Ashley Campbell

May 8, 2009

NCLB

The Impact of NCLB on Student Achievement

There is a history of educational reform in the United States, beginning as early as the

1950s, that has been partially based on concerns about competition with other countries and

partially based on social injustices regarding Civil Rights concerns. Although education funding

and policies are primarily determined by the states, the federal government became more

involved in education for the first time in 1965 with the passage of Elementary and Secondary

Education Act. This act provided federal funds for specific supplementary education programs

that were targeted to “disadvantaged” students. This included those students who had lower

social economic statuses as well as minority students who were not achieving as well in school

as higher-income Caucasian students.

The No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent reauthorization of the ESEA. NCLB

was modified to add accountability mandates that must be met by states and schools in order to

receive the NCLB programs and funds. The major accountability measure in NCLB revolves

around standard-based assessment systems developed by each state. These include annual testing

required in subjects such as math, reading, and science. Each state sets proficiency goals for tests

in these subjects that must be achieved by 2014, and each school must show that it is making

progress each year towards these goals (AYP). At this point in time, there is some concern that,

for the country as a whole, academic achieving goals are unlikely to be met by 2014, especially

for the traditionally lower-achieving subgroups targeted by NCLB. This paper will review the
Campbell, p. 2

achievement data to date, the concerns about the data, and some proposed changes in NCLB to

address these concerns.

While viewing data charts and information of scores from schools nationwide, we are

able to notice the impact if any that NCLB policies have had on students and Annual Yearly

Progress rates. Looking at each state there is a recognizable steady increase in test scores from

year to year. This increase is shown to be in both the state tests and the NAEP tests that are

measured for students in each grade. Many times the scores fluctuated year to year with the

students in different grades. One way that the graph was a bit difficult to read was how the

students were monitored. The charts showed an increase in the numbers and percentages but it

wasn’t specific enough about its students. One year the 4th grade class was monitored and the

next year another 4th grade class was monitored again. I was unsure if the following year was

meant to disclose information for a new 4th grade class or if they were the 4th graders from the

previous year who would be considered 5th graders. Thus monitoring their progress was a little

tricky to debate.

Although the graphs and charts show a period of increased test results from the time

NCLB was implemented into the curriculum, the data can be misrepresented. Because many

charts focus on several years after NCLB we are unable to see exactly how students were doing

prior to its reform policy. Some states, however, did show their progress before 2004. With those

numbers one can conclude that the rate of proficiency has steadily been increasing over the

years. However, the most recent cases where an increase was inflicted in the NEA were not as

high as the increases made before NCLB. These charts and data actually question the actual
Campbell, p. 3

impact that NCLB is having on the students. Some of the increasing rates of progression do not

prove to be the result of NCLB. Other factors and an already fluctuating chart could be the sole

reason to the increase. (CEP-DC).

Because statistics and data can be read differently and understood in different ways it is

easy to recognize how results can be misinterpreted from the charts that I looked at. However,

when analyzed carefully these results show that it is still highly unlikely that all students

nationwide will be able to close the achievement gap by the year 2014. The scores that I would

consider reliable would be the NAEP scores. Though in both NAEP and State scores are

increasing, NAEP gives a better depiction of what is going on from a nationwide perspective as a

report card analyzing what progress schools have made on a yearly basis in all academic areas.

There are several trends of the state testing scores that are implemented into the NAEP scores as

well. Those trends include receiving separate scores that vary from state to state. Along with

which direction schools have gone in as a result of NCLB policies. (Civil Rights projects)

Many sources include that raising the achievement gaps by 100% by 2014 will be very

challenging. To reach that goal schools should be at least half way into making this goals

feasible now. There are still several schools that are listed as in need of improvement in regards

to testing scores and school’s annual yearly progress reports. Because subgroups and other

disadvantages are the result in how children test it has not been seen as a likely thing to occur.

Some say that the progression levels are simply not covering enough ground for improvement in

order to make a full recovery from where the US was 10 years before. Though schools and
Campbell, p. 4

teachers have made great progress in improving the quality of student education since NCLB,

there is still a strong debate whether the goal will be met exactly. (ED.gov)

While reviewing the United States proficiency levels in comparison to other countries

like Singapore, Hong Kong, and South Korea we fall pretty far behind. So in some instances

there is the question of whether or not this improvement is enough for the United States to be

considered a top country once again. There is reason to believe that the standards for all schools

in 2014 can be considered an unrealistic expectation or a low standard regarding other countries

that are higher up on the proficiency scale than the United States. (Hoover)

I believe that it is important for Educational reform policies to set goals for all schools

across the US. There are many schools that have been in a state of: Needing Improvement for

consecutive years. I do not, however, understand how schools can make progress annually and

still be categorized under these pretenses. Many schools have revamped their entire curriculum

for NCLB policies and for students to improve their scores on the AYP tests. The data does show

an annual rate of progression from students which is expected when new curriculums and

instructions are adopted to do this. Every year, however, the rate of improvement nationwide is

approximately the same. With this information it is increasingly difficult to determine how

schools will pull out in 2014.

