EDUCATION No Child Left Behind: Trends and Issues By Frederick M. Hess and Rosemary H. Kendrick The No Child Left Behind Act is the most ambitious piece of education legislation ever enacted by Congress. Designed to promote accountability and prod states to increase efforts to address educational inequities, NCLB includes significant provisions regarding assessment, sanctions for low-performing schools and districts, teacher quality and standards for educational research. On Jan. 8, 2002, surrounded by members of both tive requirements of the 1994 ESEA. Eager to sup- the Democratic and Republican congressional leader- port a Republican president after two terms under a ship, President George W. Bush signed the No Child Democratic White House, conservatives on Capitol Left Behind Act—called NCLB—into law. NCLB Hill accepted requirements regarding standards, test- is the nation’s most significant federal legislation on ing and accountability that they had resisted as fed- K-12 schooling since the Elementary and Secondary eral overreaching in 1994 and 1999. Education Act (ESEA) of 1965, and the most ambi- The NCLB accountability system requires states tious federal intervention in a domain long regarded to develop content standards for what students should as the preserve of state and local governments.1 know and be able to do, as well as complementary Congress approved NCLB by large, bipartisan state assessments. It requires states to annually test majorities, with the law passing 87–10 in the U.S. students to measure competency in the core subjects Senate and 381–41 in the House of Representatives.2 of reading and math. By the 2013–14 school year, Emerging from an exhaustive year of negotiations, all states are required to have all their students score NCLB refashioned federal education policy in the proficient on state reading and math assessments. areas of testing, accountability and teacher quality. The law leaves it to the states to determine the con- tent and rigor of these standards and tests.6 From ESEA to NCLB NCLB requires states to set academic standards The original ESEA was proposed in 1965 as a pillar that define three levels of achievement: basic, profi- of President Lyndon Johnson’s “Great Society” and cient and advanced. For each assessment, each state included five titles. The heart of the law, and lion’s must then develop corresponding tests in reading, share of the funding, was embodied in Title I—a pro- math and, eventually, science. These assessments gram of aid for the education of disadvantaged chil- are to be administered every year in grades three dren. Over time, critics both left and right expressed through eight and at least once in high school. States concerns about the failure of Title I to improve also are required to design and administer a science achievement among low-income students.3 assessment by the 2007–08 school year and to test President Bill Clinton’s administration sought to students at least once each in elementary, middle and use the 1994 ESEA reauthorization and the compan- high school. ion “Goals 2000” legislation to require every state Adequate yearly progress (AYP) is the metric used to establish academic standards and corresponding to evaluate school and district performance under assessments.4 But given the law’s voluntary cast NCLB. The expectation is that all schools and dis- and the federal government’s lack of enforcement tricts will make AYP—or, in other words, jump over authority, most states declined to comply.5 The 2001 a ‘bar’ that represents the percentage of children that deliberations over NCLB, which technically was the must score proficient on math and reading assess- much-delayed reauthorization of the 1994 ESEA, ments. Over time, states must raise the bar so that, by represented, more than anything else, a demand the 2013–14 school year, it is set at 100 percent. For by Washington, D.C., policymakers that state and instance, a state could deem a school as making AYP local officials do more to improve low-performing if 50 percent of its students were proficient in reading schools. in 2007, so long as expectations were stepped up to 100 percent by the 2013–14 school year. NCLB Standards and Assessment Calculating AYP is not as simple as measuring The heart of NCLB is its language on standards and the percentage of students who meet the proficiency assessment, which aggressively supersized the tenta- standard. In addition to holding schools account- 476 The Book of the States 2008 Book 9.indb 1 5/2/08 11:31:18 AM EDUCATION able for the AYP of the overall student body, NCLB imposing another remedy of the state’s choosing. The requires states to make progress within particular sanctions for districts are similar in intent to those for subpopulations. Each state must calculate the AYP of schools but different in the particulars. Districts that the following subgroups within each school: major fail to make AYP for multiple years, for example, racial/ethnic groups (white, African-American, are eventually subject to restructuring, including the Latino, Native American and so on); low-income possibility of state takeover.7 students; students with disabilities; and students with Because there is such variation among state tests, limited English proficiency. Each subgroup must the number of schools in each sanction phase var- clear the AYP bar in reading and math for schools or ies significantly across the country. California, for districts to make AYP. To protect student confiden- instance, has more than 300 schools in the restruc- tiality and heighten statistical reliability, states are turing implementation stage while Florida has none allowed to establish a minimum size for subgroups (see Table A). to be counted. NCLB’s testing requirements pose a number of Highly Qualified Teachers challenges and the legislation, and subsequent guid- Beyond its accountability and choice provisions, the ance from the U.S. Department of Education, have other radical development imposed by NCLB was sought to address these—with mixed success. The the federal mandate that all children be taught by a law stipulates schools must test 95 percent of their “highly qualified teacher.” The rule applied to core enrolled students to make AYP. It also includes a academic subjects like mathematics, science and his- “safe harbor” provision that allows schools that miss tory. Unlike the testing and accountability provisions, the AYP bar to still make AYP if they increase the the highly qualified teacher language focuses less on percentage of students who are proficient at a fast outcomes and more on inputs—meaning it seeks to enough rate. The provision also permits schools ensure that all schools have quality teachers who are and districts to exclude a small portion of special knowledgeable about the content they teach. needs students from AYP calculations. But whether To be deemed highly qualified, a teacher must these work as intended has been a subject of much have attained a bachelor’s degree, have passed the concern. state teacher licensing examination or obtained a state teaching certification, and have demonstrated NCLB Sanctions subject knowledge. Again, as with state standards The standards and testing provisions themselves con- and assessments, the law allows states to determine stitute only the first two-thirds of the NCLB account- what all this means in practice.8 That flexibility has ability system. In addition, NCLB links test results to created much concern that states have exploited loop- consequences for schools and school districts. Under holes to appease current teachers, improve apparent NCLB, schools that fail to make AYP are subject to results and reduce implementation headaches. In a series of cascading remedies, sanctions and inter- the 2005–06 school year (the original year NCLB ventions that are designed to compel the schools to sought to have 100 percent of core classes taught by improve and to grant additional options to children in highly qualified teachers), 48 states reported that at those schools. These interventions become increas- least 70 percent of their core classes were taught by ingly intense with each year that the schools fail. highly qualified teachers, and 36 states reported that If a school fails to make AYP two years in a row, it the percent of classes with highly qualified teachers enters “in need of improvement” status. Once there, was above 90.9 district and school officials must develop a school improvement plan and offer students the option of Research and Reading First transferring to a district school that is making AYP. Despite their importance, NCLB’s accountability Schools that fail for a third straight year must provide and teacher quality provisions comprise only a small supplemental education services or free tutoring. A portion of the sprawling legislation. The law encom- fourth year of failure prompts a stage of corrective passes 10 separate titles authorizing more than 50 action, which can entail actions ranging from cur- federal education programs. Noteworthy in NCLB riculum reform to the extension of the school day. is the emphasis on scientifically based research, a Finally, if a school fails to make AYP for a fifth year, phrase that appears in reference to everything from the district must restructure that school, by convert- reading programs, to teacher training, to school ing it to a charter school, replacing the majority of the safety. Scientifically based research is defined as ‘the staff, hiring an educational management company,