No Child Left Behind Act

• Federalism
• Terms and definitions
• Laws
• Court cases
• Major arguments
• State responses to federal mandates
• State survey of the federal grant review process
  • State responses to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
  • State responses by question to the federal grant review process survey, 2021
• Federalism by the numbers
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal mandates
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal grants-in-aid
  • Federalism by the numbers: Federal information collection requests
  • Overview of federal spending during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic
• Index of articles

Education policy in the U.S.

Public education in the U.S.

School choice in the U.S.

Charter schools in the U.S.

Higher education in the U.S.

Glossary of education terms

Education statistics

The No Child Left Behind Act was a piece of federal education legislation that was passed into public law in 2001. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) supported standards-based education reform, built on the philosophy that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals for schools would improve individual outcomes for public school students. The legislation required states to develop standardized tests and to give these assessments to all students at certain designated grade levels in order to receive federal funding. Each individual state was responsible for developing its own standards. The bill passed with bipartisan support and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2002. NCLB was replaced with the Every Student Succeeds Act in December 2015.

History

Purpose

No Child Left Behind was a re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, the primary federal law regulating K-12 education. The ESEA was first enacted in 1965 and re-authorized in 1994. The law includes Title I, the flagship program for disadvantaged students. The core of NCLB aimed to improve student achievement through annual standardized assessment of students, thereby quantifying education progress and making schools accountable for student performance. The law also included provisions to allow school districts increased flexibility in spending federal funds.

At the time of its passage, there was increasing public concern regarding the state of public education. The law was created with the intention of placing greater accountability on school districts for poor student performance and rewarding districts for excellent student performance.

Legislative history

President George W. Bush initially proposed the No Child Left Behind Act on January 23, 2001. It was co-authored by Representatives George Miller and John Boehner and Senators Ted Kennedy and Judd Gregg. The United States House of Representatives passed the bill, voting 384-45 on May 23, 2001. The United States Senate also passed the bill, voting 91-8 on June 14, 2001. The bill was signed into law on January 8, 2002.

Implementation

The No Child Left Behind Act required states to implement minimum performance benchmarks for students, schools and school districts based on standardized testing. School districts were required to meet performance goals as a prerequisite to receive federal funding. The law required states to expand and develop standardized tests in both mathematics and reading, which were to be administered during from 3rd to 5th grade, 6th to 9th grade and 10th to 12th grade. Beginning in the 2007-2008 school year, schools were required to assess students in science once during each of those three grade spans. When the law was first enacted, 48 states had existing statewide tests in reading and mathematics. Of those states, 34 also administered tests in science, but not in all of the three grade spans. The federal government appropriated $2.34 billion in order to implement state assessments between 2002 and 2007.

Waivers

In 2012, President Barack Obama granted waivers from some of the law's mandates to several states. In exchange for flexibility regarding No Child Left Behind, these states agreed "to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake essential reforms to improve teacher effectiveness." These waivers were granted in five stages which are listed below.

• February 9, 2012 - Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma and Tennessee
• February 15, 2012 - New Mexico
• May 29, 2012 - Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio and Rhode Island
• June 29, 2012 - Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah and Virginia
• July 6, 2012 - Washington and Wisconsin

Eight states were granted conditional waivers, meaning their state's plans remained under review. Five states did not complete their waiver requirements. Those states—Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, and West Virginia—were granted a one year freeze on rising targets for standardized test scores.

As of the start of 2014, 42 states had been granted waivers from the No Child Left Behind Act. North Dakota and Wyoming withdrew their waiver requests, while California and Iowa's waiver requests were rejected. Neither Nebraska nor Montana requested waivers, and Illinois' waiver request remained pending.

Provisions

A central component of No Child Left Behind was the administration of statewide standardized tests to all students. In order for school districts to receive Title I funding, schools had to demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), meaning that student's test scores must have improved when compared to the previous year's students at that grade level. If schools fail to meet this requirement, they were held accountable through the following steps:

• Schools that missed AYP for two consecutive years were publicly labeled as "in need of improvement." These schools were required to develop a two year improvement plan for the subject in which the school is not meeting AYP. Students were also given the option of transferring to a better school within the school district.
• Missing AYP for a third consecutive year mandated that schools offer free tutoring and other supplemental education services to students that were struggling.
• Schools missing AYP for a fourth consecutive year were publicly labeled as "requiring corrective action." Corrective action could include changes in the staff and administration, introduction of a new curriculum, or extending the amount of time students spend in the classroom.
• If a school failed to meet AYP for a fifth consecutive year, a plan was put in place to restructure the entire school. This plan was implemented if the school then failed to meet AYP for a sixth consecutive year. Options for restructuring included closing the school, hiring a private company to run the school, converting the school into a charter school, or asking the state department of education to directly oversee school operations.

