No Child Left Behind

America requires an educated society as it moves into the 21^st Century. Dynamic and erudite citizens will drive America’s economy, strengthen our democracy, and secure the American dream for those currently left behind. A knowledgeable society requires that all children have access to a quality public education. An educated society also maintains the United States’ strong presence in the world marketplace and promotes a greater understanding of varying cultures and values. The roots for this brighter future begin in the preschools and kindergartens of our nation’s public schools and continue to grow through high school graduation and into college. This success cannot grow in schools that cannot teach.

The United States has experienced a growing separation and inequality in our society between those living in urban and rural environments with those living in suburban communities. This inequality is not limited to the quality of textbooks, the condition of the school and its grounds, or even the geographic and racial divides, but instead strikes at the very heart of the American dream. Many public schools have failed to prepare students for the challenging road ahead of them. Without passing blame, the United States must amend a system that does not provide equal opportunity for success. How to accomplish such a feat continues to receive a great amount of debate and discussion. The Federal government has responded with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). No Child Left Behind, however, will fail as a school reform bill because it does not address the financial needs of schools, neglects the recruitment and retention of teachers, and ignores the pedagogical knowledge and skills required to produce highly qualified teachers. No Child Left Behind’s origins unfortunately lie in domestic politics rather than education policy. As a result, NCLB will lead to the deprofessionalization of the teaching profession and lead to serious consequences for the future of American public education.

Under the noble endeavor to transform American public schools, President Bush, with bipartisan support from the United States Congress, passed the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110. The No Child Left Behind Act amended the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 and was President Bush’s legislative priority for the 107^th Congress. The goal of the Act as described in its legislative title is to close the achievement gap of disadvantaged students with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.[1] Disadvantaged students are those attending schools that contain high poverty and high minority rates, known as Title I schools. A Title I school is a school where at least 40% of students are at or below the poverty level, determined by free and reduced lunch counts, AFDC, the census or Medicaid. In addition, the Act focuses on the preparation, training, and recruiting of high quality teachers for every classroom in the United States. No Child Left Behind has placed great importance on teachers’ roles in public education. However, the academic and performance requirements established in NCLB will likely impede school reform and teacher effectiveness.

The academic and performance requirements appear to support an ideological ‘compassionate conservatism’ perspective unlike traditional education reforms. School employees are expected to take personal responsibility and accept consequences if achievements are not made, even without proper support. Some in Washington and the education community believe that the real person in charge of education policy for the Federal government is not Education Secretary Rod Paige but Margaret Spelling, Director of the domestic policy staff at the White House. This political approach would follow with other complaints that the Bush Administration makes decisions on political implications rather than substantive policy goals. Establishing reform without consideration of professional educators has left NCLB filled with cumbersome and illogical requirements. The politicalization of education reform has heightened the activist on both sides of the political spectrum. It is important to understand the changes in NCLB that have caused such conflict.

For the first time, Federal legislation mandates that education programs use scientifically proven means to find solutions for education issues. This scientific approach relies on ‘scientifically based research such as the measurement or observational methods…(that) must employ rigorous data to analyze and test the state hypotheses’.[2] Every Federal education program must statistically prove with measurable results that it succeeds in educating America’s children. The scientific approach also requires that teaching methods undergo research through observation and testing to measure impact on students. This is a radical approach from previous reauthorizations of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which had relied on funding programs without closely watching testing results. Unfortunately, finding one teaching approach through scientific research that works across the country is almost impossible and will only constrict teachers’ lesson plans. No Child Left Behind’s systematic approach affects teachers in two ways.

