David Wuor
PAD 683: Public Administration
Research Term Paper
Due: April 4th, 2013
IGR Topics for Writing Assignment: “No Child Left BehindAct (NCLB) Program”
Introductions:
‘Who wanted to leave a child behind?’ This question became a big driving force and urgent quest for answering, especially during the George W. Bush administration and He of course heard this problem within the educational public school system, especially from ‘3nd grade to the 8th grade’ (from K12, Elementary schools to Middle School, probably to Secondary or High Schools) to which these underperforming children faced when entering into public district schools. This was probably a time when I arrived into the United States in 2001 and a year later this ‘status quo scenario’ of ‘no children being left behind’ was enacted to a law and it was signed by the President George W. Bush into a landmark education law in 2002. This requiresState and Local governments to follow specific assessment mandates from the federal government to push children and admitted them without reject (zero reject) to public schools, although they are underperforming and be considered for admissions to continue with special education.
In this research paper, I will explore and demystify what exactly NCLB program meant, especially to the IGR agencies’ of this ‘course content’ when they embraced this program into the respective States and Local governments’ educational system, where problems of teaching children with disabilities, disadvantaged, and underperforming with low Intelligent Quotient (IQ) was encountered to be unprecedented and a land-mark issue across America. President George W. Bush had made a remark when and /or after he had signed this legislation into educational law so that this legislative bill became legislation---law and be sent to the respective fifty States for implementations and so forth. His remark in 2004 goes like this:
“ America’s schools educate over 6 millions children with disabilities and in the past, those students were too often just shuffled through the system with little expectation that they could make significant progress to success like their fellow classmates and this initiative will sow and give hopes, high expectation and extra help…….No Child Leave Behind(NCLB) since it stemmed off from the IDEA program, which was enacted in 1975-----all students in America can learn that is what all of us up here believe and all of us understand we have an obligation to make sure no child left behind in America(Weishaar, 2007: pg v).”
That quotation from the President George W. Bush’s remarksummed up what ‘No Child Left Behind’ program meant and what it is designated to accomplish when implemented. For instance, in the Kettl text book from one of my spring 2013 Seminar Courses, there is one of examples of NCLB Case Studies and it said that:
“ No one was very happy about the way the initiative worked out. Local school districts (this denoted Local government action) complained that the program imposed unfunded mandates. Attacking the program was one the few things Democratic Party Presidential candidates agreed on in 2008, but finding a fix is proving hard without pumping in a lot more cash fund from the Federal government(Kettl, 2011: pg. 193).”
Previously President George W. Bush had an idea to fix the problem in the educational system, especially with younger children by pushing them to learn how to read in English and as well be able to learn Mathematics computing literacy. This problem to which these children across America were seen as unbearable and author concluded that:
“Too many children in America are segregated by low expectation, illiteracy, and self-doubt-----there is a demand increasingly complex and therefore children are being left behind (Unknown author, ‘Implementation of the NCLB Act’ document, HRG. 107-423S, 2002: pg.5).” see “Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act”document in the Works Cited Bibliography page.
I also will discuss a background of this education legislation and will also add numbers of funding statistics of ‘No child Left behind’ Act since it is known as unfunded program.
Historical Backgrounds Overview of NCLB Act -----Educational Legislation:
This is a legislation Act that was enacted and made into education law in 2002 and of course, it was orchestrated by the President George W. Bush administration, although this Act was a reauthorization and reformation of 1969 of Elementary and Secondary Education Action (ESEA) and of 1975 Individual with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) into what is known today as intent landmark legislation: ‘No Child Left behind Act’ (NCLB) in acronym. Previously it was known as IDEA and yet NCLB Act was meant “to improve educational achievement for underperforming, or disadvantaged childrenwith poor performance in public school districts from Kindergartens(K12), to Elementary schools, to Middle Schools and of course, to High Schools(Weishaar, 2007: pg. 18).”
