No Child Left Behind

Abstract

Three years ago, President Bush signed No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law. Nearly everybody agreed with bill's purpose--to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to attain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic (U.S. Congress, 2001), which was to be accomplished by shifting funding formulas and sending more federal resources to high-poverty and struggling schools. Despite its lofty goals, there was criticism of NCLB from beginning, which was reflected in wordplays on its name, borrowed in first place (some would say co-opted) from children's rights work. Robert Schaeffer of Fair test, for example, suggested no child left untested act (Toppo, 2002), and some academics quipped that bill should be labeled no psychometrician left unemployed. In other circles, where there was concern that emphasis on testing would narrow curriculum and deprofessionalize teachers' work, bill was referred to as no teacher left standing, and many social justice advocates feared bottom line would be children left behind. Underneath wit and cynicism of these wordplays were serious concerns about enduring impact NCLB would have on schools, teachers, students, families, and, in a larger sense, American system of public education. This editorial focuses on how NCLB is being assessed 3 years later, contrasting public conclusion that all is well with conclusion of a number of other individuals and groups who, for very different reasons, assert that all is decidedly not well. The editorial suggests that three aspects of NCLB are particularly relevant to teacher education--stipulations regarding qualified teachers (HQT) and adequate yearly progress (AYP) and bill's emerging consequences for minority students. Each of these has troubling--even dangerous--ramifications. 3 YEARS AND COUNTING At time of this writing, NCLB was about to celebrate its third anniversary. It is an understatement to say that assessments of its legitimacy and success are conflicting. In testimony to House Education and Workforce Committee (Hearings on NCLB, 2004), for example, Republican chairman John Boehner announced that as a result of NCLB, test scores all across country are rising and achievement gap is closing. The assessment of most recent report from Education Commission of States (ECS; 2004) was somewhat more modest and mixed, although report concluded that the overall picture is encouraging (p. vi). The ECS report found that although all 50 states are on track to meet at least half of NCLB's requirements, only five states are likely to meet all of them. Similarly, commission found that although many states are improving student achievement, few will be able to meet requirements concerning highly qualified teachers. Along similar lines, Education Week's survey of state education departments (Olson, 2004b), titled Taking Root, concluded that despite problems and complaints from various groups, NCLB has become implanted in culture (p. $1) of American public school system. The Education Week survey indicated that nearly half states now have testing programs in place in reading and math for third through eighth graders and high schoolers, as required by NCLB, and all states are now using test results to determine AYP. On other hand, report also indicated that number of schools identified as needing improvement has doubled since last year, and some states now have both AYP annual reports and, at same time, yearly report cards based on statewide systems for assessing performance of their schools. It is an understatement to say that these dual accountability systems, with different criteria and sometimes conflicting conclusions, are engendering confusion among education professionals, parents, and broader public. …