First, No Child Left Behind requires that each state establish accountability programs that test students in the core academic areas: math, reading, and science. These accountability programs will measure schools’ adequate yearly progress (AYP) from year to year. The tests will measure the overall performance among a number of subgroups including minorities, English-as-a-second language students, and disabled students. If any of these groups fail to make AYP from one year to the next the school would be labeled as needing improvement. Two consecutive years of failing to meet AYP, for just one subgroup, will result in the entire school classified as failing. The failure of schools to reach the goals established by NCLB will result in the transfer of students to succeeding schools at the failing school’s expense, changes in teaching staff and administration, and finally the closing of the entire school.[3]

Secondly, the No Child Left Behind Act demands that all teachers are highly qualified. No Child Left Behind has left the strict definition of highly qualified teachers to the state. Teachers under the Federal Act are required to have at least a bachelor’s degree and prove their competence in their subject area through state exams, the completion of an academic major, or by passing rigorous subject based tests. All new teachers must immediately meet the requirements while current teachers are given until 2006 to meet the standards. Currently, only Wisconsin has a highly qualified teacher in every classroom.[4] Schools that serve populations with high numbers of disadvantaged students are required to have qualified teachers immediately.[5] Schools of education and local school boards have asked for additional funding to help cover the cost of recruiting, retaining, and retraining highly qualified teachers.

Federal funding for education was expected to cover the costs of NCLB’s requirements. To avoid yearly debates on funding, the bipartisan support for No Child Left Behind established spending levels for each year through 207. Under the auspices of No Child Left Behind President Bush and his Administration provided the largest single year increase in history for Federal spending on education. However, the promised funding levels for 2003 were never met. In 2004, the proposed Budget for the poorest schools will increase to $12.3 billion, which is $6 billion less than the amount outlined for 2004 when NCLB was signed.[6] The 2004 budget does not adequately support the programs that are the top focuses of No Child Left Behind.

The Federal government, addressing the needs of improving teacher quality, established grants for states and schools to strengthen the skills and knowledge of their teachers. Grants can be used for professional development, class size reduction, and for recruiting and retaining teachers. As the need and demand for these grants has increased, the funding levels have remained constant. Teacher training programs received $2.85 billion for 2002 and 2003, which is the same amount proposed for 2004.[7] In budget terms, a program not receiving increased funding statistically incurs a budget cut because yearly inflation raises costs. With such constraints placed on improving teacher quality, ensuring that all students have qualified teachers will become increasingly difficult for states.

As the Federal government fails to meet its full funding obligations, states and local school districts have increased their accusations of unfunded mandates. What were once concerns about proficiency tests from State Houses are now concerns of teacher quality and AYP from the halls of Congress. A recent study by the New Hampshire School Administrators Association found that NCLB will cost New Hampshire an additional $575 per student to reach the goals; in contrast, NCLB at current funding provides only an additional $77 for each student.[8] Strains may develop if states are continually asked to bear heavier burdens while not receiving adequate compensation from Washington.

Education is historically a local and state concern. Currently states provide, on average, about thirty-five percent of funding for public education while the Federal government supplies roughly seven percent.[9] Since most states cannot operate under deficits they are forced to cut state budgets in times of economic down turn. The first programs cut are often education programs because they consist of a sizable majority of state budgets. House Republicans have attacked educators and Democrats’ requests for increased federal funding. House Education and the Workforce Committee Chairman John Boehner believes that the Federal government has provided ample resources to schools.

“What the No Child Left Behind Act promised was that politicians would stop using money as an excuse for the 35-year failure to close the achievement gap in America’s schools. We’ve now significantly increased Federal education spending twice since No Child Left Behind was enacted. There are no more excuses.”[10]

Demands for more resources are not excuses when states and localities face a credible problem of finding and keeping good teachers for their schools. Many schools administrators are concerned that this is an area that NCLB fails to address, but has become a growing concern throughout the country. Public education must compete in a society where teachers majoring in math earn $18,000 less on average than their counterparts entering the private sector.[11] Yet it is not just income that keeps individuals away from teaching. Teachers do not always work in the best environments and often have little professional support. A collection of studies has identified additional support systems for teachers, especially those in high poverty and high minority schools, none of which are addressed in No Child Left Behind. Recent studies show that giving teachers ‘high-quality instruction, meaningful induction programs, opportunities to advance, and small, professional communities in which to work is the key to retention…. higher salaries are important to’.[12] States and schools districts fear that they will not have the resources to implement successful recruitment and retention programs.

