NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Somaya Muna
American Public Policy 3325
Professor Lowry
11 December 2012

Muna 2
Introduction

The Federal Government passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)
reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, whose purpose was to
increase rates of achievement. NCLB seeks to improve the performance of primary and
secondary schools in the United States by: a) increasing the standards of accountability for
schools, school districts, and states; b) affording parents the opportunities to select which schools
they wish their children to attend; and c) requiring states to develop assessments in basic skills to
be administered to all students in particular grades.
The NCLB Act was the source of substantial controversy and debate within the education
community as some educators and policymakers questioned the viability and fairness of the act
and the impact it placed upon education in the U.S. The NCLB expanded the federal role in
education and took particular aim at improving the educational lot of disadvantaged students. At
the center of the argument was the precarious relationship between external and internal control
and the insinuation for organizational change and improvement. The demand for proven results,
data driven decision-making, and widespread evaluations required alterations within
superintendent preparation programs. This paper will further address the substantive issues,
proposed solutions, and the politics of the policy decision.

Muna 3

Substantive Memo
Abstract
George W. Bush announced the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), his framework for
bipartisan education, describing it as the cornerstone of his administration, three days after
taking office in 2001. Bush stressed his concern on the neediest children that are left behind with
disregards to the Federal spending of 200 billion dollars since the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965. The NCLB Act seeks to improve the performance of primary and
secondary schools in the United States by increasing accountability for States, school districts,
and schools; providing opportunities for parents to choose which schools they wish their children
to attend; having more flexibility for States and educational agencies in their use of Federal
education dollars; and placing a higher standard on students. Several alternatives to NCLB have
been suggested in order to remedy the problems of the education system. The NCLB Act proved
ineffective over the last decade due to the over-demanding standards placed upon states in order
to comply with the federal government.
Beginning with Franklin D. Roosevelts New Deal, liberals struggled to create policy
structures that would secure minimum economic security for all United States citizens. The
limitations of the Social Security Act regarding employment, healthcare, and welfare provided a
platform for the problems that needed to be addressed in the War on Poverty. President John F.
Kennedy and his advisers began to converse about issues that could potentially become a
domestic policy focus for the 1964 presidential campaign. A spotlight on poverty allowed for a
broad unifying theme that excelled the very gradual, limited domestic policy accomplishments
that the administration had achieved so far. It also placed a balance on the middle class focus of
the tax cut that highlighted those left behind by American prosperity. Policymakers were able to

Muna 4
emphasize the inadequate resources of the poor with poverty as a theme. Lyndon B. Johnson, a
New Deal Loyalist and schoolteacher, took initiative of the War on Poverty administration after
the assassination of Kennedy.

How the problem got on the policymaking agenda

Johnson enacted the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as an
integral part of his War on Poverty. Initially, ESEA had little oversight and accountability and the
amount of federal aid summed to ten percent of the overall cost of education. The No Child Left
Behind Act was a reauthorization of the ESEA and incorporated the principles and policies put
forward by President Bush. The NCLB Act reinforced accountability by requiring States to
employ statewide accountability systems on all public schools. These systems implemented the
use of annual testing and annual statewide progress objectives ensuring that all students reach
aptitude within twelve years. All schools that failed to meet the state proficiency goals were
subject to improvement, corrective action, and restructuring measures in order to meet State
Standards. The NCLB Act also provides more choices for parents to select which schools their
children may attend in order to meet the State standards. Local Education Agencies (LEAs) are
required to give students the opportunity to attend a better public school if they were currently
attending an inadequate school; utilizing up to twenty percent of their Title I allocations for the
better public schools. LEAs are also required to ensure transportation within each district using
at least five percent of its Title I funds. The NCLB Act ensures flexibility to states in the use of
Federal education funds in exchange for strong accountability for results. The NCLB Act asserts
President Bushs unequivocal commitment to guaranteeing that every child can read by the end
of third grade. The increase in Federal investment in reading instructive programs in younger

