The Effects of NCLB: Has It Accomplished Its Purpose?

In order to fully understand the effects of the No Child Left Behind law, it is essential to first understand the components that make up this law and its goals before analyzing its successes. This law was passed during a time of increased public concern about the conditions of education; specifically, that students from disadvantaged backgrounds were not receiving the same resources as those from privileged backgrounds, and thus were more likely to be less proficient in core content areas. The goals of NCLB are to close the achievement gap between low-income and minority students and their wealthy counterparts while maintaining a 95% proficiency rate in math and reading. The major categories of this law include: enhanced accountability for schools and states, more choices for parents, and a stronger emphasis on reading fluency for elementary students using scientifically-based teaching methods by highly qualified teachers.

Several effects have emerged since this law was enacted in 2002. In her article, An Update on No Child Left Behind and National Trends in Education, Laura H. Chapman (2007) describes the continuous gap in achievement between white and minority groups, despite the efforts of NCLB to minimize it. NCLB has had a negative impact on schools with large populations of minorities and ESL learners, which most frequently exist in urban areas (Chapman, pg. 27). Since the federal government requires testing as a form of measurement in a child’s academic ability, schools have become concerned with those students who are ESL and/or have a disability (pg. 28). The issue is whether it makes sense to administer an all-English test to a student who has limited English competence, or to a student with cognitive disability because it does not accurately represent the academic gains achieved by the student. According to Jaekyung Lee and the Harvard Civil Rights Project in Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: an In Depth Look into National and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends:

"The racial and socioeconomic achievement gap in the NAEP reading and math achievement persists after NCLB… If the current trend continues, the proficiency gap between advantaged White and disadvantaged minority students will hardly close by 2014. The study predicts that by 2014, less than 25 percent of Poor and Black students will achieve NAEP proficiency in reading, and less than 50 percent will achieve proficiency in math."(2006, pg 11).

Many experts are attributing this unfortunate result to the lack of funds given to schools. One of the controversial issues that arise when analyzing the effects of NCLB is the increasing role of the federal government in public education. In her article, The No Child Left Behind Act: Is it an Unfunded Mandate or a Promotion of Federal Educational Ideals?, Regina Umpstead argues that NCLB is a contentious issue because it applies to every child without providing adequate funding to pay for the required programs (2008, pg. 198). Since goals of this law are intended for all students in public schools across the country, rather than at the state’s discretion, the states argue that the federal government is not providing money to assist in achieving the standards set; as a result, schools are becoming increasingly concerned about the ramifications if the goals are not met.

One ramification for schools who fail to meet the goals of NCLB is that parents have the right to send their child to another school. An interesting statistic reveals that most students who qualify for this benefit actually don’t transfer schools. In her article, Chapman (2007) states that on a national scale, only three percent of parents are exercising that right because test scores are not the only issue; in fact, seventy percent of families are content with the schools their children attend, and this is particularly true amongst families who have limited financial means (pg. 28).

Another trend that emerges as a result of NCLB is that many districts are now spending more time on reading and math. The Center on Education Policy reports that 71% of districts are now reducing the time spent on other content areas, affecting social studies the most and least affecting physical education (Jennings & Renter, 2006, pg. 1).The previously cited study also indicates that 97% of districts in high poverty areas now require a specific amount of time allotted for reading, whereas approximately 55-59% of districts in more affluent areas have the same requirement (pg. 2).

The question then becomes: has NCLB accomplished its purpose? Although the No Child Left Behind Act is quite controversial, research has shown that, overall, it has had a positive effect nationally on the achievement of students in the areas of reading and math. Another study conducted by the Center on Education Policy reveals that states with three years of test data have shown a consistent increase in scores since 2002 (2007, pg. 1). While it does seem to be an optimistic outcome, large percentages of educators are now spending more time teaching test-taking strategies and focusing specifically on the topics covered on state-mandated exams (Viadero, 2007, pg.7). This trend thus limits teaching and narrows the curriculum.

So it appears that NCLB is accomplishing at least one of its primary goals. However, as previously discussed, these results come at a price. Reducing the time spent on subjects like social studies will not help our students become globally literate citizens in today’s ever-changing and increasingly technological world. Also, the lack of funding to the schools that desperately need it in order to fulfill the goals and benchmarks of NCLB is not effectively narrowing the achievement gap between the wealthy and the poor. While there are some good components in the NCLB law, I believe that it needs to be restructured so that students can benefit from the goals without sacrificing any other part of the curriculum and foster a love of learning. I feel that a test-based accountability system limits instruction for teachers and does not effectively show the gains made by individual students. There is still a lot of work that needs to be completed in order for the goals of NCLB to be met by 2014. However, if the federal and state governments work together to remediate the issues that currently hinders the successes of NCLB, than I believe that all children will be successful in school.













Works Cited.

Center on Educational Policy (2007, June). Answering the Question that Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/document/docWindow.cfmfuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=200&documentFormatId=3620

Chapman, L. (2007, September). An Update on No Child Left Behind and National Trends in Education. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(1), 25-36. Retrieved September 28, 2008, from Professional Development Collection database.

Jennings, J. & Stark Renter, D. (2006, November). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act in Public Schools. Center on Education Policy. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from http://www.cepdc.org/document/docWindow.cfmfuseaction=document.viewDocument&documentid=29&documentFormatId=596

Lee, J., & Harvard Civil Rights Project, C. (2006, June 1). Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps: An In-Depth Look into National and State Reading and Math Outcome Trends. Civil Rights Project at Harvard University (The), (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED491807) Retrieved September 28, 2008, from ERIC database.

Umpstead, R. R. (2008). The No Child Left Behind Act: Is it an Unfunded Mandate or a Promotion of Federal Educational Ideals? Journal of Law and Education, 37(2), 193-229. Retrieved September 29, 2008, from ProQuest Education Journals database. (Document ID: 1462271331).

Viadero, D. (2007, June 20). Teachers Say NCLB Has Changed Classroom Practice. Education Week, 26(42), 6-22. Retrieved September 30, 2008, from Education Research Complete database.