In a speech on the Senate floor, Senator Feinstein related recruitment problems occurring in California with the deficiencies of No Child Left Behind. California needs to hire and credential an estimated 300,000 new teachers by 2008. However, the cost of these changes will reach almost $6 billion, money that California does not have available because of a $35 billion budget shortfall.[13] According to David Imig, President and CEO of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, a significant portion of a teacher’s first year salary is spent in recruiting and retaining the teacher. As much as twenty-five percent of a first year teacher’s salary consists of the cost of attracting, orienting, and supporting him or her, all of which is wasted if the teacher leaves after only a few years.[14]

The problems of teacher shortages caused by retention issues are not geographically or socioeconomicly isolated. In 1999, 220,000 teachers began their teaching career while 287,000 teachers left their jobs the following year. While a sizable number of those leaving were due to teacher retirement many were due to dissatisfaction or lack of support.[15] Almost one-third of new teachers quit during their first three years and almost half leave in the first five years. These retention rates are worse in poor schools with high rates of minorities and lead to a number of problems.[16]

It is believed that teacher quality increases with experience in the classroom. If the Federal government does not aide states and schools in keeping teachers in the classroom they will never create a system focused around highly qualified teachers. The inability of schools to retain good teachers hinders their ability to build solid academic foundations and prepare students for accountability tests. Without properly funding Title I schools or providing structural support, No Child Left Behind will continue the revolving door of teachers in and out of failing schools. While No Child Left Behind does little to attract highly qualified teachers to teach and remain in disadvantaged areas it does illustrate the changing face of public education.

The Department of Education has used a number of studies to validate the changes it has made in teacher preparation. The studies reviewed concluded that teacher quality is the crucial component in public schools; more closely related to student achievement than factors such as class size and spending on instructional materials. William Sanders conducted one such study on teachers’ importance in Tennessee. Sanders divided a group of teachers into quintiles determined by the learning gains of their students. He found that students with three successive years of teachers from the top quintile made almost fifty percent higher learning gains than their counterparts taught by teachers from the bottom quintile.[17] If this research is accurate one could question why teacher-training programs are level funded and programs that research the qualities of effective teachers have been completely cut from the budget.

The Bush Administration may not want increased funding for current programs because of its desire to change the path of teacher preparation. This issue has raised debate among the education community, Congress, and the White House. Department of Education Secretary Rod Paige and President Bush are strong advocates of alternative forms of teacher accreditation and licensure while many in the education community focus on traditional teacher colleges. Currently, teachers who lack even a minor in math are teaching sixty-one percent of middle-school math classes, causing concern among many education reformers.[18]

No Child Left Behind requires licensing of teachers but allows each state to set the standards for licensure. David Imig of AACTE worries that the law assumes that each state has rigorous licensing procedures, which Dr. Imig claims is a false assumption.[19] Some states may be willing to lessen their requirements to attract more teachers with bachelors’ degrees to fill needed teaching spots with highly qualified teachers. Only a few education groups, such as AACTE, would like the Federal government to establish some form of licensing consistency. David Imig and the AACTE support a national test for teachers as long as it is not the sole measure of teacher preparedness. A national test would help insure that states do not weaken their programs and would provide a better basis to judge the success of alternative and traditional forms of teacher preparation.[20] No Child Left Behind fails to bridge the concerns between states and the Federal government.

No Child Left Behind places responsibility on states to make changes. The Federal government, however, has left states in the dark about how to implement these unclear goals but has continued to demand change under strict time constraints. School administrators and State Departments of Education do not have answers for their schools. When a principal’s school in Arizona was found as failing he submitted his plan to the Arizona Department of Education, as directed under the Law, but no one at the Department knew what to do with his plan. The state had not found anyone to review the plans and had trouble hiring extra people in tough budget times.[21] No Child Left Behind has created a more complex system at the state and local levels, which the federal government has chosen not to support or address.

No Child Left Behind has established a number of vague requirements that open the door for interpretations. For unanswered questions, Dr. David Imig of AACTE suggests that further clarity on teacher requirements will emerge as Congress reauthorizes the Higher Education Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.[22] The Federal government has made it clear that they will not wait for results, despite providing lackluster guidance. Teachers and schools must continue to move forward.