‘No Child Left Behind Act’(NCLB) as other federal unfunded legislation is meant for ‘ reauthorization and reviewed by Congress almost every five (5) years with its sweeping mandates to change how public schools works and how it also encouraged federal government to involve in the public schools system. According to Weishaar, it says that NCLB act goals include:
(1). “All students will reach high standards, attainting at least proficiency in reading and mathematics (2014)
2). “All students will be able to read by the end of the 3rdgrade “
3). “All limited English proficient (LEP) students will be proficient in English”
4). “All students will be taught by highly qualified teachers (2006)”
5). “All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe and drug free”
6). “All students will graduate from High schools (Weishaar 2007: pg.19-20).”
This education legislation Act for disadvantaged and poor performance of students enrolled into respected Local governments’ school districts has five principles to which it was foundationally cemented and operated and those five principles of NCLB Act (2002) encompassed of Accountability, Parental choice, School District Flexibility and Local government control, Research-based teaching methods, and of highly qualified teachers and paraprofessionals (Weishaar, 2007: pg. 21-23).”
What these five principles of NCLB Act meant?
1) Accountability principle is literally meant that all States must be held responsible if they failed to follow the mandates to ‘implement a system of statewide of high standards needed for these disadvantaged students and low performing students to set a record of proficiency in English reading literacy and mathematical computation literacy(Weishaar, 2007: pg. 20-21).” It also included report cards and assessment tests of these disadvantaged students to meet the adequate yearly progress (AYP).
2) Parental Choice Principle is a model that allowed parents of these disadvantaged and low performing students to choose any public schools of their preference, which would be good for their children enrolled in that particular schools(Weishaar, 2007: pg 22).”
3) School District Flexibility and Local Control is the principle that allowed and give both States, Local government and School districts to transfer funds from Federal grants without requiring Federal government approval, visa-vice and Weishaar, the author compared this principle to the ‘site-based management’principle, whereby schools allocated funds to use for their discretionary spending and purchase of supplies, personnel and equipments without government bureaucratic restrictions (Weishaar, 2007: pg. 23)”
4) Research-Based Teaching Methods is the NCLB Act model that “puts a greater emphasis on funding grants for research based teaching methods to which these grants put a restriction on how to spend them since these grants are meant for appropriate use in the assessment teaching materials for measurement of student progress and for diagnosticpurposes(Weishaar, 2007: pg. 23).”
5) Highly Qualified Teachers and paraprofessionals principle required teachers to have and to possess certain qualification for teachings and it required teachers to have Higher education degree from accredited Colleges and University with State certified papers and these teachers also have to show subject-matter competency(Weishaar, 2007: pg.23-24).”
NCLB Act with its five foundational principles had made remarkable changes in the educational system, although there is still a complaint about implementation process of the NCLB Act and inadequate funding from the federal government. O’Toole et al touched a little about these changes since most of the NCLB act funds are distributed and bargained according to assessment testing in performance of students in their respective district schools and the author stressed his argument about NCLB act program as such:
“The No Child Left behind Act of 2002 had changed the distribution of 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) funds from a broad-based distribution program to a performance-based standard program backed up penalties in order to achieve testing, accountability, parental choice, and transferability levels. To many states it amounted to a shift from broad age-based funding to a mandated single model for performance testing, which essentially constitutes a direct order that reduces states’discretion over their educational system(O’Toole et al, 2013: pg. 282).”
Of course, O’Toole, the author of one of our textbook had touched a little about fiscal distribution, especially funds that go directly to the NCLB Act program to which they are distributed according to testing performance of those disadvantaged students and low performing students. The hypothesis behind this unfunded legislation goes like this: the higher the performance testing result rubrics, the more Federal and State funding grants could go to that district schools.
Implementation Stage Section of NCLB Act Program:
Almost in every Public Policy intervention, this stage of implementation after a legislation was passed in the Congress and later signed by the President as this legislation passed its remarkable threshold in 2002 making a historical record in America educational system since 1965 when the so-called ‘broad-based distribution program standard legislation known as Elementary and Secondary Education Action (ESEA) was reauthorized and reformed into the ‘No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) in 2002 during the President George W. Bush. Many district schools in almost every State in America had adapted and yet operating according to this new version of legislation known as “No Child Left Behind Act” to which it required every states to shift into the testing performance-based program standard where given disadvantaged and low performing students get tested in Mathematical computation and English literacy for aptitude assessments. Other authors are arguing that some states had moved beyond a testing performance-based program standard other than in Mathematicsand English standardized testing score percentile to measure given disadvantaged students’ aptitudes to more flexible testing program. Author concluded that:
“This Education law Title I legislation also fulfils an important commitment to States like Wyoming that are already heavily invested in improving student achievement by allowing them the flexibility they need to continue to innovate (Unknown preparer of Government’s NCLB Implementation document, HRG. 107-423S (2002): pg 6).”
