The No Child Left Behind Act 1

The No Child Left Behind Act:

It’s Effect on Curriculum in American Schools

Tricia Anne Dillon

CaliforniaStateUniversity, Hayward
Abstract

The No Child Left Behind Act was enacted in January 2002.The Act has become the impetus for substantial change to the educational system.Schools are expected to adhere to the mandates contained in the Act and provide detailed academic progress statistics with financial penalties for substandard achievement.Effects to curriculum include creation of new materials that meet federally set criteria, the requirement of increased integration of technology in curriculum and assessment, and encompassing all of these changes will be the need to increase professional development to address the changes being made to the curriculum.These issues are providing increased stress on an already taxed educational system and raise serious concerns about the effects on students and curriculum professionals.

The No Child Left Behind Act:

It’s Effect on Curriculum in American Schools

In January of 2002 President George W. Bush signed into law an act that is impetus substantial change to the educational system.The act, commonly known as the No Child Left Behind Act sets aside funding to help schools meet specific federal requirements outlined within the Act as well as guidelines and repercussions for not meeting progress deadlines.The No Child Left Behind Act is a reauthorization of an earlier federal educational policy, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act originally enacted in 1965 and reauthorized in 1994 through the Goals 2000:Educate America Act. (WesternRegionalResourceCenter, n.d.,University of Oregon,para. 6)Although education is not within the purview of the federal government through its powers granted by the Constitution, the federal government has become increasingly involved within public education since the mid nineteenth-century.As time has passed schools have be put under increasing pressure to educate students in all subjects with limited federal direction.It is only within the last few decades that the federal government has become more involved.The landmark ESEA first enacted in 1965 and its subsequent amendments (Schugurensky, 2002) were one of the first federal attempts to formally influence curriculum. In 1981 a commission was created to investigate concerns about the quality of American education.The National Commission on Excellence in Education produced their report, A Nation at Risk, in 1983.The report discussed the challenges facing education as well as making recommendations regarding the curriculum, teacher education, and the federal government’s role in public education.(U.S. Department of Education, 1999, Introduction, para. 7, Risk, & Conclusions) Federal education directives have not been historically successful (Doll, 1996, p. 116) and over several decades

many other federal programs have been enacted in addition to the ESEA, (Harcourt Educational Measurement, 2003, p. 5) but the No Child Left Behind Acthas combined them into a comprehensive federal mandate.

Education has long been an area of social policy mainly under each individual state’s control.The No Child Left Behind Act leaves many of the decisions in the hands of states and local school boards, but sets minimum standards that all schools are expected to achieve.Schools are expected to provide detailed statistics related to their academic progress with the results tied to funding levels and financial penalties for substandard achievement.

These new requirements provide significant opportunities as well as pressure to modify curriculum and classroom decisions to meet the new Federal requirements.The federal requirements fall into four main categories along the continuum of educational curriculum:testing, technology integration, evaluation criteria, and professional development.The NCLB stops short of implementing a standardized national curriculum--a panacea that has been hinted at for decades (Doll, 1996, p. 191) but does mandate that states create their own standards.Under the No Child Left Behind Act curriculum will have to be modified to closely follow state standards and meet testing deadlines for math and reading standards as well as science concepts.Subjects and concepts will have to be modified to integrate technology skills and demonstrate technology competencies, and curriculum materials will have to be evaluated and implemented based on what the No Child Left Behind Act refers to as scientifically based criteria.Encompassing all of these changes will be the need to increase professional development to address the changes made to the curriculum.

Increasing student achievement in core subjects is the primary focus of the No Child Left Behind Act.States are required to have created and published reading and math standards by 2001 and to implement the subject changes in time for students to be tested against the standards’ criteria by the 2005-2006 school year.(EdSource, 2003)In addition, students will be expected to pass assessments in science concepts by 2006.In the reality of a school environment where assessment guides instruction materials will have to be created that will allow teachers and students to cover the standards being assessed.Curriculum professionals are already experiencing the pressures that creating these new assessments provide.Educational vendors have also recognized the need for new assessment instruments and have flooded the market with a number of new assessment options aligned with the NCLB requirements.

In addition to the increases in core subject knowledge the No Child Left Behind Act requires that all students be technologically competent by the completion of eighth grade.The definition of technology competency is not specifically stated, but the International Society of Technology Education (ISTE) has published standards for student achievement and performance assessments.The ability to meet this Federal Standard will put several distinct pressures on curriculum workers, many of which they will have limited ability to control.Doll (1996, p. 117) uses a planting and harvest analogy to describe the effect that political pressures on curriculum workers.He compares “curriculum mandates from on high” to a severe storm and that “The pronouncement ‘thus demand state and federal governments’ makes for poor crops in the local curriculum field.”

