... On Teachers' Rights
Background
Teachers in the United States enjoy a number of rights pertaining to their employment, including recognition of certain freedoms, prohibition against certain forms of DISCRIMINATION, and significant protections against DISMISSAL from their position. These rights are derived from state and federal constitutional provisions, state and federal statutes, and state and federal regulations.
Constitutional provisions provide protection to teachers at public schools that are generally not available to teachers at private schools. Since public schools are state entities, constitutional restrictions on state action limit some actions that public schools may take with respect to teachers or other employees. Rights that are constitutional in nature include the following:
- Substantive and procedural due process rights, including the right of a teacher to receive notice of termination and a right to a HEARING in certain circumstances
- Freedom of expression and association provided by the First Amendment of the BILL OFRIGHTS
- Academic freedom, a limited concept recognized by courts based on principles of the First Amendment
- Protection against unreasonable searches and seizures by school officials of a teacher's PERSONAL PROPERTY provided by the Fourth Amendment
Though private school teachers do not generally enjoy as much of the constitutional protection as public school teachers, statutes may provide protection against discrimination. The CIVIL RIGHTS Act of 1964, for example, protects teachers at both public and private schools from racial, sexual, or religious discrimination. Private school teachers may also enjoy rights in their contracts that are similar to due process rights, including the inability of a private school to dismiss the teacher without cause, notice, or a hearing.
Certification Requirements
Every state requires that teachers complete certain requirements to earn a teacher's certificate in order to teach in that state. Most states extend this requirement to private schools, though some jurisdictions may waive this for certain sectarian or denominational schools. The requirements that must be satisfied and the procedures that must be followed to earn certification vary from state to state. Requirements generally include completion of a certified education program, completion of a student teaching program, acceptable performance on a standardized test or tests, and submission of background information to the appropriate state agency in charge of accreditation. Some states require more extensive physical and mental testing of teachers and a more extensive background check. Some states also require drug testing of applicants prior to certification. An increasing number of states now require teachers to complete a satisfactory number of continuing education credits to maintain certification.Denial or Revocation of Teaching Certificate
Courts have held consistently that teaching certificates are not contracts. Thus, requirements to attain or maintain a certificate may be changed and applied to all teachers and prospective teachers. The certification process is administered by state certifying agencies in each state, and most of these agencies have been delegated significant authority with respect to the administration of these rules. Despite this broad delegation, however, the state agencies may not act arbitrarily, nor may these agencies deny or revoke certification on an arbitrary basis. Some state statutes provide that a certificate may be revoked for "just cause." Other common STATUTORYgrounds include the following:
- Immoral conduct or indecent behavior
- INCOMPETENCY
- Violations of ethical standards
- Unprofessional conduct
- Misrepresentation or FRAUD
- Willful neglect of duty
Tenure
Most states protect teachers in public schools from arbitrary dismissal through tenure statutes. Under these tenure statutes, once a teacher has attained tenure, his or her contract renews automatically each year. School districts may dismiss tenured teachers only by a showing of cause, after following such procedural requirements as providing notice to the teacher, specifying the charges against the teacher, and providing the teacher with a meaningful hearing. Most tenure statutes require teachers to remain employed during a probationary period for a certain number of years. Once this probationary period has ended, teachers in some states will earn tenure automatically. In other states, the local school board must take some action to grant tenure to the teacher, often at the conclusion of a review of the teacher's performance. Tenure also provides some protection for teachers against demotion, salary reductions, and other discipline. However, tenure does not guarantee that a teacher may retain a particular position, such as a coaching position, nor does it provide indefinite employment.Prior to attaining tenure, a probationary teacher may be dismissed at the discretion of the school district, subject to contractual and constitutional restrictions. Laws other than those governing tenure will apply to determine whether a discharge of a teacher is wrongful. If a probationary teacher's dismissal does not involve discrimination or does not violate terms of the teacher's contract, the school district most likely does not need to provide notice, summary of charges, or a hearing to the teacher.
In the absence of a state tenure STATUTE, a teacher may still attain de facto tenure rights if the customs or circumstances of employment demonstrate that a teacher has a "legitimate claim of entitlement for job tenure." The United States Supreme Court recognized this right in the case of Perry v. Sindermann, which also held that where a teacher has attained de facto tenure, the teacher is entitled to due process prior to dismissal by the school district.
State laws do not govern the tenure process at private schools. However, a contract between a private school district and a teacher may provide tenure rights, though enforcement of these rights is related to the contract rights rather than rights granted through the state tenure statute.
Dismissal for Cause
A school must show cause in order to dismiss a teacher who has attained tenure status. Some state statutes provide a list of circumstances where a school may dismiss a teacher. These circumstances are similar to those in which a state agency may revoke a teacher's certification. Some causes for dismissal include the following:- Immoral conduct
- Incompetence
- Neglect of duty
- Substantial noncompliance with school laws
- CONVICTION of a crime
- Insubordination
- Fraud or misrepresentation
Due Process Rights of Teachers
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, like its counterpart in the Fifth Amendment, provides that no state may "deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." This clause applies to public school districts and provides the minimum procedural requirements that each public school district must satisfy when dismissing a teacher who has attained tenure. Note that in this context, due process does not prescribe the reasons why a teacher may be dismissed, but rather it prescribes the procedures a school must follow to dismiss a teacher. Note also that many state statutory provisions for dismissing a teacher actually exceed the minimum requirements under the Due Process Clause.The United States Supreme Court case of Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill is the leading case involving the question of what process is due under the Constitution. This case provides that a tenured teacher must be given oral or written notice of the dismissal and the charges against him or her, an explanation of the EVIDENCE obtained by the employer, and an opportunity for a fair and meaningful hearing.
