A Review and Critical Analysis on No Child Left Behind Policy

彭璐

【Abstract】The present paper first reviewed the historical background of American basic education. Then it discussed the necessity of NCLB policy from economical， people and the worlds request. After this， this paper critically analyzed the text and the implementation of NCLB. Finally， it concludes that the idea of NCLB was not wrong， but its text and implementation should be more carefully planned.

【Key words】educational policy； standardized test； education and society

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 （NCLB）， was an educational policy announced by American former president George W. Bush not long after his inauguration. The purpose of this Act was to improve the quality of American basic education and “to close the achievement gap with accountability， flexibility， and choice， so that no child is left behind （see NCLB original Act）.” Although it had now been replaced by President Obamas Every Student Succeeds Act in 2015， this policy which favored in a nation-wide standard test， can still serve as a significant reference for basic education in China where exams are still crucial to students.

During the time of NCLB， Americans basic education system had gone through a revolutionary change. Bush government believed it was a great success whereas public discussion involved strong complaints from students， teachers， parents and schools due to heavy pressure for preparing the annual standardized tests and the worries for childrens losing their imagination and creativity. Both views sounded reasonable， but to judge NCLB critically， further investigation and analysis needs to be done. Foucault described critique as “to identify and expose the unrecognized forms of power in peoples lives （Foucault， 1988）.” As policy is made by human beings and all these complex human emotions and desires for best interest will go into it. Thus， “reading educational policy is not just a matter of understanding its educational context or reading it as the ‘pronouncements of the ‘policy makers. It requires an understanding of the dynamics if the various elements in the social structure and their intersections in the context of history （Olssen et al.， 2004）.”

Hence， the present paper looks into NCLB from its historical background and current text and its implementation. After a review of American basic education， this paper seeks to find the main causes for the formation of NCLB. Then critical analysis is made on both text and implementation of NCLB.endprint

1. American Basic Education Review

Americans started to enhance their basic education system in the late 19th century. Since the announcement of US compulsory education law in 1892， more and more students were able to receive school education. At that time， basic educations focus was placed more on quantity rather than quality because the rapid economic development and the ever enlarging industrialized market required huge amount of skilled workers. The whole society was overwhelmed by Deweys pragmatism theory. Different from traditional educational thoughts， pragmatist believed that “practical consequences and real effects were the vital components of meaning and truth （Bayles， 1966）.” This was to say， if students were not going to use the knowledge they learnt from school， then all the teaching and learning was mere waste of time. Dewey severely criticized the previous teacher-centered education and promoted what he called “student-centered” education. He believed students should decide what they wanted to learn， where to learn and using what method. Deweys pragmatism met the needs of the society at that time therefore it was adopted by most of the American public schools.

1957， Soviet Union launched its first satellites into Earth orbit and this greatly shocked the capitalism world， especially when Americans began to take a second look at their public education and surprisingly found their children did not have the basic understanding of science， history， arts or literature. This consequence was derived from the over emphasis on practical skills. Schools offered wide range of curriculum so that students chose to avoid Science and Math courses because those were too difficult and useless. As the well-known American educationalist Conant suggested in his book：“Education today cannot bring our country intelligent scientists or engineers that we need， but only skilled workers. Public education， therefore， should shift its focus to the internal and intellectual scientific development （Savickas， 2002）.” Another feature of Conants thought was to classify students into different classes based on their ability. He suggested giving students who were likely to work more practical classes whereas talented students more academic courses such as foreign language， math and science （Conant， 1959）. Although Conants call for the emphasis on science and math education worked effectively at that time， his elite education gave a really bad beginning to education equity. Due to the different learning conditions such as language proficiency level， family economic background and socio-cultural environment， white students always took the lead. The achievement gap between students widened gradually.endprint

2. Formation of NCLB

1980s， survived from the destructive economic crisis， Americans economy began to rebound. After one decade， the whole world moved into a new era with three features：knowledge economy， high-tech revolution and globalization. This has also greatly influenced American society.