Aspects of Federal, State, and Local Interactions embedded in IGR:
As this piece of legislation was passed, most states and local governments had embraced this Title I education law firmly since the previous of legislation known as IDEA (1975) and ESEA (1965) were not that satisfactory as much as this recent legislation “No Child Left Behind Act” does to disadvantaged children and to the families of low performing children and to the teachers alike.
It had created so much ‘flexibility, Parental choices, State and Local controls’ of education system and almost every state has a leeway to choose and interact with other IGR agencies, especially in the areas of mandates to follow and as well as in the areas of getting funding from the Federal government. Also States and Local governments and District public Schools could transfer funding-formula grants they received and they have a leeway to use those in areas they thought that needs it according to the performance-based testing standards required and stipulated in the “No Child Left behind Act (NCLB)” without seeking federal approval rather than in the previous ‘broad-based distribution program standard. Weishaar asserted that:
“States and Local governments’ school districts yet have a greater flexibility to transfer funds from one federal grants to another without gaining federal approval states and Local school districts could transfer upto 50 percent of funding they had received under four major State grant programs: Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative program, Safe and Drug-free Schools grants, to any one of the program or to “No Child Left Behind Act” Title I without seeking federal government approval. ------Also if a district met Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals, there would be more freedom to spend Title I funds (Weishaar, 2007: pg 23).”
In our course content, we talked about ‘complexity, and interdependent’ framework that existed among Intergovernmental agencies like the Federal, the State and Local government to which they interact to one another by either issuing grant-in-aide, loans, and contracts to State agencies, and/or to local government so that one IGR entities work on the behalf of the other with specific mandates to follow according to the ‘IGR mix’ (Weishaar, 2007: pg 396).”
Of course, the ‘sharing of power’ and functions to which founding father created and envisioned tells us much about the ‘interdependent which fuels complexity’, negotiation, bargaining, and competition that today existed among Federal, States and local governments. For instance, one of these IGR entities always need supports from the other systems in order to operate.
This interaction among IGR entities today led to interdependence which sometime created complexity in the system and discontent and dilemma in the system. As ‘No Child Left Behind Act’ required that States and local governments’ school districts could follow federal mandates stipulated in the Title I of Education law and therefore, interdependence is already created since issuing grants or receiving grants to run the educational system had compellingly pushed States and local government to work in that framework of ‘interdependence’ from one another, although there is an abundant flexibility.
Unfunded Mandates Program
In the O’Toole book’s chapter entitled: “The Politics of Unfunded Mandates’, He extensively and thoroughly talked about government mandates to which became a useful tool for State and Local government to achieve national objectives. It is said that most government leaders either from federal level or State and Local government ‘felt compelled to promote’ (O’Toole, 2013: pg. 259). Mandate is widely favored and it has become pervasive and prevalent in getting things done. For instance, Federal government always legislates certain unfunded programs and put a ‘string attached’ guidelines and restraints for program like the “No Child Left behind Act Program’ hereof to which both State and Local government must follow. Basically mandate comprised of what other governmental entities can and can’t do in achieving their best lobbying interests in the policy sphere. For instance, we know that there is a compelling mandate message that is put by voters to elected government officials and of course, most of time, political officials after earning votes from constituents, they will have to work according to the mandate perimeter of their votes. This is probably what mandate implied either it is unfunded mandate or regular mandate. Mandates appeared to have the same functions attached to it. O’Toole et al author concluded that:
“mandates also served a political functions for state and local officials in gaining leverage----in policy agenda struggles within their own governments as well as in competition with other states or localities for economic development(O’Toole et al, 2013: pg. 266).”