Teacher Contracts
The law of contracts applies to contracts between teachers and school districts. This law includes the concepts of offer, acceptance, mutual ASSENT, and consideration. For a teacher to determine whether a contract exists, he or she should consult authority on the general law of contracts. This section focuses on contract laws specific to teaching and education.Ratification of Contracts by School Districts
Even if a school official offers a teacher a job and the teacher accepts this offer, many state laws require that the school board ratify the contract before it becomes binding. Thus, even if a principal of a school district informs a prospective teacher that the teacher has been hired, the contract is not final until the school district accepts or ratifies the contract. The same is true if a school district fails to follow proper procedures when determining whether to ratify a contract.Teacher's Handbook as a Contract
Some teachers have argued successfully that provisions in a teacher's handbook granted the teacher certain contractual rights. However, this is not common, as many employee handbooks include clauses stating that the handbook is not a contract. For a provision in a handbook to be legally binding, the teacher must demonstrate that the actions of the teacher and the school district were such that the elements for creating a contract were met.Breach of Teacher Contract
Either a teacher or a school district can breach a contract. Whether a breach has occurred depends on the facts of the case and the terms of the contract. Breach of contract cases between teachers and school districts arise because a school district has terminated the employment of a teacher, even though the teacher has not violated any of the terms of the employment agreement. In several of these cases, a teacher has taken a leave of absence, which did not violate the employment agreement, and the school district terminated the teacher due to the leave of absence. Similarly, a teacher may breach a contract by resigning from the district before the end of the contract term (usually the end of the school year).Remedies for Breach of Contract
The usual remedy for breach of contract between a school district and a teacher is monetary damages. If a school district has breached a contract, the teacher will usually receive the amount the teacher would have received under the contract, less the amount the teacher receives (or could receive) by attaining alternative employment. Other damages, such as the cost to the teacher in finding other employment, may also be available. Non-monetary remedies, such as a court requiring a school district to rehire a teacher or to comply with contract terms, are available in some circumstances, though courts are usually hesitant to order such remedies. If a teacher breaches a contract, damages may be the cost to the school district for finding a replacement. Many contracts contain provisions prescribing the amount of damages a teacher must pay if he or she terminates employment before the end of the contract.Collective Bargaining by Teachers
Teachers' contractual rights often arise throughCOLLECTIVE BARGAINING through teachers' unions. For more information regarding collective bargaining by teachers, see Education: Teacher's Unions/Collective Bargaining.
Freedom from Discrimination
The EQUAL PROTECTION Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution protects teachers at public schools from discrimination based on race, sex, and national origin. These forms of discrimination are also barred through the enactment of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which was amended in 1972 to include educational institutions. This law provides that it is an unlawful employment practice for any employer to discriminate against an individual based on the race, color, religion, sex, or national origin of the individual. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972 provides protection against discrimination based on sex at educational institutions that receive federal financial assistance. Title VII and IX also prohibit SEXUAL HARASSMENT in the workplace.A teacher who has been subjected to discrimination has several causes of action, though proof in some of these cases may be difficult. A teacher may bring a cause of action under section 1983 of Title 42 of the United States Code for deprivation of rights under the Equal Protection Clause (or other constitutional provision). However, to succeed under this cause of action, the teacher would need to prove that the school had the deliberate intent to discriminate. Similarly, a teacher bringing a claim under Title VII must demonstrate that the reasons given by a school for an employment decision were false and that the actual reason for the decision was discrimination.
Academic Freedom
Teachers in public schools have limited freedoms in the classroom to teach without undue restrictions on the content or subjects for discussion. These freedoms are based on rights to freedom of expression under the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights. However, the concept of academic freedom is quite limited. The content taught by a teacher must be relevant to and consistent with the teacher's responsibilities, and a teacher cannot promote a personal or political agenda in the classroom. Factors such as the age, experience, and grade level of students affect the latitude in which a court will recognize the academic freedom of a teacher.Freedom of Expression
A leading case in First Amendment JURISPRUDENCEPickeringv. Board of Education. This case involved a teacher whose job was terminated when he wrote to a local newspaper an editorial critical of the teacher's employer. The Supreme Court held that the school had unconstitutionally restricted the First Amendment rights of the teacher to speak on issues of public importance. Based on Pickering and similar cases, teachers generally enjoy rights to freedom of expression, though there are some restrictions. Teachers may not materially disrupt the educational interest of the school district, nor may teachers undermine authority or adversely affect working relationships at the school. regarding protected forms of expression is
Freedom of Association
Similar to rights to freedom of expression, public school teachers enjoy rights to freedom of association, based on the First Amendment's provision that grants citizens the right to peaceful assembly. These rights generally permit public school teachers to join professional, labor, or similar organizations; run for public office; and similar forms of association. However, teachers may be required to ensure that participation in these activities is completely independent from their responsibilities to the school.Freedom of Religion
The First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provide protection against religious discrimination by school districts against teachers. Teaches may exercise their religious rights, though there are certain restrictions to such rights. This existence of restrictions is particularly relevant to the public schools, since public schools are restricted from teaching religion through the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Thus, for example, a teacher is free to be a practicing Christian, yet the teacher cannot preach Christianity in the classroom.Privacy Rights
Teachers enjoy limited rights to personal privacy, though courts will often support disciplinary action taken by a school district when a teacher's private life affects the integrity of the school district or the effectiveness by which a teacher can teach. Thus, for example, a teacher may be terminated from his or her position for such acts as ADULTERY or other sexual conduct outside marriage, and courts will be hesitant to overrule the decisions of the school board.Age
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, with its subsequent amendments, provides protection for teachers over the age of 40 against age discrimination. Under this act, age may not be the sole factor when a school district terminates the employment of a teacher. If a teacher charges a school district with age discrimination, the school district has the burden to show that some factor other than age influenced its decision.Pregnancy
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act of 1978 provides protection for teachers who are pregnant. Under this act, a school district may not dismiss or demote a pregnant teacher on the basis of her pregnancy, nor may a district deny a job or deny a promotion to a pregnant teacher on the basis of her pregnancy.State and Local Laws Regarding Teachers' Rights
Each state provides laws governing education agencies, hiring and termination of teachers, tenure of teachers, and similar laws. Teachers should consult with statutes and education regulations in their respective states, as well as the education agencies that enforce these rules, for additional information regarding teachers' rights. Moreover, teachers should review their contracts, COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGREEMENT, and/or employee handbook for specific provisions that may have been included in an agreement.The information below summarizes the grounds on which a state may revoke or suspend a teaching certificate or on which a district may dismiss or suspend a teacher.