First of all， businessmen realized that as the fast development of high-technology， the job that could be done by a high school graduate now required a college student because it became more complex. But what kind of high school students did basic education bring them？In the famous educational report A Nation at Risk， 1983， it said：“many 17-year-olds do not possess the ‘higher order intellectual skills we should expect of them；nearly 40 percent cannot draw inferences from written material （see A Nation at Risk）.” Then fifteen years later， U.S. Secretary of Education Rod Paige severely pointed out in his speech that after A Nation at Risk warned that too many children were falling （see Rods speech）. Given this fact， companies and corporations had to spend extra fund on staff training rather than making investments elsewhere. Therefore Americans economic development asked for a better basic education.

In the second place， with the worlds becoming a village， the number of minority in the U.S. was increasing and they were unsatisfied with basic education. These people （mostly Hispanic， black， Asian and native inhabitants） were the biggest student group for basic education because usually they could not afford to go to private schools. A table based on a research of 665 public schools in the US showed that， white students only account for a small percentage of the total number and they were the least poor group. According to academic achievement， Asian and white children were above average with Asians especially good at math whilst black and Hispanic students were less satisfied （Arrighi&Maume， 2007）. Therefore the gap between different racial groups did exist and it would definitely cause parents unsatisfactory. On the other hand， the total number of these people was increasing year by year. The statistics from U.S. Census Bureau indicated that， in 2000， minority population accounted for almost 1/3 of the total population （see Table 6. Resident Population by Sex， Race， and Hispanic Origin Status）. In other words， one out of three Americans were complaining about their basic education. Thus its quality became a big issue and needed to be dealt with immediately.endprint

Thirdly， improving basic education was request as well as pressure from the world educational organizations. In March 1990， UNESCO called for a World Conference on Education for All in Jomtien， Thailand. The aim of this conference was “to universalize primary education and massively reduce illiteracy before the end of the decade.” Delegates from all over the world signed The World Declaration on Education for All and discussed the framework for action at the end of the conference， agreed to do their best to realize the 2000 goal （see Education for All， 1990）. Different from majority of the world， compulsory education in US had been accomplished already， so its goal was to enhance the quality of it. However， In the World Education Forum 2000 in Dakar， most of the participant countries had not managed to fulfill the common goal that they made together ten years ago （see Dakar Forum， 2000）. America did in terms of quantity though， the quality of its basic education was doubtful. For instance， In the Program for International Student Assessment （PISA） report by Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development （OECD） in 2000， Americas ranking was not optimistic. In the reading section， American students were ranked 15th；in science and math， American children got 499 and 493 scores respectively. Both were below average （500） among 43 countries （see US report on PISA）. The data showed that Americas science and math education needed improvement therefore a new policy needed to be made.

To summarize， NCLB was the right policy in the right time. On one hand， Americas economic development required basic education to provide more high-literacy employees. For the country， it also needed more scholars to do research in math and science to keep up with the fast developing technology and to strengthen Americas national power. On the other hand， the minoritys parents were unsatisfied with the big gap between their kids and the white children in current basic education. If this issue could not be solved properly， it would cause social conflicts because the minority population was increasing rapidly. Under such circumstance， George W. Bush Administration introduced NCLB to the American citizens. This policy aims at enhancing public education and closing the gap between students from different backgrounds. NCLBs goal matched peoples expectation so it was supported by the majority of Americans.

3. Text of NCLB

NCLB was enacted on February 2nd， 2002. The final goal of this policy was to make all American children be able to achieve proficiency in math， science and reading by 2014. There are four main aspects of the text （see NCLB original Act）：endprint

For students：（a） Federal government provides sufficient money to help each state with Reading First program so that by the 3rd grade， every child is able to read. （b） Students who fail in the test will be suspended at the same grade for another year.

