Modifications to No Child Left Behind in the Obama Era

Responding to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the significant gap in student achievement among social classes and race, Lyndon B. Johnson spearheaded the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, ESEA, with bipartisan support. This Bill was passed in 87 days and enacted by Congress on April 11, 1965. Johnson’s War on Poverty was the driving force behind the ESEA as Johnson was all too familiar with inequality in education as a former teacher. The ESEA has been reformed several times through the years with its final reform titled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, NCLB. NCLB is “an Act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.” (United States Congress - 107th Congress, 2002)

NCLB has been the current law in education at the federal level for the past decade. However, President Obama is currently proposing a Blueprint for Reform which will again reauthorize the ESEA and thus make changes to NCLB. From its inception, NCLB has promised to close the achievement gap and increase accountability for school districts. NCLB has created a performance based system where standardized tests measure progress. Districts that do not meet the standard of proficient on state tests are labeled failing districts and require state intervention. Districts that do not comply with these regulations do not receive federal funding. While there is no national curriculum or national standard, under NCLB each state is required to set the bar and determine what is proficient.

Obama’s Blueprint for Reform proposed March 13, 2010 challenges this method of requiring all students scoring proficient by 2014 as it has “created incentives for states to lower their standards; emphasized punishing failure over rewarding success; focused on absolute scores, rather than recognizing growth and progress; and prescribed a pass-fail, one-size-fits-all series of interventions for schools that miss their goals.” (Abrevaya, 2010)

With one-third of the nation’s schools currently labeled as failing, a plan is needed to help these students, parents, teachers and administrators. Obama’s plan is simple, however, controversial. In his Blueprint for Reform, Obama outlines accountability as measured by individual student growth rather than standard scores of proficient. A student’s yearly progress will soon be an indicator of his or her success. This eliminates all students being proficient by 2014. Ultimately, all students by 2020 will be college and career ready. The blueprint defines this readiness as not needing “remediation classes upon entering college.” (National School Boards Association, 2010) At the state level, k-12 schools will need to align their curriculum to meet the needs of the state universities. This alignment will assure students preparedness for college and career.

Also, schools will no longer be labeled failing or in need of improvement in the Blueprint for Reform. The top performing schools will be labeled “Reward” schools and will receive more flexibility, rewards and funding. The lowest performing schools will be labeled “Challenge” schools and will be required to implement changes which at the lowest 5% include mandatory turnaround models for success. While the negative term of failing will be removed from the lowest performing schools, Obama promises more support and greater funding at this level so that success will be more attainable.

The method of rewarding money to schools will fall on competitive grants rather than the formulas that schools currently rely on for funding. The Blueprint for Reform outlines that these grants will be based on school performance and priority will be given to schools that develop programs for success such as comprehensive college preparedness programs and STEM programs, (science, technology, engineering and math). Schools will further be required to develop a performance scale to evaluate teachers and administrators. This information will be collected and reported at the district and state level.

While rewarding schools for their performance is a positive change to NCLB, other changes are questionable. Competitive grants fall away from the known and dependable formula which allots funding to all schools. Creating a competitive edge may create resentment and disharmony among districts. While networking among local districts to create a larger, more universal goal of educating students to be more prepared for college is good, districts may lean toward a more independent, cutthroat approach in order to achieve more funding. Additionally, the goal of educating students to be college and career ready is much too global. This goal is necessary; however, it may be loosely interpreted.

Measuring teacher performance through student success may be challenged by the local and state unions. This will likely be challenged once the performance indicators are determined. Each state and district will be required to establish their own performance indicators. Depending on how these standards are created and who is writing the standards will ultimately determine their effectiveness.

Change is needed for our country to be more competitive; however, educators should be more involved in making the change and determining the standards for achievement. While educators are the first target for blame when failure occurs, they rarely are the first targets for help when change needs to take place.


A Blueprint for Reform - The Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act


President Discusses Proposal for ESEA






References
Abrevaya, S. (2010, March 15). PRESS RELEASES Obama Administration's Education Reform Plan Emphasizes Flexibility, Resources and Accountability for Results. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2010/03/03152010.html

Barack Obama. (2010, March 13). Weekly Address: Education for a More Competitive America & Better Future. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The White House President Barack Obama: http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2010/03/12/weekly-address-education-a-more-competitive-america-better-future

Brown-Nagin, T. (2004, January). Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from Encyclopedia.com: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G2-3407400080.html

Dillon, S. (2010, March 13). Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?pagewanted=1&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1277838102-7Ygwj7EeyklSfUOexdBzWg

National School Boards Association. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform: ESEA Reauthorization. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from National School Boards Association: http://www.nsba.org/MainMenu/Advocacy/FederalLaws/NCLB/Blueprint-Summary.aspx

United States Congress - 107th Congress. (2002, January 8). PUBLIC LAW 107–110—JAN. 8, 2002 115 STAT. 1425. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

US Department of Education. (2010, March). A Blueprint for Reform. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/blueprint/blueprint.pdf

US Department of Education. (2001, January). OVERVIEW Archived Information Summary. Retrieved June 26, 2010, from US Department of Education: http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html