Muna 5
aged groups would decrease the amount of children in need for special education services due to
a lack of appropriate reading education in their earlier years. The NCLB Act also requires LEAs
to demonstrate annual progress in ensuring that all teachers teaching in core academic subjects
within the State are exceedingly qualified. NCLB provisions also included reauthorizations of
other major programs enacted through the ESEA Act in order to best remedy the educational
system.
The NCLB Act was the source of substantial controversy and debate within the education
community as some educators and policymakers questioned the viability and fairness of the act
and the impact it placed upon education in the U.S. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor
Bush used education reform to persuade constituencies like Latinos and African Americans
criticizing the soft bigotry of low expectations and denounced policies that excluded millions
of minority children using the idioms of civil rights and social justice. Numerous Americans,
especially minority groups are disillusioned with the status quo. No Child Left Behind Act
dramatically expanded the federal role in education and exchanged conventional conservative
themes for those borrowed from the civil rights community (Hess). Research reveals that many
minorities still live in poverty, live in segregated communities, and drop out of school at a higher
rate than Caucasians (College Scholarship 2006; Orfield 2001; National Education Association
2003). Bush's diagnosis was that America's schools were plagued by mediocrity, low
expectations, and inattention to the basics. The solution: aggressively reshape their culture by
holding schools accountable for raising performance and closing racial achievement gaps in
reading and math (Hess).
The NCLB Act enthusiasts believe that NCLB proposals will further democratize U.S.
education, by setting standards and providing resources to schools, regardless of wealth,

Muna 6
ethnicity, disabilities, or languages spoken. Advocates of NCLB argue that it has aided in
narrowing the achievement gap amongst minority and non-minority students because it has
centered its attention on the academic success of conventionally under-represented groups and by
doing so, has encouraged schools to create and implement suitable interventions. NCLB
proponents also believe that systematic state testing improves the value of education because it
draws attention to low performing schools that are not teaching basic skills efficiently. In
addition, supporters of NCLB assert that the improvements made in administration, instruction,
curriculum development, and business practices are the result of a dependence on assessment
date to devise all resolutions. The NCLB Act has generated disparagement in the sociopolitical
and pedagogical arenas. A major criticism of the NCLB Act is that it may provoke states to lower
achievement goals and influence test results in order to guarantee students success rates.
Another flaw that opponents of NCLB argue is that the legislation limits its focus to only
mathematics, reading, and language arts and ignores the benefits of a broad education in studying
the arts, social studies, and physical education.

Alternatives
Over the years, multiple alternatives to NCLB have been suggested, including Plan 2020,
the Forum on Educational Accountability and Utah Performance Assessment System for Student.
The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA) seeks to create a law focusing on assistance
and improvement, not sanctions, and on achievable but significant rates of improvement. FEA
includes educationally helpful assessments, places rational expectations for improvement, and
supports instead of punishments. FEA also intends to expand and equalize educational
opportunity, fully fund ESEA, and subsidize a considerable share of the improvements called for

Muna 7
by FEA. Alabama state education leaders recently discussed Plan 2020, an alternative to NCLB
that would be more equitable to students, teachers, and schools and more advantageous to studs
with special needs. Plan 2020 would allow teachers to work with students on an individual basis
and work with them to reach their academic goals, expose them to various jobs by having field
trips or guest speakers, and get them ready for college (Lanee). Plan 2020 would allow teachers
to better asses what a student can handle, and tailor a plan to test that student. Rather than being
tied into a level of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), teachers can work on their own level of
report standards evaluating each students progress. Proposed in 2005, the Utah Performance
Assessment System for Students or U-Pass calls for every student from grades K-12 to be tested
and the state would determine every year whether a student has reached AYP. Tim Bridgewater
believes that U-Pass evaluates each student whereas the federal standards look at cumulative
progress for all students per school. Bridgewater states U-Pass is a better way to help the most
at-risk students, minorities and the learning disabled (PBS). Although these alternatives have
yet to be implemented onto our education system, several states have proposed new legislature in
which their education system could better rectify themselves.
The No Child Left Behind Act motivated the nation to provide the best education possible
to its youth nearly a decade ago. Yet many say the legislation has not only been unproductive, but
it has also been a diversion from what is really needed to fix the education system within
America. According to the Center on Education Policy, almost half of the nations schools
failed to meet federal standards last year due to harder tests, growing numbers of immigrant and
low-income children, and the fact that states have to increase the number of students who must
pass testing every year (Williams). Although billions of dollars were spent on NCLB school
reform programs, the National Assessment of Educational Progress report provides evidence of