For teachers：（a） Teachers academic background should be enhanced. By the end of 2005-2006 school year， all public school teachers should have at least Bachelor Degrees or national qualification of relevant subject. （b） Teachers should be more professional. E.g. math teachers cannot teach science as well. （c） More learning programs will be provided to encourage teachers to obtain master degrees.

For parents：（a） If the school their children go to cannot meet Adequate Yearly Progress （AYP） for two years. Parents can transfer them into other schools and the original school should pay for the transportation fees. （b） If the school fails to meet AYP for three years， parents have the right to ask for free after-class tutoring for their children.

For schools：（a） There is an annual standardized test （math and reading first and then science was added in 2008） for each schools 3-8th grades students. 10-12th students should also take this test at least once before they graduate. If a school fails in the first year， it will be warned and be assisted with necessary help；if it still makes no progress in the second year， the school will be labelled as Identified for improvement （IFI） and parents can ask for free tutoring for their children；if it continues to fail in the third year， it will be designated as in need of “corrective action” which means the school should adopt new curriculum and change their key staff. Finally， if this school cannot meet AYP for five years， it will be closed down. （b） Schools that have made dramatic progress on students academic achievement will be honored NCLB-Blue Ribbon School.

Students， teachers， parents and schools are with high relevancy to education. Schools and teachers are the indirect and direct knowledge providers while students are the receivers and parents are the helpers. If we borrow a concept from business planning and management， they can be viewed as four important “stakeholders”. According to different levels of interest and power， these stakeholders can be divided into four groups：minimal effort （low interest， low power）；keep informed （high interest， low power）；keep satisfied （low interest， high power）；key players （high interest， high power）. The author believes that good education should actively involve all students， teachers， schools and parents. In other words， these stakeholders should first of all， have high interest， then power should be distributed evenly among these groups， especially between the receiver side （students and parents） and provider side （schools and teachers） so that education can be equal and balanced （Wartick & Wood， 1998）. In this case， however， none of the stakeholders interest was aroused and all of their power was cut down than before. Due to the possible punishments， schools， teachers and students primary aim was to pass the standardized test. Because otherwise， the school might have to pay for students extra tutoring fee， or in the worst scenario， it would be shut down. If this came true， teachers in the school could lose their jobs. Compared with the fear of getting fired， it was hard to imagine teachers still had the mood for pursuing higher degrees. Therefore， the policy was driving schools and teachers to hold a test-oriented attitude towards education， such as in some schools， subjects irrelevant with the test had been replaced by reading， math or science. As for students and parents， NCLB seemed to bring them some benefits， such as：students received more funding and help from several learning programs and parents could receive extra tutoring fee or transfer their children to another school if the current one was not good enough. However， the new learning programs were there to help students pass the exam but not to cultivate their interests. Meanwhile， parents might not have extra time to send children for tutoring class after school or the new school might be far from home so they worried about their kids safety.endprint

To sum up， the aim of NCLB met the needs of current society though；its measures and steps to reach the goal were quite debatable. Such a forceful policy text could cause dissatisfaction and resistance when it was implemented.

4. Implementation of NCLB

In the first five years of NCLBs implementation， achievement had been gained from three aspects：（1） students had made progress on their academic achievement and the gap between students of different backgrounds was closing. As data released by US Department of Education （DE） in 2007， “more reading progress has been made by nine-year-olds in five years （1999-2004） than in the previous 28 years combined；achievement gaps in reading and math between African-American and Hispanic nine-year-olds and their white peers have fallen to all-time lows （DE official document）.”（2） Teachers quality had been enhanced. “Ninety percent of teachers have met NCLBs highly qualified teacher requirements—a bachelors degree， state certification and demonstrated expertise in the subject matter taught；students in the groundbreaking Reading First program receive on average 100 extra minutes per week of proven， research-based instruction from teachers， tutors and reading coaches （DE official document）.” The document also indicated that performance of late middle and high school students were even worse than before， thus the Federal government would announce another Act as a complementary policy for NCLB：Building on Results：A Blueprint for Strengthening the No Child Left Behind Act. In this Act， measures would be taken to deal with the problems mentioned above. It seems that NCLB were doing a good job， however， there were several other public discussions over this policy：