Traditional teacher colleges prepare the majority of teachers in the United States. These colleges usually focus on pedagogy rather than content knowledge. Pedagogy helps teachers in areas such as teaching methodology, classroom organization, and student behavior. Content knowledge focuses on mastering the subject information of one’s teaching area. The Bush administration has used the design of NCLB to exploit the alternative forms of licensure that focus on content knowledge. Many educators, however, see a tremendous benefit from the nation’s teacher colleges’ focus on the profession and skill of teaching.

The American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education has worked to realign teacher colleges with the changing needs of students. AACTE and the Council for Basic Education have worked since the mid-1990s to create a framework for teacher colleges to challenge their own status quo and strengthen their teaching programs in both teaching skills and subject knowledge. They produced a guide entitled ‘Developing Knowledgeable Teachers: A Framework for Standards-Based Teacher Education Supported by Institutional Collaboration’ (S.T.E.P.). The S.T.E.P. approach helps teacher colleges analyze the needs of their aspiring teachers, address their concerns, and monitor their successes. Nonetheless, the architects of NCLB have structured the Act to only maintain teacher colleges and funnel additional resources to alternative routes of teaching. Sixty-two percent of teachers have degrees in education related subjects, NCLB aims to shift the focus from education majors to content majors.

The alternative routes of teacher accreditation worry some educators. However, critics of traditional education schools have argued that teacher colleges are only trying to secure their power over the teacher workforce. There appears justifiable concern that new accreditation routes will fail to teach crucial skills. According to the U.S. Department of Education alternative routes will likely end instruction in pedagogy, education philosophy or methods, and teaching practices.[23] These skills will create scientists in the classroom rather than science teachers, many believe there is a difference. Secretary Paige sights research conducted by the Abell Foundation, which found fundamental flaws in current teacher certification through teacher colleges. A number of other reports, conversely, have found that teacher colleges and their teacher certification programs produce more effective teachers than alternative forms. The Abell report has come under attack for ignoring data that reported the contrary to their reported findings. Other studies have found mixed results in the pedagogy versus content knowledge debate.

A 2001 study compared Teach for America (TFA) participants in Houston with an average group of non-Teach for America teachers. Teach for America is a program that finds intelligent and dedicated individuals, usually recent college graduates, to teach in a number of high need rural and urban communities across the country. Participants go through an intense training session the summer before they begin their two-year commitment. Besides the TFA study other research has attempted to measure teacher quality, many done by Linda Darling-Hammond of Stanford University, who found strong links between teacher quality and student achievement.

The study on Teach for America teachers compared them with new non-TFA teachers and with a supposed sample of average teachers from Houston. The results failed to provide any substantial evidence on teacher performance for TFA or non-TFA teachers. TFA teachers showed less variation than non-TFA teachers and the highest-performing teachers were consistently Teach for America teachers and the lowest-performing teachers were consistently non-TFA teachers. The report concluded that alternative routes of teacher preparation could produce effective results. One of the disadvantages though, according to the Summary Report, found that TFA teachers were poor performers in classroom management skills. The Teach for America teachers were also credited with being highly motivated, energetic, and knowledgeable about their subjects.[24] Teach for America received the greatest amount of Federal grants for any alternative teaching program in the 2003 education budget, showing the Administration’s belief in the strength of TFA and alternative forms of teacher preparation.

An investigation of information not presented on the Teach for America website found conflicting conclusions. The study did not compare TFA teachers to a typical group of non-TFA teachers. Instead, the study measured TFA teachers against the inexperienced teachers in high-minority schools where the most under qualified teachers are placed. This was not a fair representation of Houston’s teaching population; TFA teachers were compared to teachers without bachelors’ degrees as the authors of the study neglected their information on highly trained and certified teachers from Houston in the report.[25]

Linda Darling-Hammond has conducted a number of studies that support the importance of pedagogy and finds some surprising evidence that counters claims that content-based knowledge is the crucial component missing from today’s teachers. For example, Darling-Hammond found that the number of course credits in mathematics were not linearly related to teacher performance. Teachers’ expertise produced smaller returns on student success after a minimal level of education demanded by the curriculum was surpassed. Darling-Hammond found a much stronger correlation between education coursework and teacher performance than subject matter knowledge.