Muna 8
NCLBs failure. "NCLB is demonstrably unable to produce sustained and significant
improvements even on a standardized test in the two subjects on which it focuses, reading and
math. It also fails to make a real dent in the wide gaps between whites, African Americans and
Latinos," (Neill, Ed.D. Fair Tests Deputy Director). Between 1999 and 2004, reading scores for
17-year olds fell three points, and math scores decreased by one point. Studies also show that
about one million students annually drop out of high school before graduation. Recently, the
government is trying to put the fun back into teaching with new programs focused on
reforming education. The Obama administration is emphasizing flexibility in allowing states to
design their own programs and it is emphasizing to help the lower performing schools do better
and they will buy into the program (Dowd). Speculators believe that the federal government
needs to empower states with their own rights to affect their own education system. Experts
agree that the No Child Left Behind Act has not improved education within the last ten years.

Outcome
The No Child Left Behind Act has been the source of controversy and debate amongst the
sociopolitical and pedagogical branches. Ultimately, the NCLB Act has been confirmed to be
inadequate over the last ten years because of the over-insistent standards placed upon states in
order to fulfill the national governments wishes. Americas educational system lacks a strong
effective federal legislation that reconciles with each states specific issue and lacks the
appropriate amount of funds allocated by the federal government. Although President Bushs
intentions of reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 centered upon
the welfare of education, the definitive results proved to cause lower academic achievement
rates, less flexibility upon States and educational agencies in their use of Federal education

Muna 9
dollars, and causes limitations of a broad well-rounded education with the focus on just
mathematics and reading. The Obama administration continues to attempt to resolve the
prolonging problem and inequalities of our educational system.

Politics Memo

Muna 10

Abstract
Since the 1990s, the federal role in education has expanded dramatically. Stakeholders
and political players were crucial in promoting the reforms that would be enacted with federal
policies such as the No Child Left Behind Act. President George W. Bush signed the No Child
Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law surrounded by supportive members of the Democratic and
Republican leadership on January 8, 2002. NCLB reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (ESEA) pushing forward the nations educators and schools into a new era of
federal educational leadership. A prominent discrepancy from the persuasive partisanship
occurred as a left-right merger formed that effectively steered the NCLB Act through Congress.
The Democratic and Republican congressional members reflected the wave of national unity
after the 2001 terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, which enabled both
houses of Congress with bipartisan majorities to carry out NCLB. Students, teachers,
politicians, taxpayers, and other important stakeholders and political players contribute to the
implementation of the laws legislated by the NCLB Act.
Reformers in Washington D.C. agreed on two crucial points when constructing No Child
Left Behind: first, the nature of the education problem; and second, the problems root cause.
There are three contending explanations for the imbalance of performance rates amongst
American children; (1) A lack of resources and money in disadvantaged schools, (2) the effects
of poverty in society and the larger culture, and (3) the dysfunctional school culture and a
careless system of governance and incentives that permits school systems to avoid making
unpopular decisions, although those decisions would improve academic achievement. There was
no consensus among policymakers for the question regarding federal funding for state education
systems. Both Democratic and Republican parties agreed that poverty and incentives were

