1
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
No Child Left Behind Act
Leticia Avila
The United States is the leading country in expenses for education spending about
$809.3 billion a year yet U.S. students lag behind “rival countries in performances on
international ranking” (Lepi, 2005). The United States is ranked 31st in math and literacy among
fifteen year olds which is below the international average (Lepi, 2005). In 1965, congress
passed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) under Lyndon B. Johnson’s
presidency. The act was to give every child an equal opportunity to education in order to live a
productive life (Lewis, 2003). States, districts and schools were held more accountable for
improving academic performances when the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was passed in
2002 (Arce, Luna, Borjian, & Conrad, 2005). The NCLB was a reauthorization of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act. The primary goal of NCLB was aimed to ensure that all children
receive a high quality education but instead has increased the gap of achievement in low
income and minority students.
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act was first introduced in 1965, since then it
has been reauthorized seven times. Each reauthorization brought different changes to improve
educational opportunities, but each had same goal to reach the children from low income
families. The Elementary and Secondary Act funded educational programs such as the Bilingual
Education which aided those with limited English proficiency (Mayers, 2006). The Bilingual
education became an act under the Title VII of the ESEA in 1968, meaning schools were now
mandated by law to provide bilingual programs for students (Mayers, 2006). No Child Left
Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization of ESEA signed by President Bush with the goal
of reaching all schools in America. The NCLB foundation supports the achievements of students
2
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
and keeping track of schools as they progress.
States are required under the NCLB to submit a report of their academic performance
every year and twice a year had to turn in an evaluation report. Standards are established for
states to give an annual yearly progress (AYP) with the objective of having English proficiency
and meeting the state’s set educational standards (Mayers, 2006). If schools failed to meet their
annual yearly progress they were to submit a plan of improvement and if it were to happen four
times in a row, then the school would have to demonstrate adjustments to their curriculum.
NCLB requires schools to test 3rd-8th graders in math and reading every year. Students are to
be tested once in elementary, middle and high school in science and the tests had to meet the
expectations of the state academic standards (Wiener, & Hall, 2004). Reading first, was a
program created to improve reading for grades K-3 with the priority given to schools with a vast
majority of students from low income families (Lewis, 2003).
Starting in the school year 2002-2003, states were to give annual report cards showing
students achievements by sup groups and information of school districts work to the federal
government. Students were also to receive a report of their academic progress. The data of
tests are to be put into subgroups to be able to measure achievement targets annually and to
demonstrate they are making progress. “Should a single subgroup within a district, school, or
state, fail to make AYP, the school, district, or state, is deemed to be a failure”(Smyth, 2008).
The parents of the child whose school is failing are given the choice to attend another public
school that is not failing. Corrective action is obligatory if a school fails to meet the annual yearly
progress and the government has the right to hire and replace school staff members and
consultants (Mayers, 2006). “The three primary objectives are: (1) increasing standardized test
scores, (2) decreasing student/teacher ratios, and (3) ensuring that teachers are truly qualified”
(Lewis, 2003). The No Child Left Behind Act sought to achieve these objectives to decrease the
achievement gap.
Teaching to the test is a method in which the student is being prepared to take a
3
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
standardized test. There is debate on the effectiveness of this way of teaching with many saying
that it is ineffective and “eliminating the opportunity for teachers to teach students higher-order
thinking skills” (Smyth, 2008). Those types of tests don't demonstrate the students’ abilities or
how the teacher prepares the students, and it limits the teaching strategies for diverse students.
Many teachers are focused on teaching what's in the curriculum, making the objective in the
classroom passing tests, “rather than the measure of teaching and learning” (Arce et al., 2005).
These tests are labeled “high stakes” because if the student doesn’t pass them it influences
them greatly by resulting in not graduating or going on the next grade level. Not passing the
standardized test leads to test anxieties because the student begins to feel the heat of the “what
if” I don’t pass. The level of anxiety increases when the teacher is constantly reminding the
students of the testing procedures and consequences of failing (Altshuler, & Schmautz, 2006). A
study was conducted with elementary students to see how “high-stakes” testing affects their
performance and their views on such tests. “They concluded that elementary students were
anxious and angry about aspects of the testing culture, including the length of the tests,
extended testing periods, and not being able to talk for long periods of time”( Altshuler, &
Schmautz , 2006). These are elementary students already feeling the heat of standardized tests
and having anxieties about failure that will get maybe even worse in high school because of
what's at stake.