These studies refute claims by the Department of Education and the White House on the need for greater content knowledge and less pedagogical skills. There is little evidence, however, to support the idea that either subject knowledge or pedagogy trumps the other. One study found that states with a higher proportion of teachers with a major in their field and full certification had higher math and reading scores for their students than those states that did not have as qualified teachers. Overall, Darling-Hammond found similar results that concluded a solid degree of pedagogical skill with subject matter knowledge was a strong determining factor in student success. Teachers that are certified in teaching fields or have a master’s degree in education are more likely to produce higher levels of success among their students and have students that are less likely to drop out.[26]

Teacher colleges’ prepare students in the planning of curriculum, teaching, management of the classroom, and diagnosing learning disabilities in students. The Teach for America study shows that alternative routes of teacher preparation fail to prepare students in such areas.[27] Preliminary research shows a stronger correlation between education coursework and student success than content knowledge.[28] Despite the early findings, the Federal government and State governments should encourage study in both pedagogy and content knowledge. Many schools of education, such as The Ohio State University, have embraced this approach by requiring aspiring secondary education teachers to have bachelors degrees in their subject and then receive their Masters in Education, focusing on pedagogy and teaching skills.

A number of organizations have studies planned to track the success of teachers educated in different academic programs. The Ohio State University, in conjunction with the University of Cincinnati and Case Western Reserve University, will track a number of new teachers and assess their abilities and success in improving the academic performance of their students. Research on this scale is difficult because of the number of variables that come into effect. Senator Mike Dewine of Ohio has recently introduced Senate Bill 408, entitled Ready to Educate All Children Act. If passed this act would provide $200 million over the next five years in the forms of grants for institutions of higher education. Schools would be eligible for the grants to establish clinically based elementary or secondary schoolteacher training programs or to strengthen programs that are already in existence.[29]

Regardless of the eventual outcomes of pending research, No Child Left Behind demands immediate change. The large and sometimes bureaucratic teacher colleges are not capable of making rapid changes to produce and retrain tens of thousands of teachers. For-profit institutions, such as the McGraw-Hill Company, are partnering with school districts to provide the district’s teachers instruction to upgrade their credentials.[30] Undercutting the methods of teaching and focusing purely on subject content may not help to improve test scores in the long run. According to the U.S. Department of Education, “states will need to streamline their certification system to focus on the few things that really matter: verbal ability, content knowledge, and as a safety precaution, a background check of new teachers”.[31] This is a frightful thought for those that value teaching as a profession and not just a job because it states that anyone could succeed at teaching. This notion ignores the management skills, personality, pedagogical knowledge, and a host of other traits that highly qualified teachers exhibit. Following in line with the notion that anyone can teach, the Bush Administration has pushed for easier access to the classroom.

New programs such as Troops-to-Teacher and Technology-to-Teacher programs place perspective teachers on the fast track of education that lasts only a few weeks or months. No Child Left Behind names these programs as two of the new and innovative ways for producing teachers. The new fast route programs have already shown success by increasing diversity in the teacher force. Increases have occurred in the number of men, minorities, and math and science teachers, all areas that are in desperate need. Reportedly, those certified through alternative routes are about eighty-five percent likely to continue teaching into their fifth year in the classroom.[32] While finding qualified teachers for the classroom may have a number of possible solutions the options to help students pass accountability tests are limited. States often pay the price of trying to administer fair accountability tests to their students so that an adequate number are able to meet the standards.

Michigan and Texas are among the first states to identify major problems of NCLB because of their strict state standards. The immediacy of NCLB has left teachers and students little time to adapt to difficult new tests.[33] Michigan has the most rigorous standards in the nation for No Child Left Behind. Because of such strict standards Michigan has more schools that are in danger of failing than any other state with 1,513 schools. Ironically, the United States Department of Education had marked nineteen of the 1,513 ‘needing improvement’ schools as ‘blue-ribbon schools’, recognized for excellence, just a few months prior.[34] Arkansas and Wyoming, with the lowest standards in the country reportedly have no schools in danger of failing.