Muna 11
reasons for the achievement gap. Bipartisan parties also rejected the notion that poverty, culture,
or family background established legitimate explanations for mediocre student performance.
Many supporters of NCLB point out productive public schools in harsh urban and rural
environments as evidence that all schools are capable of educating all students. Congressman
George Miller, the ranking Democratic member of the House Education and the Workforce
Committee, penned an op-ed with Education Trusts Russlyn Ali (2003) that read Perhaps the
most insidious myth being perpetuated is that California's demographics make it impossible to
expect much of its kids. This sentiment is more than just collective apathy. It is bigotry. Schools
all over the country, in every type of community, have shown that all students--minority and nonminority, rich and poor--can succeed if they are held to high standards and given the requisite
resources. It is time to put this myth to rest for good (Hess). The political attraction of the
NCLB consensus was that it permitted public officials to embrace high standards and defend
equal opportunity without having to propose unfavorable solutions or explain exactly what
strategies would enable schools to succeed. These two key points, the nature of the education
problem and the problems root cause launch the policymakers agenda to further implement
laws to correct the problems of the nations educational system.

Stakeholders and their interests

When placing an emphasis on long term success of schools, NCLB brings about two
questions, 1) to whom do the schools belong and 2) who has a long-term vested interest in the
success of our schools and students. The families who send their children to schools to receive an
education, the taxpayers who support the schools, and the businesses who hire our graduates are
the three main educational constituent groups. Stakeholders with interests in the success of

Muna 12
NCLB include teachers, teacher unions, education support professionals, district and school
leaders, students, families, national, state, and local policymakers, taxpayers, and the business
community. At stake for the students is personal success throughout school and their future
opportunities. The main incentive for parents is pride, success, and opportunity for their children.
Parents primarily have the longest-term and greatest interest in the real achievement of students
along with the social welfare and future of our society. Professional efficiency and job
satisfaction is the foremost concern for teachers, whereas meeting Adequate Yearly Progress
(AYP) and accountability expectations is the key interests for state district and school leaders.
School boards desire to fulfill the districts mission, have noticeable media coverage, and meet
the accountability requirements. NCLB was intended to provide political cover to
superintendents and school board members to encourage them to take controversial and difficult
steps to root out mediocre teachers and administrators, shift resources to poorer schools,
challenge collective bargaining provisions regulating teacher transfer and preventing efforts to
link pay to teacher quality, and overhaul central office processes (Petrilli). Taxpayers on the
other hand are more concerned with getting a good return on their tax investments in schools.
The business community stakeholders focus on community economics and hiring qualified
graduates with the skills needed. Politicians interest is short-term and their personal political
agenda deals with the ability to claim progress during their tenure in office. Those in charge of
the nations schools do not want to be seen as failing to deliver therefore they have every
incentive to formulate strategies that avoid true accountability rather than endorsing it.
Politicians, school leaders, and teacher unions have self-interest in the results and therefore do
not need real achievement to benefit. Ultimately, America needs fundamental Education reform
that will prioritize the information needs of parents and citizens and at the same time reconcile

Muna 13
the incentives of the second group of stakeholders with that objective. Educational excellence is
not served by regimes that confuse multiple interests and distort the primary goal of real student
achievement. Accountability and transparency policy should be formulated accordingly. The goal
should be accountability to parents, families, and taxpayers. Public school reporting should be
first and foremost for them, not primarily to public school and government officials (Hickok).
There are two types of stakeholders, internal stakeholders and external stakeholders. Internal
stakeholders are those who work with the school daily and control the school. They include
school staff, district staff, and school boards. External stakeholders are those who have a strong
interest in school outcomes but do not directly determine what goes into producing these
outcomes. Internal stakeholders have a greater capability to produce positive change in schools,
but they do not necessarily have all of the power to sustain it. External stakeholders also have a
critical role to play in sustaining improved outcomes. If they are informed of the schools effort
to improve reading outcomes, they can help sustain the districts focus over time on missionoriented changeimprovement that lies squarely at the heart of the districts mission or purpose
thereby moderating the effects of staff turnover, maintaining reading as the top priority, and
eliminating mission drift (Stakeholders). Each stakeholder has to cope with their own individual
interests and those of the population of parents and students for which they serve. Stakeholders
including teachers, students, parents, the business community, taxpayers, and politicians all
provide an essential part to the entire educational organization.