Complains from teachers， schools and students about the annual test are the mainstream topic. As discussed in the last chapter， the lack of power and heavy pressure may cause their dissatisfaction and resistance. New York Times reported on February 22nd， 2006 that， “in the 2004-05 school year， the share of high-poverty schools that failed to make enough yearly progress under the law jumped by 50 percent， to 9， 000 from 6， 000 the year before…therefore 20 states ask the Federal government for flexibility of NCLB （see NYT）.” This request was quite reasonable. To begin with， using test as the only standard to measure student achievements was doubtful. Finland， the biggest winner of several international education assessments， did not give their students any kinds of tests except for an abitur. To teach students reading， math and science， Finnish teachers focused on cultivating students reading habit so that they were willing to read more. And it was the same with math and science. Therefore NCLBs pushing students to learn by strict tests was not a long-term method.endprint

Apart from this， schools and teachers also asked for a less severe punishments but more encouragement and assistance. Each school has different starting point when NCLB came into enactment. There were schools having better teacher resource， classroom facility and fewer students in need of help but there were also the opposite. For some schools， even they had tried hard to get enough students pass the exam， they still failed. Without sufficient assistance and time to improve， these schools had to face another cruel trial in the coming new year. If they failed again， they had to think about paying students for extra-curriculum tutoring or their transportation fees to other schools. As statistics showed in the last paragraph， 50% of the schools were facing different levels of punishments. Education was always a long-term investment therefore its effect would not show in short period of time. Also， the aim of NCLB was to build an equal public education system by enhancing school quality but not to eliminate the failed ones so that all schools left were of the same level. Therefore it was better to improve the left-behind schools than simply closing them down.

5. Conclusion

To conclude， NCLB was a right policy in the right time. The purpose of which met the need of the American society at that time. It was especially good for the citizens that had long been neglected such as：English language learners and the poor because NCLB required schools to keep special track on these students and help them to come over difficulties. Meanwhile， using performance evaluation method could arouse schools accountability and make them know where their weakness was in order to make progress.

However， the text of NCLB needed further discussion so that it could be put in a more appropriate way because massive of regulations and punishments could lead to resistance and fear. The problems occurred during the implementation of NCLB were mostly derived from the text itself therefore to enact NCLB better， changes should be made from its headstream.

References：

[1]A Nation at Risk report.Retrieved May 20，2017，from http：//www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html.

[2]Arrighi，B.A.，Maume，D.J.（2007）Child Poverty in America Today：The promise of education（Greenwood Publishing Group）.

[3]Bayles，E.E.（1966）Pragmatism in education（University of Michigan Press）.

[4]Conant，J.B.（1959）The American High School Today：A First Report to Interested Citizens（McGraw-Hill）.

[5]Foucault，M.et al.（1988）Politics，Philosophy，Culture：Interviews & Other Writings，1977-1984（New York：Routledge）.

[6]Rods speech on Retrieved May 20，2017，from http：//www.ed.gov/news/speeches/2003/04/04142003.html.

[7]Savickas，M.L.（2002）The Transition From School to Work：A Development Perspective，The Career Development Quaterly Vol.47，No.2，2002.

[8]Table 6.Resident Population by Sex，Race，and Hispanic Origin Status，Retrieved May 20，2017，from http：//www.census.gov/popest/national/asrh/NC-EST2007/NC-EST2007-03.xls.

[9]US 20 States ask for flexibility to school law.The New York Times.Retrieved May 20，2017，from http：//www.nytimes.com/2006/02/22/education/22testing.html？_r=1&scp=8&sq=2006%2002%2022&st=cse.

[10]Wartick，S.L.，Wood，D.J.（1998）International business and society（Wiley-Blackwell）.endprint