ALABAMA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immoral conduct, or unbecoming or indecent behavior. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds, except that tenured teachers may not be suspended or terminated on political grounds.
ALASKA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for incompetency, immorality, substantial noncompliance with school laws or regulations, violations of ethical or professional standards, or violations of contractual obligations. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended by local school boards on similar grounds.
ARIZONA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for immoral or unprofessional conduct, evidence of unfitness to teach, failure to comply with various statutory requirements, failure to comply with student disciplinary procedures, teaching sectarian books or doctrine, or conducting religious exercises. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds. Probationary employees may be dismissed when they are unsuited or not qualified. Permanent employees may be discharged only for cause, and are entitled to due process.
ARKANSAS: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for cause. Teachers may be dismissed for any cause that is not arbitrary, capricious, or discriminatory.
CALIFORNIA: Permanent teachers may be dismissed for immoral or unprofessional conduct, dishonesty, incompetency, evident unfitness for service, a physical or mental condition unfitting for a teacher to instruct or associate with children, persistent violation of school laws or regulations, conviction of a FELONY or crime involving moral turpitude, or alcoholism or drug abuse rendering teacher unfit for service. Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended on the same grounds as those for dismissal or suspension.
COLORADO: Teacher's certificate may be annulled, revoked, or suspended if certificate has been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation; teacher is mentally incompetent; teacher violates statutes or regulations regarding unlawful sexual behavior, use of controlled substances, or other violations. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
CONNECTICUT: Teacher's certificate may be revoked if certificate has been obtained through fraud or misrepresentation; teacher has neglected duties or been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; teacher has been neglectful of duties; or other due and sufficient cause exists. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
DELAWARE: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, willful neglect of duty, or disloyalty. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
FLORIDA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for obtaining certificate by fraud, incompetence, gross immorality or an act involving moral turpitude, revocation of a teaching certificate in another state, conviction of a crime other than a minor traffic violation, breach of teaching contract, or delinquency in CHILD SUPPORT obligations. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
GEORGIA: Teachers may be dismissed for incompetency, insubordination, willful neglect of duties, immorality, encouraging students to violate the law, failure to secure and maintain necessary educational training, and any other good and sufficient cause.
HAWAII: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for conviction of crime other than traffic offense or if the employer finds that teacher poses a risk to the health, safety, or well being of children. Teacher may be dismissed for inefficiency, immorality, willful violations of policies and regulations, or other good and JUST CAUSE.
IDAHO: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for gross neglect of duty, incompetence, breach of contract, making a false statement on application for certificate, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or drugs or a felony offense involving children. Grounds for revocation of a teacher's certificate are also grounds for dismissal.
ILLINOIS: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for immorality, health condition detrimental to students, incompetence, unprofessional conduct, neglect of duty, willful failure to report CHILD ABUSE, conviction of certain sex or narcotics offenses, or other just cause. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
INDIANA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, willful neglect of duty, or improper cancellation of a contract. Permanent and semi-permanent teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
IOWA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for any cause that would have permitted refusal to grant the certificate. Teachers may be dismissed for just cause.
KANSAS: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immorality, gross neglect of duty, annulling a written contract, or any other cause that would have justified refusal to grant the certificate.
KENTUCKY: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immorality, misconduct in office, incompetency, willful neglect of duty, or submission of false information. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
LOUISIANA: Permanent teachers may be dismissed for incompetence, dishonest, willful neglect of duty, or membership or contribution to an unlawful organization.
MAINE: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for evidence of child abuse, gross incompetence, or fraud. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
MARYLAND: Teachers may be dismissed or suspended for immorality, misconduct in office, insubordination, incompetency, or willful neglect of duty.
MASSACHUSETTS: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for cause. Teachers may be dismissed for inefficiency, incapacity, conduct unbecoming of a teacher, insubordination, failure to satisfy teacher performance standards, or other just cause.
MICHIGAN: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for conviction of SEX OFFENSES and crimes involving children. Teachers may be dismissed for reasonable and just causes or failure to comply with school law.
MINNESOTA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for immoral character or conduct, failure to teach the term of a contract without just cause, gross inefficiency, willful neglect of duty, failure to meet requirements for licensing, or fraud or misrepresentation in obtaining a license. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
MISSISSIPPI: Teachers may be dismissed or suspended for incompetency, neglect of duty, immoral conduct, intemperance, brutal treatment of a pupil, or other good cause.
MISSOURI: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for incompetency, cruelty, immorality, DRUNKENNESS, neglect of duty, annulling a written contract without consent from the local board, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
MONTANA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for false statements on an application for the certificate, any reason that would have disqualified the person from receiving a certificate, incompetency, gross neglect of duty, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude, or nonperformance of an employment contract. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
NEBRASKA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for just cause, including incompetence immorality, intemperance, cruelty, certain crimes, neglect of duty, unprofessional conduct, physical or mental incapacity, or breach of contract. Teachers may be dismissed for just cause, as defined by statute.
NEVADA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immoral or unprofessional conduct, unfitness for service, physical or mental incapacity, conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or sex offenses, advocacy of the overthrow of the government, persistent refusal to obey rules, or breach of a teaching contracts. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Teachers may be dismissed for immorality, incompetence, failure to conform to regulations, or conviction of certain crimes.
NEW JERSEY: Teacher's certificate may be revoked if teacher is a noncitizen; certificate may be suspended if teacher breaches contract. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
NEW MEXICO: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for incompetency, immorality, or any other good and just cause. Teachers may be dismissed for good cause.
NEW YORK: Teacher's certificate may be revoked if teacher is unfit to teach due to moral character or if teacher fails to complete a school term without good cause. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
NORTH CAROLINA: Teachers may be dismissed for inadequate performance, immorality, insubordination, neglect of duty, physical or mental incapacity, HABITUAL or excessive use of alcohol or other controlled substances, or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude.