I also believe that NCLB has not been the only reason for students’ improvement on school’s

AYPs. There were several policies that date back to Goal 2000 and farther that were made to
Campbell, p. 5

increase these rates. The rate of improvement was higher before NCLB was introduced to

schools than it was after it was put into place officially in 2004. This data shows that it is a

possibility that some other factor has been the causal affect to an improvement on test for

students. To affectively make sure that students will receive the education they deserve and will

be able to perform at grade level, changes will need to be incorporated to help.

To adequately make sure that the goals for NCLB are met by 2014 changes to the school

districts and policies may have to be implemented. These things will give teachers and students

resources needed to make student’s education more effective in addressing the achievement

gaps. One way to do this would be to include more funding for programs that are centered for

students who are considered at-risk. These children can include minorities, English language

learners, and students with learning disabilities and require special services. Receiving additional

help for these issues in advance will give these disadvantaged students a chance to work on

things that they have difficulty with before they are placed in a test taking environment and are

unable to perform at their expected grade level. This suggestion will assist students prior to them

failing. (White House.gov)

I believe this suggestion to improve the student achievement gap will be allow an

opportunity for educators to help determine what difficulties students are having ahead of time so

they will be able to assist them. Working on an issue when it is first noticed is a far better way to

help students who aren’t performing well academically exceed. Students should be given plenty

of opportunities to excel especially if needed. It is never too early to help correct an issue. This

will help the student learn to develop strategies later when he or she is faced with problems.
Campbell, p. 6

Teacher’s are also at an advantage with this because this policy will allow them to understand

their student’s level of performance and how they learn. This will also give them ideas and

techniques to help make lesson plans that are appropriate for the student and one in which they

are able to do the work.

Another way to improve the achievement gap would be to give bonuses to teachers or to

higher highly qualified teachers who would be able to teach students who are currently at-risk.

These teachers would be able to train and teach students basic fundamentals of learning in a

strategic way that would allow students to retain the information and use it when it is time to take

test. Teachers who are experienced know how to continue reiterating material so that students

understand its significance. These teachers will also be aware of reading and math programs that

have been helpful for students in previous years and how they will be helpful for their current

students. With the help of funding from state programs these teachers can also implement

tutoring programs that are for students. It has been proven that with the help of these programs

nearly 61,000 students in the Chicago Public schools were able to improve their reading scores

(Ed.gov.)

Teachers who take their time and provide students with an efficient education give the at-

risk students an opportunity to excel in school. There are a lot of areas where teachers are

working with students who are at-risk and they just teach a lesson without making sure it is

taught correctly or to make sure students understand what they are learning. Students need
Campbell, p. 7

teachers who care and who will ensure a quality education in them. The tutoring programs have

also had a major positive outlook on the ways students are improving. If this continues to be

implemented in school reform policies the students may possibly accelerate at a higher rate.

Concluding, NCLB has been implemented into the curriculum nationwide to help reform

educational policies within the schools. The achievement gaps that are slowly but steadily

decreasing may or may not be the sole result of NCLB. Many other things come into play with

this debate. It is also hard to conclude whether the proficiency level of all schools nationwide

will be closed by 2014. However, with a few suggestions like implementing tutoring programs,

offering bonuses, and hiring qualified teachers the United States will be well on its way to

improving the proficiency level for all students.

 Bibliography

Education Progress. White House. 1 May 2009.

http://www.whitehouse.gov/agenda.education

Lee , Jaekyung. Tracking Achievement Gaps and Assessing the Impact of NCLB on the Gaps.

8April 2009. http://www.civilrightsproject.ucla.edu/research/esea/nclb_naep_lee.pdf

NCLB Making a Difference in Illinois 8 April 2009.

http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/importance/difference/illinois.pdf

Ramírez, Eddy. On Education New Head of Teacher's Union Attacks NCLB. July 15, 2008, 8

April 2009.http://www.usnews.com/blogs/on-education/2008/7/15/new-head-of-teachers-
union-attacks-nclb.html

Srikantaiah, Deepa , Swayhoover, Lisa, Zhang, Ying. Elementary Schools Impacted More by
NCLB and Illinois Accountability Than High Schools, December 22, 2008. 8 April 2009.
http://www.cepdc.org/index.cfm?
fuseaction=Page.viewPage&pageId=495&parentID=481
Visiting Scholars Series Research Brief. April 7, 2005. National Education Association

Washington, DC 8 April 2009.Closing the Student Achievement Gap by Closing the

Teaching Quality Gaphttp://www.hoover.org/publications/ednext/9223496.html