An Explication of Selected Titles of No Child Left Behind Legislation
In sum, during the period from 2002 through 2015, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became the primary law in the United States concerning the general education of young people in grades K through 12. Some of the provisions of NCLB, especially those involving minorities and migrant children, were contentious because they operated to penalize schools that failed to demonstrate sustained improvement, a requirement that affected many schools with already marginalized learners with limited English proficiency. The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of the NCLB legislation as it pertains to Migrant Education (Title I), TESOL education (Title III), and Native American education (Title VII). An evaluation and analysis of the research is used to identify similarities and differences that have facilitated distinguishing the diverse linguistic and cultural backgrounds of students today. Finally, the paper provides a summary of the research and important findings concerning this NCLB legislation is the conclusion.
Review and Analysis
Migrant Education Program (MEP) (Title I)
In part, Title I of the NCLB provides funds to establish and improve educational programs for children of migratory workers; and provides formula grants to state educational agencies based on per-pupil expenditures. According to one educational department, “The purpose of the MEP is to design and support high-quality and comprehensive educational programs that provide migratory children with the same opportunity to meet the challenging state academic content and student achievement standards that are expected of all children” (Education of migratory children, 2020, para. 2). Beyond the foregoing, the MEP also serves to assure that all migrant students succeed in graduating high school with a diploma or by completing general education equivalency program to help prepare them to become contributing members of American society. Title I of the NCLB allocates federal funds to the several states using a formula that takes into account the estimated number of eligible migratory children aged 3 through 21 years that live within a state during a given year (Education of migratory children, 2020).
Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages (TESOL) education (Title III)
Title III of the NCLB, Language Instruction for Limited English Proficient and Immigrant Students, is designed to provide federal formula grants to state education agencies which then determine local need to make subsequent subgrants to charter schools and school districts which make application to their states for funding (Wright, 2019). The provisions of Title III, almost doubled funding for students with limited English proficiency; however, since the Title III federal funds are distributed on a more widespread basis, the net effect has been to reduce the total funding for individual eligible students with limited English proficiency (Wright, 2019).
It is noteworthy that in contrast to the educational legislation that preceded the NCLB, the provisions of Title III do not distinguish between nonbilingual and bilingual programs but only mandate the students with limited English proficiency are enrolled in some type of "language instruction education programs." For the purpose of Title III, a language instruction education program is defined as type of instructional course:
. . . in which a limited English proficient child is placed for the purpose of developing and attaining English proficiency, while meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards; and that may make instructional use of both English and a child's native language to enable the child to develop and attain English proficiency, and may include the participation of English proficient children if such course is designed to enable all participating children to become proficient in English and a second language. (as cited...…students that were at risk of failing so that additional, individualized instruction could be provided, the net impact has been to concentrate a lion’s share of scare educational resources on struggling students to the exclusion of those that are performing at normal or above-average levels (Payne-Tsoupros, 2010). Not surprisingly, this unintended outcome of the NCLB has operated to the detriment of the very students these titles are intended to help (Love,2016). In this regard, Payne-Tsoupros (2010) emphasizes that, “In low performing schools where a high percentage of students are at risk of failing the test, a focus on the minimum creates disincentives to work with students performing at or above the testing expectations” (p. 472). In other words, these title provisions of the NCLB are setting the bar low for these students to the extent where mediocrity is prized over superior achievement (Payne-Tsoupros, 2010).
Conclusion
The title provisions of No Child Left Behind reviewed above are intended to address the educational needs of an increasingly diverse cohort of young American learners. Given the dramatic demographic changes the United States has experienced in recent years, it is clear that this type of legislation is desperately needed to help marginalized learners achieve the full academic potential, but the challenges that are involved are as great as the need. The research showed that the provisions of Title I (Migrant Education) and Title III (TESOL education differ in their respective approaches to the provision of funding and support for minority children with the latter including provisions for local determination of where these funds are most needed and allowances for educational instruction in students’ native language. Likewise, Title VII (Native American education) included similar provisions for local funding as well as an emphasis on providing the broad range of support services Native American students need to…
References
Education of migratory children. (2020). Virginia Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/federal_programs/esea/title1/part_c/index.shtml
Love, P. (2016, July). Every student succeeds unleashes funding flexibility: States and districts can direct block grants to where they are most needed. District Administration, 52(7), 56.
Payne-Tsoupros, C. (2010, October). No Child Left Behind: Disincentives to focus instruction on students above the passing threshold. Journal of Law and Education, 39(4), 471-477.
Still, C. (2017, September 9). Title VII: A path to education equity. Education Week. Retrieved from https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2013/12/04/13still.h33.html.
Summary and purpose of NCLB title programs. (2020). U.S. Bureau of Indian Education. Retrieved from https://www.bie.edu/topic-page/supplemental-title-programs
Wright, W. E. (2019, April 1). The impact of the No Child Left Behind on ELL education. Colorín Colorado. Retrieved from https://www.colorincolorado.org/article/no-child-left-behind-and-ells.
No Child Left Behind Act (Public Law 107-110, 115), is a Congressional Act signed into law by George W. Bush in January 2002. The Bill was a bi-partisan initiative, supported by Senator Edward Kennedy, and authorized a number of federal programs designed to improve standards for educational accountability across all States, districts, and increase the focus on reading. Much of the NCLB focus is based on the view that American
There are over 4.4 million ELs enrolled in U.S. public schools, a number that has doubled during the last decade, making ELs roughly 10% of the total enrollment nationwide (Conrad 2005). The demographic increases demonstrate to government agencies that more needs to be done to support and ensure their integration and success in the educational process, and standardized testing in English is the least appropriate way to meet their
These authors note that the obstacles for ELL students are particularly challenging, given that they include both educational and technical issues. These challenges include the following: Historically low ELL performance and very slow improvement. State tests show that ELL students' academic performance is far below that of other students, oftentimes 20 to 30 percentage points lower, and usually shows little improvement across many years. Measurement accuracy. Research shows that the language
For Bush, the "formation and refining of policy proposals" (Kingdon's second process stream in policymaking) came to fruition when he got elected, and began talking to legislators about making educators and schools accountable. Bush gave a little, and pushed a little, and the Congress make its own changes and revisions, and the policy began to take shape. The third part of Kingdon's process stream for Bush (politics) was getting the
Moreover, the legislation contains loopholes that exempt some states from complying in some ways and it allows for some practices that distort the test results in some situations. These loopholes and exceptions are themselves impediments to any good science that might come from the testing regimes required (McDermott & Jensen, 2005). The authors of "Dubious Sovereignty" describe yet another of NCLB's contradictions. The proponents of the law say it protects
Many states don't want to lower their standards, including Minnesota, New Hampshire and Hawaii, and legislators have seriously debated withdrawing from NCLB, even though it would mean they would lose federal money that is tied to it. However, as the first national suit points out, no funding except the promised NCLB funding is supposed to be tied to it; the Education Department has apparently been making its own interpretation
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now