NORTH DAKOTA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for any cause that would permit refusal to issue the certificate, incompetency, immorality, intemperance, cruelty, commission of a crime, refusal to perform duties, violation of professional codes, breach of teacher contract, or wearing religious garb. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
OHIO: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for intemperance, immorality, incompetence, NEGLIGENCE, or other conduct unbecoming of the position. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds, including assisting a student to cheat on an achievement, ability, or proficiency test.
OKLAHOMA: Teachers may be dismissed for immorality, willful neglect of duty, cruelty, incompetency, teaching disloyalty to the U. S. government, moral turpitude, or criminal sexual activity.
OREGON: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for conviction of certain crimes (including sale or possession of a controlled substance), gross neglect of duty, gross unfitness, or wearing religious dress at school. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
PENNSYLVANIA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for incompetency, cruelty, negligence, immorality, or intemperance. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
RHODE ISLAND: Teacher's certificate may be revoked, or teacher may be dismissed, for good and just cause.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for just cause, including incompetence, willful neglect of duty, willful violation of state board rules, unprofessional conduct, drunkenness, cruelty, crime, immorality, conduct involving moral turpitude, dishonesty, evident unfitness, or sale or possession of narcotics. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
SOUTH DAKOTA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for any cause that would have permitted issue of the certificate, violation of teacher's contract, gross immorality, incompetency, flagrant neglect of duty; or conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
TENNESSEE: Teacher's certificate may be revoked if teacher is guilty of immoral conduct. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds, including incompetence, inefficiency, neglect of duty, unprofessional conduct, and insubordination.
TEXAS: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended if teacher's activities are in violation of the law, the teacher is unworthy to instruct the youth of the state, the teacher abandons his or her contract, or the teacher is convicted of a crime. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
UTAH: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for immoral or incompetent conduct, or evidence of unfitness for teaching. Teachers may be dismissed for cause.
VERMONT: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for cause. Teachers may be dismissed for just and sufficient cause. Teachers may be suspended for incompetence, conduct unbecoming of a teacher, failure to attend to duties, or failure to carry out reasonable orders and directions of superintendent or board.
VIRGINIA: Teachers may be dismissed for incompetency, immorality, noncompliance with school laws or rules, certain DISABILITY, and convictions of certain crimes. Teachers may be suspended for good and just cause when the safety or welfare of children are threatened.
WASHINGTON: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for immorality, violation of a written contract, intemperance, a crime involving child neglect or abuse, or unprofessional conduct. Teachers may be dismissed for sufficient cause.
WEST VIRGINIA: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for drunkenness; untruthfulness; immorality; unfitness due to physical, mental or moral defect; neglect of duty; using FRAUDULENT, unapproved, or insufficient credit; or other cause. Teachers may be dismissed or suspended on similar grounds.
WISCONSIN: Teacher's certificate may be revoked for incompetency, immoral conduct, or conviction of certain felonies. Tenured teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
WYOMING: Teacher's certificate may be revoked or suspended for incompetency, immorality, other reprehensible conduct, or gross neglect of duty. Teachers may be dismissed on similar grounds.
Additional Resources
Deskbook Encyclopedia of American School Law. Oakstone Legal and Business Publishing, 2001.Education Law. Rapp, James A., Lexis Publishing, 2001.
Education Law, Second Edition. Imber, Michael, and Tyll Van Geel, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 2000.
The Law of Public Education, Fourth Edition. Reutter, E. Edmund, Jr., Foundation Press, 1994.
Private School Law in America, Twelfth Edition. Oakstone Legal and Business Publishing, 2000.
School Law and the Public Schools: A Practical Guide forEducational Leaders. Essex, Nathan, Allyn and Bacon, 1999.
Teachers and the Law. Fischer, Louis, David Schimmel, and Cynthia Kelly, Addison Wesley Longman, 1999.
U. S. Code, Title 42: Public Health and Welfare, chapter 21: Civil Rights. U.S. House of Representatives, 1999. Available at: http://uscode.house.gov/title_42.htm
Organizations
American Association of School Administrators (AASA)1801 N. Moore Street
Arlington, VA 22209 USA
Phone: (703) 528-0700
Fax: (703) 841-1543
URL: http://www.aasa.org/
Primary Contact: Paul Houston, Executive Director
American Federation of Teachers (AFT)
555 New Jersey Avenue, NW
Washington, DC 20001 USA
Phone: (202) 879-4400
URL: http://www.aft.org/
Education Law Association (ELA)
300 College Park
Dayton, OH 45469 USA
Phone: (937) 229-3589
Fax: (937) 229-3845
URL: http://www.educationlaw.org/
Primary Contact: R. Craig Wood, President
Education Policy Institute (EPI)
4401-A Connecticut Ave., NW
Washington, DC 20008 USA
Phone: (202) 244-7535
Fax: (202) 244-7584
URL: http://www.educationpolicy.org/
Primary Contact: Charlene K. Haar, President
National Education Association (NEA)
1201 16th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20036 USA
Phone: (202) 833-4000
URL: http://www.nea.org/
Primary Contact: Bob Chase, President
 | |
|---|---|
| Full title | An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. |
| Acronym | NCLB |
| Enacted by the | 107th United States Congress |
| Effective | January 8, 2002 |
| Citations | |
| Public Law | 107-110 |
| Stat. | 30 Stat. 750, 42 Stat. 108, 48 Stat. 986, 52 Stat. 781, 73 Stat. 4, 88 Stat. 2213, 102 Stat. 130 and 357, 107 Stat. 1510, 108 Stat. 154 and 223, 112 Stat. 3076, 113 Stat. 1323, 115 Stat. 1425 to 2094 |
| Codification | |
| Act(s) amended | Adult Education and Family Literacy Act Age Discrimination Act of 1975 Albert Einstein Distinguished Educator Fellowship Act of 1994 Augustus F. Hawkins-Robert T. Stafford Elementary and Secondary School Improvement Amendments of 1988 Carl D. Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act of 1998 Civil Rights Act of 1964 Communications Act of 1934 Community Services Block Grant Act Department of Education Organization Act District of Columbia College Access Act of 1999 Education Amendments of 1972 Education Amendments of 1978 Education Flexibility Partnership Act of 1999 Education for Economic Security Act Educational Research, Development, Dissemination, and Improvement Act of 1994 Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 General Education Provisions Act Goals 2000: Educate America Act Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984 Higher Education Act of 1965 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act James Madison Memorial Fellowship Act Internal Revenue Code of 1986 Johnson-O'Malley Act of 1934 Legislative Branch Appropriations Act, 1997 McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act of 1987 Museum and Library Services Act National Agricultural Research, Extension, and Teaching Policy Act of 1977 National and Community Service Act of 1990 National Child Protection Act of 1993 National Education Statistics Act of 1994 National Environmental Education Act of 1990 Native American Languages Act Public Law 88-210 Public Law 106-400 Refugee Education Assistance Act of 1980 Rehabilitation Act of 1973 Safe Drinking Water Act School-to-Work Opportunities Act of 1994 State Dependent Care Development Grants Act Telecommunications Act of 1996 Tribally Controlled Schools Act of 1987 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century Workforce Investment Act of 1998 |
| |
| Major amendments | |
| Relevant Supreme Court cases | |
The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (often abbreviated in print as NCLB) [1][2] is a United States Act of CongressPresident George W. Bush immediately after taking office.[3]Senator Ted Kennedy, one of the bill's co-authors, received overwhelming bipartisan support in Congress.[4] The House of Representatives passed the bill on May 23, 2001 (voting 384-45),[5] and United States Senate passed it on June 14, 2001 (voting 91-8).[6] President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002. that was originally proposed by the administration of The bill, shepherded through the Senate by
NCLB is the latest federal legislation that enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. The Act does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state.