Studies from project STAR (student teacher achievement ratio) and Lasting Benefits
Study have shown that smaller classes are beneficial because increase the achievement levels
of “low-achieving” students (Konstantopoulos & Chung, 2009). “Specifically, these studies
demonstrated that the average student achievement in small classes (15 students on average)
was significantly higher than that in regular classes (22 students on average)” (Konstantopoulos
& Chung, 2009). These studies indicate that classroom size reductions help students to get
more individual help and therefore should help minimize the achievement gap. Not only is it
beneficial for the student but as well for the teacher because they are able to focus on improving
4
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
their student achievement levels. With a large class it is hard to know where the students
learning level is because the class may range from students who are struggling to get by, and
students with no difficulties. Studies from project STAR show smaller classes can help decrease
achievement gaps but the number of students continues to increase.
Teacher qualifications were raised in the NCLB, so that teachers would be highly
qualified in their subjects. They are to demonstrate proficiency and are to complete at two years
of college with an associate’s degree or higher (Phillips, 2010). The plan is simple: having a
teacher in every classroom that is qualified gives the students an equal opportunity to be able to
excel academically with the help of their well-trained instructors. However that is not always the
case; many classrooms are “staffed by teachers who are not highly qualified in the particular
subject that is taught” (Phillips, 2010). Many teachers are teaching subjects that don’t have
anything to do with their area of expertise which makes teachers who are qualified, unqualified.
“The SASS data indicate that at the secondary school level, about one fifth of classes in each of
the core academic subjects are taught by teachers who lack full teaching certificate in the
subject being taught” (Ingersoll, 2005). The No Child Left Behind Act recognized the problem
but has not addressed it in a way to reduced unqualified teachers in classrooms. Students are
the ones who are being negatively affected because they are being taught by unprepared
teachers who lack knowledge in their subjects. They aren’t receiving that “high quality
education” that is portrayed in the NCLB act. There is a shortage of teachers, which is why there
is so many teachers assigned to subjects they aren’t familiar with (Ingersoll, 2005).
More than half of the students in Finland are receiving college degrees while only a third
of the students in the U.S. are (Darling, 2012). “Finland has attracted considerable attention
since 2000, when the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) revealed not
only the highest level of success but a very small tail of underachievement and negligible
difference between schools” (Wrigley, 2010). Finland believes in early interventions and they
focus on “lifting up each child from the bottom” and have no national tests or competitions
5
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
between schools (Wrigley, 2010). Students aren’t required to take any kind of standardized test
because it is believed that the student should be mastering their subjects in class. Standardized
tests are placed in order to rank top schools and students creating competitions between each
other. Rather they use assessments that generate students to think critically and really go in
depth of their understanding in order for them to get feedback on their learning progress and
growth (Darling, 2012). By eliminating all competitions between schools and focusing more on
giving students a high quality education, it makes all the schools the same; therefore, every
child has the same equal opportunity (Wrigley, 2010). No competition equals more time being
spent in learning and teachers focusing on getting all students to that high proficiency level.
Teaching in Finland is a profession that is well respected and even though teaching is
not a high paying job, there are an overflowing number of applicants (Wrigley, 2010). Teachers
in Finland “are educated to “Masters Level” meaning that they keep on learning within their
teaching professions. Instead of delivering what's in the curriculum, teachers are expected to be
co-designers of the curriculum to shape it and mold it in order for it to reach the needs of the
students (Burris, 2012). There is a curriculum set for Finland schools but teachers have the
flexibility to what is needed in order to reach standards set in their curriculum. Finnish teachers
are encouraged to share any ideas they have regarding their schools because it is believed that,
“Schools are regarded as a ‘society of experts’, and innovations can come from the principal,
the teachers, or government projects” (Wrigley, 2010). Unlike U.S. teachers who have to follow
the curriculum and are limited by it, Finland teachers are very involved in what should be taught
in their classrooms and strategies to achieve their goals to high education.