The ability to use technology and to teach the concepts encompassed by within that subject requires the use of computer hardware.Computer hardware is often expensive and difficult to maintain.Curriculum can be devised that is appropriate to the technology available at the time but the ever-changing nature of technology and its inherent ability to be difficult to support means that written curriculum may become obsolete within a few years.Support of both software and hardware can be a frustrating endeavor and not within the abilities or interest levels of many classroom professionals.Adult users of technology are often intimidated by what they do not understand.If users are continually frustrated or do not understand the reasons why technology has been added to their subject matter then they will be hesitant to use it.(Doll, p. 313)Lastly, the use of technology within the classroom is expensive and complicated.Even with the increased funding provided for by the No Child Left Behind Act schools are facing difficult decisions about how funds are spent. Questions have been raised about the high costs of integrating technology into the curriculum for the amount of quantifiable educational return that it provides. (Oppenheimer, 2003, November 30).The increased focus on these core subjects and the integration of technology may obscure the development in skills in areas such as music and art that are seen as less critical to meeting the NCLB requirements to obtain funding.

The requirements in the No Child Left Behind Act do not take into account the pressures by lay agendas and societal influences that interact with the curriculum development process.Curriculum workers must be cognizant of the needs of the community and sensitive to its unique needs when developing curriculum materials. (Doll, 1996, p. 131)Energy spent on the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act may mean decreased funding and instructional time spent on curriculum preferences requested by the community at large.The No Child Left Behind Act also does not address requirements for alternative programs and methods.Alternative and supplemental programs have been used to bolster student achievement particularly in urban and other disadvantaged environments. (Burnett, 1998)It does provide, though, the opportunity for parental choice for supplemental services.(Center on Education Policy, 2003)

Under the No Child Left Behind Act states are allowed to create their own standards but must use “scientifically based” materials.(U.S. Department of Education, 2002) A definition of “scientifically based” is not given.The changes and pressures in evaluating new curriculum are numerous.With the high stakes involved the evaluation process for educational materials is very important.Standards for program evaluation have been developed to assist curriculum professionals in their decision-making process. (ERIC, 1995)

This leaves curriculum workers a bit of leeway to use evaluated programs but because of the costs involved in researching the efficacy of classroom materials it is expected that curriculum planners will heavily rely on state-approved curriculum materials.The lead time involved in creating, testing, and approving these materials is averaged at 3 - 4 years.With this extended lead time curriculum planners may find the process cumbersome and unable to react to the changing dynamic of the school population.This will be especially prevalent in the area of technology curriculum where the previously discussed rapid changes are the rule.In addition, the transient nature of our society and economic trends may lead to an influx in a specific student population with specific needs that can not be effectively addressed by prior years’ curriculum materials and the schools will be able to react only at a very slow pace to these differentiated needs.

In addition to integrating technology in the classroom, the Act sets a goal of technology integration and the development of student testing and evaluation processes. (U.S. Department of Education (n.d.), Sec. 2402)In a recent teleconference regarding the NCLB’s effects on schools technology organizers encouraged schools to use technology as an aid to assessment tools to shorten the time required to return results back to affected stakeholders.(Delisio, 2003)Again, curriculum planners will be pressured to create materials that have assessment modules readily available to meet the reporting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.

An important provision in the No Child Left Behind Act requires schools to provide concrete data on assessment scores and student achievement in order to provide proof of adequate yearly progress.(EdSource, 2003) Questions have been raised whether the No Child Left Behind Act’s “proof” requirement will inhibit teachers’ ability to assess their students using non-traditional assessment instruments.Many valuable assessment instruments are difficult to quantify and validate but still provide valuable information related to a student’s progress.(Fuchs, 1995Elliott, 1995)As schools move toward quantifiable statistics, standards, andperformance-based education there is a concern this policy shift may inhibit teachers’ ability to provide individualized instruction to students; especially those that are part of special populations.(Doll, 1996, p. 161)Another concern is the NCLB’s inattention to the cultural differences inherent in today’s schools.The No Child Left Behind Act does not address multicultural differences or challenges even though they are a distinct reality in today’s world.Pressures from parents, cultural groups, and national government requirements such as the No Child Left Behind Act have caught schools in the middle.Schools and teachers are expected to achieve more with complicated and often contradictory directions that are modified at the whim of each new administration.