Since enactment, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion.[7]
Favorable claims
Improved test scores
The Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:[8]
- More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
- America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
- Reading and math scores for black and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
- Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and black nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
- Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math).
Many argue that these statistics are misleading. They compare 2005 with 2000, when No Child Left Behind didn't even take effect until 2003. They point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 was roughly the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which calls into question how any increase can be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some of the subgroups are cherry-picked -- that in other subgroups scores remained the same or actually fell.[9]
Improvement over local standards
Many argue that local government had failed students, necessitating federal intervention to remedy issues like teachers teaching outside their areas of expertise, and complacency in the face of continually failing schools.[10]Adequate Yearly Progress[11] States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as a result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states, and the District of Columbia at ninety-eight percent of its schools, achieving the No Child Left Behind Standards.[12] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, because local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor (AYP).
Increased accountability
Supporters of the NCLB claim one of the strong positive points of the bill is the increased accountability that is required of the schools and its teachers. According to the legislation, schools are required to pass yearly tests that will judge how much improvement the students have made over the fiscal year. These yearly standardized tests are the main research that is used to decide whether schools are living up to the standards that they are required to meet. If these improvements are not met, the schools face decreased funding and other punishments that contribute to the increased accountability. According to supporters, these goals help teachers and schools realize the significance and importance of the educational system and how it affects the nation. Opponents to this law base there objections to the accountability by stating that the punishments only hurt the schools more and do not contribute to the improvement of the students. If the schools and teachers do not live up to the accountability standards, they may choose to move their children to different schools in the area.
In addition to and in support of the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:
- Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
- Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
- Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
- Establishes the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly enhance parental involvement and improved administration through the use of the assessment data to drive decisions on instruction, curriculum and business practices.
Attention to minority populations
- Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
- Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".[13] Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself.[13] Many previous state-created systems of accountability measured only average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.
Quality of education
- Ideally, increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance
- Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically-based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
- Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative [6].
- Emphasizes reading, writing, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects".
School choice
- Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
- Gives school districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.
Funding
As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and Congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education funding. Title I funding to districts for disadvantaged children increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004.[14] A new $1 billion Reading First program was created, distributing funds to local schools to improve the teaching of reading, and over $100 million for its companion, Early Reading First.[15][16] Numerous other formula programs received large increases as well. This was consistent with the administration's position of funding formula programs, which distribute money to local schools for their use, and grant programs, where particular schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.
Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB, is administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states in turn reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004-05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and math, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs.[17]
In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.[18]
The NCLB increases were companions to another massive increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed very large increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act[19] Because a district's and state's performance on NCLB measures depended on improved performance by students with disabilities, particularly students with learning disabilities, this 60 percent increase in funding was also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation. (IDEA) at the same time as the NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, a state formula-funding program that distributes money to local districts for the education of students with disabilities, was increased from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004.
Public perception of public education
- Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.
Criticisms
The desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the act, because it applied to all states making it difficult to infer what would have happened without the act. However, analyses of the state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that accountability for outcomes led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems.[20] The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact.[21] A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.[22]
Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:
"Gaming" the system
The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ "creative reclassification" of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).[23]
Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.[24]
The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.[25] Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.[26] A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.[27]
Problems with standardized tests
Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.[28] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition (i.e. treating this as a word problem) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."
"Teaching to the test" often results in teachers staying away from unique styles of teaching, but instead requires them to follow a more conventional method in order to prepare the students for the standardized yearly tests. This abandonment of creativity in the classroom leaves teachers with a feeling of disdain as they are no longer given ample opportunity to help students learn in their own ways. Critics of the bill state that students also suffer from the lack of inventive ways of learning, and the strain of learning standardized testing practices can have a lasting affect on the child's capabilities and motivation. Standardized testing also can change the way students learn, causing them to avoid thinking deeply into an issue and only focusing on the material that will be tested.
Moreover, many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" actually misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State and Michigan) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two-thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two points.[29] Wiggins and McTighe blamed the low success rate on teachers who correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present rote knowledge/skill items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.
The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students.[30] For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers to speak.[31]
The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.[32]
Incentives against low-performing students
Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher.[33]
Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students
Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. NCLB puts pressure on schools to guarantee that nearly all students will meet the minimum skill levels (set by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic, but requires nothing beyond these minimums. Programs that are not essential to achieving the mandated minimum skills are neglected or canceled by those districts. In particular, NCLB does not require any programs for gifted, talented, and other high-performing students.[34] While federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement.
State refusal to produce non-English assessments
All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English-language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis.
In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.[35]
Many schools test or assess students with limited English proficiency even when the students are exempt from NCLB-mandated reporting, because the tests may provide useful information to the teacher and school. In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exemption comprises a majority of young students.
NCLB and the Impact on Arts and Elective Education
 | The neutrality of this article is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (July 2010) |
NCLB’s main focus from the time it was implemented has been skills in reading, writing and mathematics, areas where the United States feels it must succeed in order to be competitive in the current global market. However, as the years have passed since it went into effect in 2002, an alarming trend has emerged: the detrimental effect this law has had on subject areas and classes which are not held accountable, or are testable, by the NCLB mandate.
As Tina Beveridge states in one article; “The long-term effects of NCLB are not yet evident, but the short-term effects have been detrimental to all non tested subjects, especially those courses that are typically considered electives.” She goes on to state that in the current time of budget crisis, almost all of the funding that schools receive from the government stemming from NCLB are now allocated to only the testable subjects as well as the tests themselves.[36]
Unfortunately, that is not the only thing happening to the arts and electives in American schools today. Many principals and schools are now looking to hire arts teachers whom are also trained in Math and English, which subsequently lowers the value of their subject in the eyes of administrators. In some schools, students are also faced with losing any elective classes entirely if they do poorly on the tests. Their elective class is replaced by a remedial reading or mathematics class. While often times, the student is promised that if they improve in that particular subject, they will be allowed to return, the damage is already done. The elective or arts class is now seen as much less important and that the student does not need to really try in that area of instruction.
In conclusion, since 2007, it has been reported that almost 71% of schools have reduced instruction time in subjects such as history, arts, language and music, in order to give more time and resources to mathematics and English. It is understandable that schools fear the consequences should they not make AYP (Adequate Yearly Progress), however we are cheating our students out of a well rounded education. NCLB was called “an act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.” Perhaps once American schools are given that choice and flexibility, we will be able to tackle any challenges our children are facing.[37][38]
Narrow definition of research
Some school districts and researchers object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, ethnographies, clinical interviews, discourse analysis, grounded theory, action research, teaching experiments, design research and other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.[39]
Limitations on local control
Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it. The states that choose not to receive funding will have their taxes used in another state instead.[40]
Facilitates military recruitment
NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. If the school refuses to provide the information, that school can lose all of its federal funding until it provides such information.[41][42][43] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military. Section 9528 of the NCLB also states that military recruiters are permitted to speak to students as well as take them to various military functions, provide transportation to/from a recruiting office and to the school of the student and from school to the registered home address of the student as long as the student is of the age of 17 and the student provides consent. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.
Variability in student potential and 100% compliance
The act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.[44] While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of students that have below-average capabilities, such as students with mental retardation.
In fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.[45] Students who have an Individual Education Planassessment, then these students' scores are counted the same as any other student's score. Common acceptable changes include extended test time, testing in a quieter room, translation of math problems into the student's native language, or allowing a student to type answers instead of writing them by hand. (IEP) and who are assessed must receive the accommodations specified in the IEP during assessment; if these accommodations do not change the nature of the
Simply being classified as having special education needs does not automatically exempt students from assessment. Most students with mild disabilities or physical disabilities take the same test as non-disabled students.
In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act.[46] States are given broad discretion in selecting alternate assessments. For example, a school may accept an Advanced Placement test for English in lieu of the English test written by the state, and simplified tests for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) and Virginia Grade Level Alternative (VGLA) options, for example, are portfolio assessments.[47]
Organizations that support NCLB assessment of disabled or LEP students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Opponents say that testing students with disabilities violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by making students with disabilities learn the same material as non-disabled students .[48]
Increases Segregation in Public Schools
Many people believe that No Child Left Behind has played a role in the increase of segregated public schools. Studies have shown that many African American students attend the lowest performing schools in the country, and African Americans score considerably lower on almost every indicator of academic well-being than do Whites.[49] For example, high minority and high poverty schools score much lower on standardized tests than low minority and low poverty schools, but 71% of African Americans attend high minority schools and 72% of African Americans attend high-poverty schools. Standardized assessment scores reflect these disparities: the percentage of African Americans meeting proficiency in national assessments in reading and math is less than one forth of that of White students.[50]
NCLB controls the portion of federal Title I funding based upon each school meeting annual set standards. If a school does not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years must offer parents the choice to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide supplemental services, such as free tutoring or after-school assistance. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school must make dramatic changes to how the school is run (this could entail state-takeover).[51]
One recent study has shown that schools in California and Illinois that have not met AYP serve 75-85% minority students while schools meeting AYP have less than 40% minority students.[52] Also even though schools that do not meet AYP are required to offer their parents the opportunity to transfer their student to a non-failing school within the district, it is not required that the other school accepts the student.[50][53] Usually the parents with the more education and resources are most likely to leave high-poverty schools. They are more likely to research the schools and make an informed decision on where to transfer their child. This often leads to segregated schools by both race and class.
Funding
Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some critics claim that extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by increased levels of federal NCLB funding. Others note that funding for the law increased massively following passage[54] and that billions in funds previously allocated to particular uses could be reallocated to new uses. Even before the law's passage, Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted ensuring that children are educated remained a state responsibility regardless of federal support:
Washington is willing to help [with the additional costs of federal requirements], as we've helped before, even before we [proposed NCLB]. But this is a part of the teaching responsibility that each state has. ... Washington has offered some assistance now. In the legislation, we have ... some support to pay for the development of tests. But even if that should be looked at as a gift, it is the state responsibility to do this.—[55]
Various early Democratic supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, once stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."[56] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association:
In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy.—[57]
Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that during the Bush Administration, neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.[58] Advocacy groups note that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal allotted $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from the year before. 44 out of 50 states would have received reductions in federal funding if the budget passed as it was.[59] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, these claims focused on reallocated funds, as each of President Bush's proposed budgets increased funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including his final 2009 budget proposal.[14]
Members of Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period[60][61] and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001-02 through 2006-07.
State education budgets
According to the book, NCLB Meets School Realities, the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states.[62] While states were being forced to make budget cuts, including in the area of education, they had to incur additional expenses to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funding they received from the federal government in support of NCLB was not enough to cover the added expense necessary to adhere to the new law.
Proposals for reform
The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind[63] is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor and religious groups that have signed on to a statement calling for major changes to the federal education law. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) initiated and chaired the meetings that produced the statement, originally released in October 2004. The statement's central message is that "the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement." The number of organizations signing the statement has nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, as the law's scheduled reauthorization approaches.
Education critic Alfie Kohn argues that the NCLB law is "unredeemable" and should be scrapped. He is quoted saying "[I]ts main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills".[64]
In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.[65] The Commission is an independent, bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis and research, the Commission uncovered the successes of NCLB, as well as provisions which need to be changed or significantly modified.
The Commission's goals are summarized as follows:
- Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities
- Accelerating Progress and Closing Achievement Gaps Through Improved Accountability
- Moving Beyond the Status Quo to Effective School Improvement and Student Options
- Fair and Accurate Assessments of Student Progress
- High Standards for Every Student in Every State
- Ensuring High Schools Prepare Students for College and the Workplace
- Driving Progress Through Reliable, Accurate Data
- Parental involvement and empowerment
The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal.[66] It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.
President Barack Obama is currently working on the reauthorization process for the ESEA, which is the precursor to the No Child Left Behind Act. He has made it one of his top priorities for 2010, and is currently working with Congress to initiate the reform bills. Congress is pushing for President Obama to make many amendments to the bill in order to make up for the mistakes of the current legislation. Obama has stated that he wants to lower the achievement gap between black and white students and also add an increase of $3 billion dollars in federal funds to help aid the schools meet the strict requirements of the bill. The reauthorization process has become somewhat of a controversy, as lawmakers and politicians continually debate about the changes that need to be made to the bill in order to make it work best for the country's educational system.
Trivia
- NCLB is sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nicklebee."[67]
See also
- Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
- Campbell's Law
- Learning disability
- List of standardized tests in the United States
- Ohio Graduation Test
- Prairie State Achievement Exam
- Scientifically based research
- Stanford Achievement Test Series
- Annenberg Foundation via Annenberg School Reform Institute Major Supporter of Program
- Edison Schools
- FairTest
- Education policy
- School Improvement Grant
References
- ^ Pub.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, enacted January 8, 2002.
- ^ http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html
- ^ http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/factsheet.html
- ^ "To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.". Library of Congress http://www.loc.gov/index.html.+2001-03-22. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d107:HR00001:@@@D&summ2=0&. Retrieved 2008-09-16
- ^ "Final vote results for roll-call 145". clerk.house.gov. May 23, 2001. http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2001/roll145.xml. Retrieved 2008-04-28
- ^ Senate roll call vote
- ^ U.S. Department of Education. "Press Releases", 2006-02-06. Retrieved on 2008-06-05.
- ^ (2006) No Child Left Behind Act Is Working Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
- ^ Linda Perlstein, Tested
- ^ Mizell, H (2003). "NCLB: Conspiracy, Compliance, or Creativity?". http://www.middleweb.com/HMnclb.html. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
- ^ "Federal Legislation and Education in New York State 2005: No Child Left Behind Act". New York State Education Agency. 2005. http://www.oms.nysed.gov/legcoord/fedleg05/body.html#no%20child. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
- ^ "NPR and Newshour 2008 Election Map: More about Wisconsin". http://www.pbs.org/newshour/vote2008/state.php?state=WI.
- ^ a b "Charting the Course: States Decide Major Provisions Under No Child Left Behind". U.S. Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2004/01/01142004.html#elements. Retrieved 2008-04-09.
- ^ a b U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Proposal [1].
- ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2005 Budget Proposal
- ^ Archived:Introduction: No Child Left Behind. US Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.htm. Retrieved 2009-02-23
- ^ Support the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program Restore Funding to $496 million FY 05 Level. Software & Information Industry Association (SIIA). http://www.siia.net/govt/docs/pub/EETTAdvocacyPrimer.pdf. Retrieved 2008-07-06
- ^ Archived:Introduction: No Child Left Behind. US Department of Education. http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html. Retrieved 2009-02-23
- ^ U.S. Department of Education, Fiscal Year 2007 Budget Proposal
- ^ See the analyses of NAEP results in Martin Carnoy and Susanna Loeb, "Does external accountability affect student outcomes? A cross-state analysis," Educational Evaluation and Policy AnalysisJournal of Policy Analysis and Management 24,no.2 (Spring 2005):297-327. 24,no.4 (Winter 2002):305-331, and Eric A. Hanushek and Margaret E. Raymond, "Does school accountability lead to improved student performance?"
- ^ Center on Education Policy, Answering the Question That Matters Most: Has Student Achievement Increased Since No Child Left Behind? Washington: Center on Education Policy, June 2007).
- ^ List of articles regarding NCLB debate
- ^ (2004) Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively. FactCheck.org. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ Haney, W. (nd) Evidence on Education under NCLB (and How Florida Boosted NAEP Scores and Reduced the Race Gap). Center for the Study of Testing, Evaluation and Education Policy. Lynch School of Education. Boston College. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ (nd) New study confirms vast differences in state goals for academic ‘proficiency’ under NCLB. South Carolina Department of Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ (2007) Congress To Weigh 'No Child Left Behind'. CBS2 Chicago. Retrieved November 10th, 2008.
- ^ Mapping 2005 state proficiency standards onto the NAEP scales. NCES 2007-482. National Center for Education Statistics. June 2007. http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pubs/studies/2007482.asp. Retrieved 2007-06-08.