Allowing states like Arkansas and Wyoming to set low standards for teacher quality and state tests will circumvent the intention of No Child Left Behind. By weakening standards, states will avoid national ridicule and appear to achieve education success while actually falling short of truly preparing students for the future. Even if states have high standards and are increasing performance they may fail under NCLB. California is finding some of its top schools are failing because of the failure of one sub-group. No Child Left Behind does not spare a school with a strong academic program for the vast majority of its schools if a demographic group does not score higher on standardized tests every. Schools are handicapped when they are responsible to test new students even if they arrived from another country just a week before the test. Schools are also penalized for over excelling one year and then not excelling as equally the following year. Shutting down a relatively successful school due to statistical anomalies does not seem like the most efficient way to run public education.[35]

Estimates by some education officials predict that in a few years the majority of the United States’ 90,000 public schools will be labeled as ‘failing’. Members of Congress, Department of Education, and the White House have determined that the 2013-2014 school year will require that each school has an illogical 100% proficiency rate in the state tests. The problem is that accountability tests do not allow for the myriad of issues that effect student’ test scores. A number of students suffer from test anxiety, may not feel well, or are dealing with issues at home. Any of these events could affect a student’s test score from day to day. Growing debate has erupted over the use of strict testing as a means to measure performance.

The testing mandated by the Federal government ties the hands of qualified teachers to follow their local curriculum. Test preparation will make it difficult to create a curriculum that is fun, engaging, and educational. Many educators believe that teaching students to enjoy learning is equally as important or more important than teaching them strict memorization of facts and procedures. Accountability tests may also lead to a de-emphasis on social studies, art, and music, which NCLB does not test. The number of variables required for success in the current testing environment has caused conspiracy theorists to view NCLB as an attempt to erode public education in favor of school choice. The politicalization of education by White House officials rather than education experts hints at ulterior motives. Establishing unrealistic standards that are unattainable under budget constraints and time can only lead to failure. The punishment of shutting down schools will allude to mass failure of public education. No Child Left Behind sets the stage for school failure to lead to new avenues of education through quasi-voucher and school choice programs.

School choice, present in NCLB, allows students at failing schools to transfer to a successful school nearby, at the failing district’s expense. President Bush proposed in his 2004 Budget spending on a refundable tax credit for parents transferring a child from a low-performing public school. The President proposed $75 million for a Choice Incentive Fund that would provide awards to states, school districts, and nonprofit organizations to provide parents the opportunity to transfer their children to a high-performing public, private, or charter school. The budget also includes another $320 million for the expanding of Charter schools.[36] These massive spending increases in school choice will lead to declining power of teachers and reduce the ability of public education to maintain legitimacy in teaching tomorrow’s future.

According to Chris Trahan, Federal Affairs Manager of AACTE, it will take until at least the second anniversary of the signing of No Child Left Behind to measure its effectiveness as an education reform bill. Trahan hopes that growing bipartisan support to fully fund NCLB will take root, helping America’s schools and colleges of education to fully train, recruit, and retain highly qualified teachers. No Child Left Behind has provided the needed focus for American public education but needs altering to truly address the problems in education. Schools need funds to attract and keep teachers with higher salaries combined with greater professional support. Teachers need a solid understanding of their content knowledge but must have a firm grasp on pedagogy to translate their knowledge and skills to students. Students need safe schools, new textbooks, caring teachers, and a government that allows their teachers to prepare them for the future.

American public schools cannot and should not run like a corporation. The oppressive accountability requirements belong in a boardroom and not the classroom. No one disagrees that American schools need to perform better, but judging solely on the performance of a single test is disastrous. No Child Left Behind should focus on ways to help improve teachers’ qualities, provide better resources for recruiting and retaining teachers in needed areas, and ensuring that every student can learn is a safe and enriching environment. Streamlining education cannot churn out effective new teachers in only weeks and a few short months; trying to do so cheapens the professionalism. Time is very crucial, every child that sits in a cold wet classroom, reading from an outdated text-book, taught by a teacher without proper certification and training in both content and pedagogy is another life that will never realize the American dream. School reform is not simple or cheap but the answer is not to rule with an iron fist over first graders.