Political Players
Political players such as George W. Bush who authorized the NCLB have their own
political incentives. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is a piece of civil rights legislation. And its

Muna 14
going to be important for future Republican leaders to remind people that accountability in the
public schools is leading toward closing an achievement gap, and that it was a Republican
president who worked with both Democrats and Republicans to get it passed, (The Washington
Times). The United States indifference towards sustained lower educational performance by
black, Latino, and poor children was recurrently criticized by Bush during his 2000 presidential
campaign as the soft bigotry of low expectations. President Bush strictly concentrated on
compassionate moralism rather than on shaping the structures and incentives of K-12 education.
Bush reflected standard Washington practice: the rhetoric of education policy is more often
about social justice than about incentives or instruction (Finn). Bush successfully enlisted allies
in the civil rights community who advocated the educational improvement for poor and minority
students, forging a bipartisan coalition stronger than the status quo pessimism of the National
Education Association. Another political player, Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Senator and the
ranking Democrat on the Senate Education Committee, announced, 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. No piece of legislation will have a greater
impact or influence on that (Hess).

Outcome
Ten years after the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2002, data accumulated has
shown that, 1) NCLB has severely damaged educational quality and equity, with its narrowing
and limiting effects falling most severely on the poor, 2) NCLB failed to significantly increase
average academic performance and significantly narrow achievement gaps. 3) Attempts to deal
with NCLBs severe shortcomings, such as the Obama administrations waivers and the Senate

Muna 15
Education Committees Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) reauthorization bill,
fail to address many of NCLBs fundamental flaws and in some cases will intensify them. These
proposals will extend a lost decade for U.S. schools (Guisbond). Schools have devoted more
and more time to teaching testing skills rather than focusing on broader understandings and a
deeper knowledge. Educational leaders along with President Obama and Secretary of Education
Arne Duncan have criticized the over reliance on fill in the bubble testing at the expense of
limiting creativity, innovation, and critical thinking, promoting the importance of test-taking
skills over problem solving, and deemphasizing instruction in history-social science and science
in favor of literacy and numeracy. Secretary Duncan has been working closely with Congress to
create a bipartisan bill to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The Obama
administrations main objective is to change the accountability basis to fix the problems created
by NCLB, which mislabels too many schools as low performing and doesnt reward successful
schools. Led by former governors Tommy Thompson (R-Wisc.) and Roy Barnes (D-Ga.), the
commission calls for the law's requirement for teacher quality to ramp up from "Highly
Qualified" to "Highly Qualified Effective," which would tie teacher competence to student
performance. The group also recommends correcting the inconsistency of standards from state to
state by developing a "voluntary model of national content and performance standards" for math,
science, and reading based on National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (Measured
Progress). The federal government believes its time for national standards and national
assessments that would create voluntary national standards. On a state level strategy, there are
those who advocate the end of broad federal regulation of education and restore state and local
control of education. The politics of NCLB primarily was initiated in 2001 as Congress passed
the legislation. NCLB includes conservative ideas encompassing a broad overreaching federal

Muna 16
government that seeks to equalize educational opportunity and outcomes. NCLB triggers the
formation of opposition amongst important political players and stakeholders such as students,
teacher unions, business communities, and taxpayers.