We have also witnessed this compelling message stipulated in the ‘coercive federalism’ to which other governmental entities like State and Local government are forcefully mandated to do and follow exactly what federal government asked them to do, especially in the funding process like in grant-in-aid as well in the federal policy interventions.
Funding Statistics of “No Child Left Behind Program” Act.
There are some Federal and State programs that were passed, but still suffering of funding from the Federal and State government. This legislation of ‘No Child Left Behind’ is said to be one of them and as I was reading the Congressional document of Implementation of the ‘No Child Left Behind’ act put together by Senatorial Office and published in April 2002. It is concluded that this legislation has a funding predicament and below is the statistics data from Senator Collins’s comments during the implementation of ‘No Child Left Behind Act program’:
“In 2000, Education law, Title I funding was $7.9 billion. President George W. Bush has requested $11.4 billion for Title I in 2003’ which mounting to 44 percent increase over 2000 levels. In 2000, Reading program received $260 million. President Bush has requested $1.075 billion for Reading first in 2003, a 284 percent increase. In 2000, funding for teachers reached $2 billion. President Bush has requested $2.9 billion for teachers in 2003, a 45 percent increase. In 2000, funding for after school program was $453 million, and the President has requested $1.075 billion for 2003, a 45 percent increment. Finally, if President Bush is granted his 2003 budget request for the Department of Education, the Department will receive a 42 percent increase as compared to 2000, moving from 35.6 billion to 50.3 billion. Increasing funding beyond this levels to this Title I program, and therefore we should allow time for “No Child Left Behind Act” to be implemented (Unknown author, “Implementation of NCLB Act” government document, HRG. 107-423S, 2002: pg.5).”
Funding for “No Child Left Behind Act” program appeared to be inadequate and most of the Federal senators including Senator Collins said ‘ we may continue to fund failure at the expense of children’s future.’ There must be more recent funding statistics data for this legislation and I thought this statistics explains the whole funding disparities that might be facing this legislation program in comparison with other legislation program like ‘Endangered Species Act, Clean Air Act of 1972’and so forth.
Conclusion:
Yet in this research paper, we understand what the scope of ‘No Child Left Behind Act(2002)’ legislation intended and meant for educational system as well as to these disadvantaged students from kindergarten (K12), Elementary Schools, Middle Schools and High Schools for their academic achievements and success in the educational program system. With Title I of Education law known as ‘NCLB’ Act, these low performing students with low Intelligent quotient(IQ) are required and pushed to show their full potential in testing assessments in Mathematical computation and in English literacy. And it is recorded in their ‘Report Cards’ as well as in their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) since all of these testing assessments of students could be shared with their parents and to the States so that they stay in the educational system scrutinized and screened to meet the required proficient standards. Parent of these low performing students have a ‘freehand’, flexibility, and choice to place their children to the school districts of their preferences according to the ‘NCLB Act’ five (5) foundational principles of education law, not of the foundational principle discussed in the administrative politics of ‘Organization problems” in chapter 6 of author Donald Kettl’s book .
Also, this pattern of interactions embedded in the IGR mix of Federal, State and Local governments to which these three ‘marble cake layers’ entities could share their functions and powers as stipulated in the constitution of the United States showcased the ‘interdependence’ which always led to complexity, negotiation, bargaining, and competition in the system.
‘Make no mistake’,(this is what one of the popular phrases President George W. Bush used during his presidency, “No Child Left Behind Act’(2002) had made a tremendous impacts in the today’s and tomorrow’s children in the educational system according to author, James P. Comer, although most people complain about its lack of funding.
Works Cited:
Weishaar, Mary K. (2007). Case Studies in Special Education Law: No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) and Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. Pearson Education Publishing, Inc., and Prentice Hall, New Jersey.
Comer, James P. (2004). Leave No Child Behind: Preparing Today’s Youth for Tomorrow’s World. Yale University Press, Connecticut (CT)---New Haven and London.
--------------------(2002). Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Kettl, Donald F. (2011). The Politics of Administrative Process.Congressional Quarterly Press(CQ Press). Washington, DC. 5th edition.
O’Toole, Laurence J. et al. (2013). American Intergovernmental Relations: Foundation Perspective and Issues. Congressional Quarterly Press (CQ Press). 5th edition.
No comments:
Post a Comment