- ^ (nd) High-Stakes Assessments in Reading. International Reading Association. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ Wiggins, G. & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design, 2nd Edition. ASCD. ISBN 978-1-4166-0035-0. p. 42-43
- ^ Cohen, L. G. & Spenciner, L. J. (2007). Assessment of children & youth with special needs. (3rd edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
- ^ Statement of Patti Ralabate. National Education Association. August 2, 2006. http://www.nea.org/home/Statement-of-Patti-Ralabate.html. Retrieved 2008-04-28
- ^ (nd) What's Wrong With Standardized Testing? FairTest.org. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ (nd) State Tests Often Trail U. S. Results. SusanOhanian.org. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ Cloud, John. Are We Failing Our Geniuses? from Time, July 27, 2007, pp 40-46. Retrieved April 6, 2009.
- ^ Crawford, J. (nd) No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ Beveridge, T. (2010). No Child Left Behind and Fine Arts Classes. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 4-7. doi:10.1080/10632910903228090.
- ^ Grey, A. (2010). No Child Left Behind in Art Education Policy: A Review of Key Recommendations for Arts Language Revisions. Arts Education Policy Review, 111(1), 8-15. doi:10.1080/10632910903228132.
- ^ Pederson, P. (2007). What Is Measured Is Treasured: The Impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on Nonassessed Subjects. Clearing House, 80(6), 287-291. Retrieved from Education Research Complete database
- ^ Beghetto, R. (2003) Scientifically Based Research. ERIC Clearinghouse on Educational Management. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ Holland, R. (2004) Critics are many, but law has solid public support. School Reform News. March 1, 2004. The Heartland Institute. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ AR 601-210, ARCR 611-4
- ^ (nd) SEC. 9528. ARMED FORCES RECRUITER ACCESS TO STUDENTS AND STUDENT RECRUITING INFORMATION. Department of Education. Retrieved 6/7/07.
- ^ (nd) Military Free Zone. website. Retrieved June 7, 2007.
- ^ EdAccountability.org website.
- ^ "Doing Your Homework: Answering Questions about Support for NCLB by Sue Heath - Wrightslaw". http://www.wrightslaw.com/heath/nclb.support.htm. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
- ^ "VDOE :: No Child Left Behind - NCLB, Understanding AYP". http://www.doe.virginia.gov/VDOE/src/vps-accountability.shtml. Retrieved 2008-03-06.
- ^ “Terminology” Virginia Department of Education website
- ^ [2] Harper, Liz. “No Child Left Behind’s Impact on Specialized Education”. Online NewsHour. August 21, 2005. pbs.org/newshour. 20 February 2009.
- ^ Children’s Defense Fund (2005). State of America’s Children, 2005. Children’s Defense Fund.
- ^ a b Knaus, Christopher. (2007). Still Segregated Still Unequal: Analyzing the Impact of No Child Left Behind on African American Students. University of California, Berkley: National Urban League.
- ^ U.S. Department of Education: The Condition of Education 2006.
- ^ Owens, A., & Sunderman, G. L. (2006). School Accountability under NCLB: Aid or Obstacle for Measuring Racial Equity? Cambridge, MA: Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
- ^ Orfield, Gary and Susan Eaton and The Harvard Project on School Desegregation. 1996. Dismantling Desegregation: The quiet reversal of Brown v. Board of Education. New York: New Press.
- ^ [3] U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Budget Table. 2006. 7 April 2009.
- ^ "Frontline. Testing Our Schools". http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/schools/interviews/paige.html.
- ^ (nd) Leaving No Child Left Behind: States charged with implementing Bush’s national education plan balk at the cost of compliance. The American Conservative. Retrieved 6/7/07.
- ^ "Bush Education Ad: Going Positive, Selectively". FactCheck. 2004. http://www.factcheck.org/article181.html. Retrieved 2007-12-29.
- ^ (nd) Funding. American Federation of Teachers. Retrieved 6/7/07.
- ^ Center for American Progress The Targets of Bush's Education Cuts.
- ^ [4] U.S. Department of Education, Elementary and Secondary Education Act Budget Table. 2006. 7 April 2009.
- ^ National Center for Education Statistics, Digest of Education Statistics 2007. [5]
- ^ Sunderman, Gail L.; James S. Kim, Gary Orfield (2005). NCLB meets school realities: lessons from the field. Corwin Press. p. 10. ISBN 1412915554. http://books.google.com/?id=6yin6ky6VvMC&pg=PA10&lpg=PA10&dq=state+budgets+nclb.
- ^ "Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act". 2004-10-21. http://www.fairtest.org/joint%20statement%20civil%20rights%20grps%2010-21-04.html. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
- ^ NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage', USA Today, May 31, 2007. Retrieved 6/7/07.
- ^ Beyond NCLB: Fulfilling the Promise to Our Nation's Children, February, 2007. Retrieved 6/8/07.
- ^ "Forum on Educational Accountability". http://www.edaccountability.org/. Retrieved 2008-01-03.
- ^ "In an world if Nicklebee ideology dictated how things were, everyone across all demographics and in all nations would have easy access to a good education.", in a letter from the President of nicklebee.org
"The Federal Government's No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB — dubbed 'nicklebee')", Sandra Nichols (April 26, 2003). "When NCLB Standards Meet Reality". tellingthetruth.com. http://web.archive.org/web/20070806232831/www.tellingthetruth.com/education_matters/ESSAYS_03/sandra_0403.html. Retrieved 2008-11-17
71. Lewis, T.(2010). Obama Administration to Push for NCLB Reauthorization This Year [7] Retrieved 7 July 2010
External links
Law and regulations
- NCLB Desktop Reference (online version, includes Microsoft documents and PDF links)
NCLB Data Management Systems
Administration comments
- Remarks by President Bush at signing ceremony
- President Discusses No Child Left Behind and High School Initiatives, Speech text and video, January 12, 2005
Interest groups
- National Education Association 'No Child Left Behind'/ESEA (NEA's position)
- "No Child Left" site and journal opposed to NCLB and highly critical of its approach to schools.
- AAUW's Position Paper on No Child Left Behind
- NCLB and Children with Disabilities National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities NICHCY
- Historian Diane Ravitch: No Child Left Behind Has Left US Schools with Legacy of "Institutionalized Fraud" - video by Democracy Now!