Conflict with Substantive Analysis

According to my substantive analysis, the NCLB Act has been confirmed to be
ineffective over the last ten years due to the over-demanding standards placed upon states in
order to comply with the federal government. In the 2000 presidential campaign, Governor
Bush used education reform to persuade constituencies like Latinos and African Americans
criticizing the soft bigotry of low expectations and denounced policies that excluded millions
of minority children using the idioms of civil rights and social justice. Numerous Americans,
especially minority groups are disillusioned with the status quo (Muna). Stakeholders are the
end-users or clients, the people from whom requirements will be drawn, the people who will
influence the design and, ultimately, the people who will reap the benefits of your completed
project. The project is education. Who reaps the benefits? Students. Who will influence the
design? Students. From whom will requirements be drawn? Students. Who are the end-users?
Students (Alexandrou). The United States educational system lacks a strong effective federal
legislation that reconciles with each states specific issue and lacks a suitable amount of funds
allotted by the national government. Although President Bushs intentions of reauthorizing the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 concentrated upon the welfare of education,
the conclusive results proved to cause lower academic rates, less flexibility upon States and
educational agencies in their use of Federal education dollars, and causes restrictions of an
expansive well-rounded education with the focus on just mathematics and reading. The Obama

Muna 17
administration continues to work hard on resolving the continuous problems and inequalities of
our educational system.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Muna 18
"21st Century Skills curriculum school choice Robert A. Teegarden's Blog." Robert A.
Teegarden's Blog. http://rateegarden.wordpress.com/tag/21st-century-skills-curriculum-schoolchoice/ (accessed December 6, 2012).
"Archived: Executive Summary of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." U.S. Department of
Education. http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html (accessed October 18,
2012).
bio, Jamel Lanee'. "Plan 2020 new alternative to No Child Left Behind - WSFA.com: News
Weather and Sports for Montgomery, AL.." WSFA 12 News: News, Weather and Sports for
Montgomery, Alabama - WSFA.com: News Weather and Sports for Montgomery, AL..
http://www.wsfa.com/story/19422821/plan-2020-new-alternative-to-no-child-left-behind
(accessed October 18, 2012).
Brownstein, Ronald. " - Education Experts ." Education Experts .
http://education.nationaljournal.com/2012/01/the-legacy-of-no-child-left-be.php (accessed
November 11, 2012).
Hess, Frederick. " Crash Course : Education Next." Education Next : Education Next is a journal
of opinion and research about education policy.. http://educationnext.org/crash-course/ (accessed
November 11, 2012).
Hickok, Eugene. " Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind: Federal Management or Citizen
Ownership of K-12 Education?." Conservative Policy Research and Analysis.
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2007/06/reauthorization-of-no-child-left-behindfederal-management-or-citizen-ownership-of-k-12-education (accessed November 11, 2012).

Muna 19
Hoff, Dave. "Stakeholders Express Frustration Over Lack of Change in ESEA | ED.gov Blog."
U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/05/stakeholders-expressfrustration-over-lack-of-change-in-esea/ (accessed November 11, 2012).
Lemann, Nicholas. "What No Child Left Behind Left Behind - Nicholas Lemann." The
Washington Monthly. http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2008/0808.lemann.html
(accessed November 11, 2012).
"'No Child Left Behind' 10 years later: Does Bush legislation get a passing grade? | theGrio."
theGrio | African American Breaking News and Opinion. http://thegrio.com/2012/01/08/nochild-left-behind-ten-years-later-does-bush-legislation-get-a-passing-grade/ (accessed October
18, 2012).
"No Child Left Behind Reform: What's the Alternative? | FairTest." The National Center for Fair
& Open Testing | FairTest. http://fairtest.org/no-child-left-behind-reform-whats-alternative
(accessed October 18, 2012).
Robinson, Rich. "Senators Playing Politics with Education - San Jose Inside." San Jose Inside.
http://www.sanjoseinside.com/news/entries/10_25_11_education_no_child_left_behind_senators
_tom_harkin_mike_enzi/ (accessed November 11, 2012).
States, President Bush. These include increased accountability for, and school. "Executive
Summary: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Almanac of Policy Issues.
http://www.policyalmanac.org/education/archive/no_child_left_behind.shtml (accessed October
18, 2012).
"Utah Proposes Alternative to "No Child Left Behind" | PBS NewsHour | April 14, 2005 | PBS."
PBS: Public Broadcasting Service. http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/education/janjune05/nclb_4-14.html (accessed December 6, 2012).