Curriculum cannot be implemented effectively without competently prepared staff.In many cases, an enhanced curriculum can provide opportunities and force staff to increase their knowledge and competence in various areas.(Doll, 1996, p. 164)The teaching profession is top heavy with veteran teachers that although they bring extensive experience to the classroom may not be familiar or comfortable with standards-based assessment and instruction, technology integration, or many of the newer curriculum materials that have been adopted.Specific statistics are difficult to find, but by 1993 the percentage of teachers under the age of 35 was less than 25%.(NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2000) It was expected that the average age of teachers would continue to increase. Administrators must help these veteran educators through this era of change.Lashway (1995) discusses this new style of leadership as being “facilitative” and aiding staff in synthesizing their personal and educational missions.Curriculum developers in the NCLB era must be prepared to also provide materials for staff development as well as assessment instruments to aid administrators in providing feedback to their staff members.Clear, thoughtful materials will allow constructive evaluation and modification of instructional methods.(Lashway, 1995)

Staff development in itself brings other complications to the table.Curriculum developers will have to be mindful of the existing school culture that underlies each school site.A school’s culture can be defined in many ways, but can be thought of as the ways that “people think and how they act” based upon their shared values and beliefs. (Stolp, 1994)Many teachers and administrators are resentful of change and may resist attempts to implement new materials.Care will have to be taken in staff development sessions to make tangible links between the familiar and unfamiliar to minimize the resistance to new ideas and to maximize the efficiency of curriculum professionals.

The No Child Left Behind Act is a significant change in federal policy and is impacting students, teachers, administrators, and other educational professionals on a daily basis. The Act’s primary requirements for standards alignment, documented yearly progress, and the effect on professional development are welcome by most educators but may present a problem in the bottom up-top down evaluation that it creates.It appears that schools are creating curriculum in much the same manner that teachers are admonished not to use--isolation.Rather than evaluating where the students need to be and then taking a systematic approach to sequencing skills, changes are being implemented in a piecemeal approach. Concerns abound about this uncoordinated approach and that it will lead to a continued waste of time and resources that our schools can ill afford.History has shown that Federal Government involvement in education policy and its attempts to micromanage our society’s problems has had limited effectiveness especially in light of our ever-changing political system and fiscal pressures.Without a comprehensive, cooperative approach to educational change educational policy will continue to be marked by suspicion and limited effectiveness.

References

Burnett, Gary (1998). Varieties of Multicultural Education: An Introduction. Retrieved November 22, 2003 from the ERIC Educational Database:

Center on Education Policy (2003), Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act:A First Look Inside 15 School Districts in 2002-03.Retrieved December 1, 2003 from
learningfromnclbcasestudies_oct2003.pdf.

Delisio, Ellen R. (2003). Technology Training, Assessment, and No Child Left Behind.
Retrieved December 1, 2003 from

Doll, Ronald C. (1996). Curriculum Improvement: Decision Making and Process.
Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.

EdSource (2003).About The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001.Retrieved
November 23, 2003 from

Elliott, Stephen N. (1995) Creating Meaningful Performance Assessments.Retrieved
November 20, 2003 from the ERIC Educational Database:

ERIC (1995).The Program Evaluation Standards.Retrieved October 12, 2003 from the
ERIC Educational Database,

Fuchs, Lynn S. (1995). Connecting Performance Assessment to Instruction: A Comparison of Behavioral Assessment, Mastery Learning, Curriculum-Based Measurement, and Performance Assessment.Retrieved October 23, 2003 from ERIC Educational Database,

Harcourt Educational Assessment (2003).Assessment Report:History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).Retrieved December 2, 2003 from

Lashway, Larry (1995).Can Instructional Leaders Be Facilitative Leaders?Retrieved September 28, 2003 from

NationalCenter for Education Statistics (2000), Indicator of the Month:Salaries of Teachers.Retrieved December 3, 2003 from

Oppenheimer, Todd (2003, November 30).Computer Illogic.The San Francisco Chronicle,
pp. D1, D6.

Schugurensky, Daniel, ed. (2002)1965:Elementary and Secondary School Act, the 'War on Poverty' and Title I.Retrieved December 5, 2003 from Department of Adult Education, Community Development and Counseling Psychology, The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education of the University of Toronto (OISE/UT):

Stolp, Stephen (1994).Leadership for School Culture.RetrievedNovember 13, 2003 from

U.S. Department of Education (n.d.) Elementary & Secondary Education:Part D - Enhancing Education through Technology.Retrieved November 29, 2003 from

U.S. Department of Education (1999) Archived:A Nation at Risk.RetrievedDecember 5, 2003 from

U.S. Department of Education (1999) Archived:A Nation at Risk.RetrievedDecember 5, 2003

U.S. Department of Education (2002) Public Law 107-110. RetrievedDecember 5, 2003 from

WesternRegionalResourceCenter, University of Oregon, (n.d.)Context:The History and Structure of the ESEA of 1965.Retrieved December 2, 2003 from