Federal spending on K-12 education will top $41 billion in 2004. Add in state and local spending, and the figure rises to a record half-trillion dollars. That's double the amount spent in 1990 and a third more than the $375 billion the U.S. will spend on defense this year. The negligible impact of this ever-increasing cash infusion on reading scores is illustrated in this chart:
Nevertheless, the Democratic presidential hopefuls continue to refer to the law as an "unfunded mandate," and Republican legislatures in such states as Utah and Virginia are busy passing resolutions condemning it as "the most sweeping intrusion into state and local control of education in the history of the United States." Lawmakers in Connecticut, Maine, New Mexico, North Dakota, Ohio and elsewhere have threatened similar actions based on the same shaky grounds.
Leave aside for a moment this convenient rediscovery of federalism now that the federal education dollars come attached to some accountability for results. John Kerry and John Edwards both voted for this law, as did just about everybody else in Congress. The vote in the Senate was 87-10; in the House, 381-41. You can't get much more bipartisan than that. The Democratic gambit in this election season is to use the spending wedge to steal the education issue back from the Republican themes of accountability and choice.
Most NCLB requirements--like disaggregating certain data and identifying failing schools--were already part of federal law dating to the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The problem, according to a new Education Next analysis by James Peyser and Robert Costrell, is that this federal law lacked teeth. "By the time the 1994 reauthorization was superseded by No Child Left Behind in 2002," say the authors, "only 21 states were in compliance with its accountability provisions."
Cost-of-compliance complaints from the states should also be put in some perspective. The Department of Education reports that states are currently sitting on nearly $6 billion in unspent federal education funds acquired between 2000 and 2002. Some $2 billion of this is Title I money that's designated for the most disadvantaged students. State officials might consider spending what they already have before begging for more federal lucre.
Our original problem with No Child Left Behind is that it was bipartisan to a fault. Thanks to influential liberal Democrats Senator Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts and Representative George Miller of California, school choice provisions were watered down or simply tossed overboard. Billions in new spending were also added, but the teachers unions wouldn't allow any of it to go to vouchers for poor parents.
Nevertheless, the law at least signaled a federal commitment to standards-based reform. Given who's now complaining loudest, the reform seems to be working. Accountability measures are in place and money isn't simply flowing to the states for nothing in return.
Expert Analysis Against
School is back in session. With the new academic year, school districts are once again struggling to implement the No Child Left Behind Act--a massive federal intrusion that impedes learning, encourages dropouts, narrows the curriculum, increases anxiety, fosters academic dishonesty, and does nothing to improve schools.
In 2002, President Bush sat at a wooden desk in the gymnasium of Ohio's Hamilton High School and signed this massive federal law. The Act dramatically expands the federal government's role in education. It touts the goals of closing the student achievement gap, making public schools "accountable," establishing standards of excellence for every child, and placing a qualified teacher in every classroom.
The law requires student testing--and plenty of it. There are annual tests in reading and math in grades 3 through 8, and once in grades 10-12, beginning in 2005-2006. There are tests in science in elementary school, middle school, and high school, beginning in 2007-2008. School and district progress reports must be met each year, and by 2014, every student in America must have achieved state-defined proficiency. Students in "failing" schools will be eligible to transfer to "high-performing" schools. "Failing" schools may be closed.
What's wrong with testing, testing, testing? Plenty. First, annual high-stakes testing impedes learning. It produces rote memorization and a "drill and grill" curriculum. Between pre-testing and the actual testing, students may be involved in 3 to 4 weeks of test-related activities distinct from normal instruction. This distraction may account for as much as 10 percent of the year's instructional time. Instead of imparting knowledge, public school teachers are spending increasing amounts of time teaching to the test.
Also, high-stakes testing encourages school dropouts. In Massachusetts in 2003, almost twenty percent of high school seniors did not pass the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment to receive their high school diplomas--including 44 percent of the state's black seniors and half its Hispanic seniors. Students who feel they cannot pass the test--despite repeated attempts--see no reason to stay in school.
The No Child Left Behind Act also restricts the curriculum. It produces a narrow focus on math and reading test scores. Schools desperate to improve their test scores are eliminating courses in art, music, speech, debate, home economics, industrial arts, history, social studies, and physical education--as well as recess.
In addition, the Act narrows the range of performance-based accountability. Who says that a standardized test is the only way to measure student achievement? What about portfolios, exhibitions, essays, student-initiated projects, and teacher evaluations?
Constant testing also increases pressure on young children. The Act calls for math and reading tests in third grade--when most students are eight years old. Putting pressure on young children runs counter to everything we know about the psychology of children and the psychology of learning. Annual high-stakes testing threatens to turn schools into sweatshops.
The pressure to improve student test scores has also led to cheating. The Dallas Morning News last year found strong evidence that teachers were helping students cheat at 400 schools throughout Texas, including Houston. Faced with the need to improve test scores or lose their jobs, some teachers simply resort to giving out the answers.
Also, annual testing does nothing to improve schools and student performance. It focuses on punishment, negative labels, and threats. It places too little emphasis on the social causes of poor school performance. It does nothing to improve the curriculum, reduce class size, decrease school size, increase parental involvement, create after-school programs, diminish school violence, lessen absenteeism, or increase funding.
Fortunately, there is an increasing state rebellion against No Child Left Behind. Connecticut has sued the US Department of Education over funding support, and the Utah state legislature has ordered state officials to ignore provisions of federal law that conflict with Utah's educational goals.
The Challenges
Twelve years from now, all children who attend public schools must be proficient in reading, math and science. We will not reach this goal if we continue to do more of the same thing with more intensity. How schools are structured and what successful schools look like is changing. Teachers, principals and school administrators who are knowledgeable about these changes will be able to meet the challenges of the No Child Left Behind Act.
The No Child Left Behind Act affects virtually every person employed in the public school system. All schools in districts that accept Title 1 federal funds must make detailed annual reports on the progress of all children. Each school must also report the progress of four subgroups: minority children, children with disabilities, children with limited English proficiency, and children from low-income families.
If a district is not successful in raising the level of all students, immediately and steadily, to the state-defined level of proficiency, the district will lose control.
Detailed information about the performance of schools in the district and subgroups of children must be readily available to anyone who wants this information. Real estate agents will use these reports to answer customer questions about school districts and neighborhoods. Teachers will examine this information before deciding to apply for a position in a school, district, or state. Superintendents will use this information to determine which principals are running successful schools and which are not. School boards will use this information to evaluate superintendents. Voters will use this information to evaluate school boards. Industry will use state report cards to make decisions about where to locate new facilities.
What company wants to locate a new factory in a state with a high dropout rate? Who wants to buy a house in a neighborhood where the schools are not successful? Who will apply for a teaching job in an unsuccessful school?
http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, signed into law by President Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education. The ESEA, first enacted in 1965 and last reauthorized in 1994, encompasses Title I, the federal government's flagship aid program for disadvantaged students.
As the newest incarnation of the ESEA, the No Child Left Behind Act has expanded the federal role in education and become a focal point of education policy. Coming at a time of wide public concern about the state of education, the legislation sets in place requirements that reach into virtually every public school in America. It takes particular aim at improving the educational lot of disadvantaged students.
At the core of the No Child Left Behind Act are a number of measures designed to drive broad gains in student achievement and to hold states and schools more accountable for student progress. They represent significant changes to the education landscape (U.S. Department of Education, 2001).