The education system in Finland is organized by public funding through taxes, and
schools are owned by the state (Ott, 2011). The Basic Education Act in Finland states that every
citizen has an opportunity to a high quality education for free. “The main objective of Finnish
education policy is to offer all citizens equal opportunities, regardless of age, domicile, financial
situation, sex or mother tongue” (Ott, 2011). Besides free education students are also receiving
6
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
counseling in their schools, two meals a day, transportation, materials and healthcare all for
free. Finland really cares for its students and recognizes that the students are the future. They
are more concerned that there people receive a good education in order to live a prosperous
life.
Change in the way of how our educational system works cannot be fixed overnight but
there are ways in which we can try to fix it. Making qualified teachers unqualified should be
stopped and selecting the brightest and best teachers to improve the quality of education.
“[Teachers should be given the] freedom to develop teaching skills, independence from
centralized authority, and ample time to prepare lessons” (Burris, 2012). Like teachers in
Finland, U.S. teachers should be able have more freedom in what materials to focus on learning
and strategies to help those “low achieving” students. Eliminating all standardized tests would
as well eliminate all competitions between schools making all students receive an equal and
high quality education. Educators have found that the No Child Left Behind Act is, “Flawed,
developmentally inappropriate, ill funded, and leaving more students, teachers, and schools
behind than ever before” (Smyth, 2008). We need to remember what the goal of NCLB was for,
to ensure that all children receive a high quality education and fix the gap of achievement of not
only low income and minority students but as well as students with disabilities.
7
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
References
Altshuler, S. J., & Schmautz, T. (2006). No Hispanic Student Left Behind: The consequences of
"high stakes" testing. . Children and Schools, 28(1), 5-14.
Arce, J., Luna, D., Borjian, A., & Conrad, M. (2005). No Child Left Behind: Who Wins? Who
Loses? Social Justice, 32(3), 56-71.
Burris, J. E. (2012). It's the Teachers. Science. p. 146. Doi: 10.1126/science. 1218159.
Darling-Hammond, L. (2012). Soaring Systems. Education Review, 24(1), 24-33.
Ingersoll, R. M. (2005). The Problem of Underqualified Teachers: A Sociological Perspective.
Sociology of Education, 78(2), 175-178.
Konstantopoulos, S., & Chung.V. (2009). What Are the Long-Term Effects of Small Classes on
the Achievement Gap? Evidence from the Lasting Benefits Study. American Journal of
Education, 116
Lepi, K. (2005). How 12 countries spend education money (and if it makes a difference).
Retrieved from http://www.edudemic.com/how-12-countries-spend-education-moneyand-if-it-makes-a-difference/
Lewis, L. S. (2003). Will Education Reform Create More Opportunity?. Society, 40(5), 57-61.
8
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND
Mayers, C. M. (2006). Public Law 107-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Support or Threat
to Education as a Fundamental Right? Education, 126(3), 449-461.
Ott, K. (2011). Social Democratic Programs: What Is Worth Modeling (for the United States).
Journal of Progressive Human Services, 22(1), 31-49. Doi: 10.1080/10428232.
Phillips, K. R. (2010). What Does "Highly Qualified" Mean for Student Achievement? Evaluating
the Relationships between Teacher Quality Indicators and At-Risk Students' Students'
Mathematics and Reading Achievement Gains in First Grade. Elementary School
Journal, 110(4), 464-493.
Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Graner, P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act: Challenges
and Implications for Educators. Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(2), 67-75.
Smyth, T. (2008). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?. Clearing House, 81(3), 133137
Stiefel, L., Schwartz, A., & Chellman, C. C. (2007). So Many Children Left Behind. Educational
Policy, 21(3), 527-550.
Wiener, R., & Hall, D. (2004). Accountability under No Child Left Behind. Clearing House, 78(1),
17-21.
Wrigley, T. (2010). Finland's school success: why don't our politicians listen?. Education
Review, 23(1), 42-51.
9
Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND