The No Child Left Behind Act and the legacy of federal aid to education.

Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) builds on a tradition of gradually increasing federal involvement in the nation's public school systems. NCLB both resembles and differs from earlier federal education laws. Over the past five decades, conservatives in Congress softened their objections to the principle of federal aid to schools and liberals downplayed fears about the unintended consequences of increased federal involvement. The belief in limited federal involvement in education has been replaced by the presumption by many legislators that past federal investments justify imposing high stakes accountability requirements on schools.

The Effects of Educational Accountability on Teachers: Are Policies Too Stress Provoking for Their Own Good?

“…This perceived problem has resulted in policies to hold educators accountable for imparting higher academic standards, as measured by high-stakes, standardized tests (Elmore, Abelmann, & Fuhrman, 1996). These reforms reached a crescendo with the passage of the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 that required each state to have standards on which students would be tested, with a demanding and intricate accountability system accompanying it (Anderson, 2005). Partly because nations seek to be competitive in an increasingly global marketplace, accountability also has been a frequent part of education reform worldwide (Levin, 1998;Tatto, 2006).…”

The presidential platform on twenty-first century education goals

“…While during data analysis we were open to identifying emerging codes, we still could have missed alternative goals and themes that different analytical frameworks may have provided. For example, while we found overall consensus around goals and reforms, we did not examine concepts such as education governance, which has caused contention between liberals and conservatives in regards to whether the federal government should even have a role in education policymaking (Anderson, 2005). In addition, Labaree's framework did not illuminate other societal conditions and challenges that education could potentially be framed as addressing, such as civil rights, immigration, the need for intercultural communication skills, environmental sustainability, energy efficiency, global inequities, and homeland security (Apple, 2011;Mansilla & Jackson, 2011;Spring, 2010).…”

“…For example, the first passage of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 was framed as an anti-poverty measure. Under Presidents Reagan, Bush, and Clinton in the 1980s and 1990s, the goals of ESEA shifted to emphasize efficiency, illuminated in rhetoric that higher standards and achievement would prepare students for work in a global economy (Anderson, 2005;McDonnell, 2005).…”

The importance and potential of community partnerships in urban schools in an era of high-stakes accountability

“…For decades, public schools in the United States have been under attack for dismal academic outcomes and low teacher quality (Ascher & Fruchter, 2001; Heck, 2007; Ingersoll, 2004; Lankford, Loeb, & Wyckoff, 2002), resulting in calls for increased accountability (Clotfelter, Ladd, Vigdor, & Diaz, 2004; Zeichner, 2010). These arguments for rigorous universal academic standards, increased student assessment and standardized tests, and greater accountability based on rewards and consequences have been answered by a dramatic expansion of federal authority over public schools (Anderson, 2005; McDonnell, 2005). It is still unclear how these federal initiatives will reshape educational practices (McDonnell, 2005), but the impact of strict levels of accountability and these external forces permeate every aspect of teaching and learning in American schools today.…”