making adequate yearly progress (AYP). States must disaggregate their test data and report the progress of subgroups by race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status as well as by groups with special needs, including students with disabilities and those with limited English language proficiency. Schools must then demonstrate AYP for each subgroup.

Schools and school districts that do not meet AYP standards for 2 consecutive years are labeled “in need of improvement.” For schools so designated, a series of progressive sanctions and remedial remedies are introduced. These include the opportunity to attend another school or to receive supplemental tutoring or remedial educational services. If schools continue to fail, they must take corrective action likely to produce meaningful change, and, finally, if failure is ongoing they must design and implement a restructuring plan.

More local freedom rests on notions of local control and greater flexibility. Maximizing local control is part of a broader Republican agenda to delegate authority for social welfare to state and local governments. Under NCLB, states have flexibility to manage federal funds and to shift funding streams based on program preferences.

...