The Importance of No Child Left Behind (Summary of Parts I, II, III, IV, and V)

This article concludes a series that I began several days ago focused on the importance of No Child Left Behind. In this concluding article I summarize the key points made in the previous articles.

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was proposed by President George W. Bush in June 2001 and passed by an overwhelming margin on a bipartisan vote in both houses of the U. S. Congress; Ted Kennedy was a key sponsor of the legislation in the Senate. The law effectively mandates that 95% of all students in K-12 public schools show grade level performance as measured on a standardized test. Data are disaggregated according to economic status and ethnicity, and grade level performance must be met by students within each category. Failure to make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years in a row obligates a school district to offer students enrollment in another school; a third year of failure to make AYP mandates free tutoring; a fourth year of not making AYP continues free tutoring and puts the school on notice that it will be restructured if failure continues; a fifth year mandates planning for restructuring; and a sixth year results in implementation of the restructuring plan.

Opponents of No Child left Behind have offered several insubstantial criticisms:

1) Some say that standardized testing is not as flexible or "authentic" as demonstrative approaches such as portfolios, projects, and presentations.

In fact, standardized tests represent the the most objective means of fairly judging a particular student's knowledge and skill base.

Some say that the administration of an annual standardized test encourages teachers to "teach to the test."

In fact, we should hope that this is true, because a properly constructed math or reading test features the key material to be learned at a given grade level; and teaching to the test assures that substantive academic content is offered to students, many of whom in numerous schools have for year after year received little academic content at all.

2) Some opponents of No Child Left Behind object to federal mandates to the states, seeing this as another intrusion of the federal government into the lives of people and the governments closest to them.

In fact, the sort of training that teachers receive from education professors is highly similar across the country, so that local control has always been an illusion. Education in the K-12 public schools of the United States would be improved by a nationally consistent approach to subject area content in the manner of the best systems of East Asia and Europe.

3) Some critics charge that so much focus on reading and math results in a "narrowing of the curriculum."

In fact, there is very little in the way of a curriculum in K-6 schools across the United States, and a typical approach to middle school devalues subject area curriculum in favor of student socialization skills. Subject area courses in the typical high school are frequently poorly taught, but not narrowed by No Child Left Behind.

And reading should in any case be taught in a subject area context, so that the skill of reading is an agent for acquiring broad and deep academic knowledge.


4) And some critics say that No Child Left Behind is too punitive, placing harsh judgment on schools that fail to make AYP, unfairly castigating teachers, and lumping many schools with overall good performance records with those that are obviously struggling.

In fact, the standards set forth by No Child left Behind are applied to all schools fairly, holding them accountable for properly educating students of every economic and ethnic category. This is precisely what disaggregation of the data is supposed to do, and any school that fails to educate students of all descriptors is not a good school, whatever its previous reputation.


No Child Left Behind is in political trouble because it is the most serious challenge in United States history to the failed K-12 schools run by the education establishment. That establishment is backed by powerful lobbies, and many politicians receive hefty campaign contributions by the education establishment that those lobbies represent.

If we let ill-founded arguments and gossamer catch-phrases bring down No Child Left Behind, we will lose our best chance in United States history to apply appropriate pressure on our failed K-12 public schools to undertake meaningful change.