Introduction to the Special Issue: No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and Minority Youth: What the Qualitative Evidence Suggests

Abstract

This article presents an analysis of four ethnographic studies examining the impacts of the NoChild Left Behind (NCLB) Act on minority youth. The analysis relies on qualitative approaches to address immediate problems of practice as well as broad theoretical questions related to NCLB. The studies reveal nuances in teacher pedagogy, curricular instruction, cultures, communities, and political influences that cannot be captured in reviews of purely quantitative data. [NCLB, qualitative, ethnographic, English Language Learners, special populations] As the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal education policy takes root in our public schools and school districts across the nation, the scholarly community must assess the impact of this unprecedented, sweeping reform that is allegedly poised to alleviate the underachieving profile of poor, minority children and their communities. Key concerns are whether and how the rationale embedded within the law fulfills the promise to improve the quality of districts, schools, and teacher instruction, with the ultimate aim of eliminating the achievement gap between white, middle-class youth and U.S. ethnic minorities. Additional related concerns are the effects of this focus on children, teachers, curriculum and instruction, and school-and district-level processes.

Where Is the Real Reform? African American Students and Their School’s Expectations for Academic Performance

“…However, these efforts are often ineffective when the focus is solely on students' presumed deficits without addressing the school or societal attitudes that lead to differential expectations in the classroom (Irizarry, 2009;Valencia, 2012). Although these efforts have received significant attention in recent years through the No Child Left Behind Act and Common Core Standards, the debate is still ongoing in determining whether reform initiatives are directed in ways that address the systemic problems of practice (Valenzuela, Prieto, & Hamilton, 2007). So far, these efforts have yielded more attention on these students' racial and cultural characteristics than those of the school (Solórzano & Solórzano, 1995).…”

Being of Trouble and of Use to Education: Undoing the Romance of Theory Into Practice

“…I believe the language here is rightly harsh, particularly considering the abundance of studies on the detrimental impact of NCLB (Bartlett, Frederick, Gulbrandsen, & Murillo, 2002;Darling-Hammond, 2007;Demerath, 2009;Fusarelli, 2004;Gay, 2007;Hursh, 2007;Leonardo, 2007aLeonardo, , 2007bValenzuela, Prieto, & Hamilton, 2007;Watanabe, 2008). However, Taubman asks why in the face of such criticism testing stands.…”

Transformation in K–12 English Language Proficiency Assessment

“…This is problematic for ELLs given that only reaching "proficient" academic status counts, yet the subgroup cycles in new students at lower English proficiency levels for whom demonstrating academic proficiency is challenging, and cycles out former ELLs after 2 years thus limiting the "credit" districts receive for their successes with this subgroup (Hopkins et al, 2013). Although the effects of NCLB accountability requirements for ELLs have been critiqued by many (Harper, Jong, & Platt, 2008;Menken, 2008Menken, , 2010Sólorzano, 2008;Valenzuela, Prieto, & Hamilton, 2007), they have been seen as having one positive effect: NCLB has required disaggregation of data on ELLs and highlighted the need to better support these students (Lyons, 2013).…”