States had to create AYP objectives that were consistent with the following seven requirements:

• States were required to develop AYP statewide measurable objectives for improved academic achievement and for groups such as students with disabilities, economically disadvantaged students, and students with limited English language proficiency.
• These objectives were set with the goal of having all students at a proficient level in 12 years.
• AYP was to be based on statewide standardized assessments, but had to include one additional academic indicator.
• AYP was to be assessed on a school-wide level. Schools not meeting AYP for two consecutive years were identified as needing improvement.
• School AYP results were reported separately for each of the identified student groups in order to determine if the district was meeting AYP.
• At least 95 percent of each group of students had to participate in the statewide assessments.
• States could aggregate three years of data when making AYP determinations.

States were required to provide highly qualified teachers to all students. Each state was responsible for creating their standard for highly qualified. States were also required to create one high, challenging standard, which the state defined, and the state had to apply these curriculum standards to all students.

The law also required schools to allow military recruiters access to students' contact and academic information if the school also provided this information to colleges or employers, unless the student chose to opt-out.

Funding

As part of the funding for No Child Left Behind, Congress increased federal spending on elementary and secondary education from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion in 2001, the fiscal year prior to the law's implementation. This was accompanied by a $1 billion Reading First program and its $100 million companion program, Early Reading First. Total federal funding for education was increased by 59.8 percent between 2000 and 2003. Funding for school technology grants was also increased to $692 million alongside $2.9 billion in grants for improving teacher quality. Another $11.1 billion in grants was made available for special education and $2.7 billion was allotted for vocational technology education.

School districts were also granted increased flexibility to allocate federal funds to Title I programs or programs for improving teacher quality, improving student achievement through integration of technology into the classroom, safe and drug free school programs, or programs to expand school choice.

Criticism

Inadequate funding

Critics voiced objections to No Child Left Behind funding levels following the law's passage. The requirements of the law placed greater demands on state and local education agencies without providing full reimbursement for the expenses they incurred. NCLB co-sponsor Senator Ted Kennedy criticized the amount of funding, stating, "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not." Many organizations claimed that the provisions of NCLB were not fully funded by the Department of Education appropriations. Critics of the law also claimed that funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program decreased over time as demand for classroom technology increased. In fiscal year 2007, funding for NCLB remained stagnant, which left school districts to cover the difference in their funding. Further criticism of the law's funding arose when districts struggling to make Adequate Yearly Progress faced escalating penalties while being denied the resources necessary to address these shortcomings.

Total proficiency

Many education advocates expressed concerns about the law's proficiency requirements despite initially supporting the legislation. Education historian Diane Ravitch labeled the provision that all students attain proficient scores in reading and mathematics by 2014 as flawed, since it did not fully take into account students with special needs, economically disadvantaged students, and students whose native language is not English. School districts could have faced consequences if they did not meet 100 percent proficiency in reading and mathematics by the year 2014. Ravitch also criticized the provision that placed failing schools in jeopardy of becoming charter schools, being taken over by state education agencies, or being closed as a result of not meeting progress requirements.

Emphasis on standardized testing

Many critics of No Child Left Behind denounced its requirement of and emphasis on standardized testing. Many education advocates, including Diane Ravitch, believed that this emphasis would result in increased educational focus on the subjects of reading and mathematics, while taking away instructional time from subjects not covered by the law.

Individuals with disabilities

Under No Child Left Behind, disabled students with Individualized Education Programs and 504 plans are counted the same as other students' scores are counted. Schools have argued against having disabled populations included in their AYP measurements because they claim that there are too many variables involved. The National Council for Disabilities was concerned that NCLB may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act because of its focus on group achievement instead of individual achievement. The NCD also had concerns that NCLB focused on skills associated with state standardized testing, rather than the work-based experience necessary for obtaining employment.

Reform

In 2004, a proposal from 156 national organizations, including the American Civil Liberties Union, the National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers, released a joint organizational statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The statement condemned NCLB based on its perceived overemphasis on standardized testing, narrowing of curriculum instruction, and use of sanctions that they said did not improve schools. These organizations proposed significant reforms to NCLB based on progress measurement, assessments, building capacity, sanctions, and fully funding Title I to ensure that all students were equally served.

In 2010, President Barack Obama presented the Blueprint for Reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act to Congress. One significant provision of the proposed law rewarded school districts with high poverty rates that showed improvement. It also provided for the identification of and intervention in districts that failed to meet these goals. Additionally, the Blueprint required states and districts to create methods of measuring teacher and principal effectiveness in order to ensure that every classroom and school had high quality teachers and principals. This reform effort also acknowledged and responded to the criticism that NCLB could give states an incentive to lower standards in order to make them more attainable.

In December 2015, NCLB was replaced with the Every Student Succeeds Act. The law reduced the authority of the U.S. Department of Education over state education systems by giving both states and school districts more power to determine their own testing standards, academic assessments, and intervention methods.

Recent news

This section links to a Google news search for the term "No + Child + Left + Behind"

No Child Left Behind News Feed

See also

• School board elections portal
• Glossary of education terms
• Race to the Top
• Public education in the United States

External links

• Full text of the law
• Education Week summary
• State by state comparison of NCLB implementation