Running Head: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 1

No Child Left Behind

Including an Interview with Marc Stern

Shannon Skelton

National University

June 2014
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 2

Abstract

In 2001, President George W. Bush and the US. Congress passed the No Child Left

Behind Act in an attempt to improve the performance of primary and secondary schools in

America and increase the counties competitive hand in the global market. This paper is an

investigation of the regulations that were passed by this act and some of the subsequent effects

that the act has had on public schools. Additionally, I interviewed Marc Stern, a high school

history teacher to understand his take on the act, after having eight years of experience in the

profession.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 3

No Child Left Behind

We all have an experience with the expression there is no such thing as a free lunch,

and when it comes to financial assistance, there always tends to be a catch. So many aspects of

education are shaped by the constitutionality of the system, from equal opportunity and

desegregation to regulations in curriculum. However, decision making regarding these core ideas

has been turbulent as there is nothing in the U.S. Constitution about education; consequently, it

is a responsibility given to state governments (Spring, pg 219). In 2001 the U.S. Congress

passed the No Child Left Behind Act, in which states set the standards and design their own

assessments, but federal boards hold states and districts accountable for setting high-reaching

goals and meeting these goals. Financial funding and assistance is based on performance and

achievement and is still held within federal hands. Federal boards subsequently offered more

financial assistance for schools and districts to implement changes in instruction and technology

to achieve the high standards proposed by the legislation. States and local schools find it

difficult to refuse the money (Spring, pg 220) and thus, the federal government staked its claim

and wrapped the schools slightly tighter around their finger to demand a say in how schools are

managed. However, the method of checking the effectiveness of these district and school

monetary allowances is largely based on a series of high-stakes standardized tests which reflect

the adherence to national and state wide standards.

A huge question arises in my mind in regards to these standardized tests and

discrimination against the wide range of student in their abilities to sit down, understand the test

and, actually do well. Teachers and districts are faced with a huge range of factors that could

affect their test results and have devastating effects on the funding and success of a school. One

particular concern is in areas with low socioeconomic populations and a high number of English
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 4

learners. It is interesting that immigrant English learners can take math and reading tests in their

native languages for the first three years that they attend school in the U.S. (Spring, pg 230).

While it could be seen as excessive to have students take the test twice, once in English and once

in their native language, this could allow administrators to gauge their education levels and

monitor their progress over the years.

Marc Stern, a high school teacher that I interviewed this week, discussed the common

discrepancy between the results of these state tests and subsequent funding at his Mission Viejo

school, where less than 3 percent are English Learners, as compared to the school where his

sister teaches at in Santa Ana. Immigration, which is far more prevalent in Santa Ana, has caused

a great deal of financial strain on the school system and these problems are perpetuated when the

low test scores restrict these at-risk schools from receiving the funding and support needed.

(personal communication, August 8, 2014). Stern knows that his sister is a talented and

passionate teacher, but the standardized test gauge does not read the same consensus.

It seems as though current standardized test are contradictory to the principles behind No

Child Left Behind on the individual basis. Teachers are expected to collaborate with students to

put together 504 plans so that the special needs of students are taken into account and can allow

the student the best possible chance to succeed in school and avoid discussions of retention.

However, come springtime and the administering of standardized tests, students are held to a

Nationwide testing format that often disregards the 504 accommodations that the student is used

to receiving. I think having a balance between supporting the special needs of students and

holding students to the same standards is important in order to encourage growth while the

student is completing primary and secondary school while also preparing them for the harsh

reality of the world, which often requires adult workers to adapt or drown.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 5

As I have never had my own class of students, I do not have very much experience with

the pros and cons of the No Child Left Behind legislation. However, I have had experience

tutoring many elementary students who were at risk of not passing a subject or grade. These

students were fortunate enough to have parents that were involved and financially stable enough

to take action and alter the course that the student is on. Through tutoring, I was able to step in

and catch students up to their state standards so that they can continue their education with their

peers. A large focus of my tutoring strategy is to teach in a way that my students do not become

dependent on my help, but rather we practice learning strategies that will allow them to catch up

and they can keep using to keep themselves on track confidently and independently.

While I understand that holding a student back can result in some social and

psychological problem, I also agree with M. Sterns sentiments that students that are too far

behind should learn an important lesson in life that sometimes we fail, we dont get the job that

we think we are perfect for, or there is a chance to get fired for low performance. (personal

communication, August 8, 2014). Additionally, schools have a warning system when they are

not meeting their Adequate Yearly Progress marks and state and federal auditors offer increased

support and regulation in hopes of improving the performance of the school as a whole.

(McLoughlin, 2003). However, free market competition has had a powerful effect in shaping

America and think that the competition amongst schools encourages the schools to raise their

standards for their own sake, rather than wait for state and federal repercussions.

While No Child Left Behind sets up a system of checks and balances in monitoring

student learning, quality of teachers, and overall performance of schools and districts, there is a

flaw in the high influence of high-stakes standardized testing. Similar to the interventions and

additional support provided to students on an individual basis, there needs to be a better method
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 6

of taking into account the unique characteristics of each school and district. Schools all should

have the intent of providing their students with the best possible education and preparing these

young adults to be competitive assets in our global markets. However, assessing these

competencies on a series of annual multiple-choice tests seems to be a fatal flaw in our American

education system.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND 7

References

McLoughlin,C. (2003). No Child Left Behind: A Primer. National Association of School

Psychologists. Retrieved from http://www.naspcenter.org/parents/nclb_ho.html.

Spring, J. (2014). American Education (16th ed.). New York, NY: McGraw Hill Corporation.