No Child Left Behind

Paper Summary:

In this article the writer discusses the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). The writer notes that this Act is tremendously controversial, despite the fact that at the time of its passage most people agreed that some type of education reform was long overdue. This article looks at the legislation leading up to the NCLB and examines its goals. Further, the writer examines various reactions to the Act. The writer notes that although commentators have suggested that the NCLB might present several legal issues, there has been a surprising scarcity of litigation surrounding the Act. However, the writer points out that this relative lack of litigation should not be seen as an acceptance of the requirements of the NCLB, but instead the lack of litigation must be revisited in a timely manner. The writer concludes that if people desire changes in the NCLB, they may be forced to seek them through the legislative, rather than the judicial progress.

From the Paper:

"Despite its lofty goals, the NCLB has been met with serious opposition by some surprising segments of society; educators, parents, and state government officials. Many states believe that the NCLB's major problem is that it permits the federal government to preempt states in their educational programs. While the federal government has had ancillary involvement in state and local education programs in the past, the NCLB signals a dramatic change in the structure of the American public education system because it places severe contingencies upon federal financial aid. Parents seem to mention two central problems with the NCLB. The first problem is that the NCLB requires students to pass standardized tests in order to advance, with little regard for individual students' differences. The second problem is that the NCLB punishes schools with low test scores by withdrawing funding; the result is that the most disadvantaged children end up receiving the least federal aid. Educators agree with parents' concerns, and also express the concern that the NCLB's focus on standardized teacher testing ignores years of teacher classroom experience. The most controversial charge that critics have made against the NCLB is that it may result in the de facto resegregation of certain schools."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Bajjani v. Gwinnett County School District, 630 S.E.2d 103 (Ga. Ct. App. 2006).
• Campaign for Fiscal Equity, Inc. v. State of New York, 801 N.E.2d 326 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).
• Center for Law and Education v. Department of Education, 396 F.3d 1152 (D.C. Cir. 2005).
• Hancock v. Commissioner of Education, 822 N.E.2d 1134 (Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. 2005).
• The Harvard Law Review Association. (2006). No Child Left Behind and the political safeguards of federalism. The Harvard Law Review, 119(3), 885-906.

More papers on No Child Left Behind:

• Argumentative Essay # 95826 : "No Child Left Behind"
• Analytical Essay # 73336 : "The No Child Left Behind Act"
• Argumentative Essay # 72144 : "No Child Left Behind Act"
• Analytical Essay # 125644 : "No Child Left Behind Law"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: