This paper examines two major federal education laws — the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) — through three analytical lenses: need identification, policy evaluation, and reflective analysis. The paper identifies the needs of affected children and families, summarizes each policy's stated goals and services, and weighs their respective strengths and weaknesses. Key findings include unrealistic proficiency timelines under NCLB, flawed testing calibration, and widespread state non-compliance with IDEA, largely attributed to inadequate funding. The paper concludes that while both laws reflect noble intentions, significant gaps exist between their stated aims and real-world outcomes.
This paper analyzes two significant pieces of federal education legislation: the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The analysis proceeds in three major parts: need identification, policy evaluation, and reflection. The need identification section examines the needs of people and families affected by NCLB and IDEA. The policy evaluation section covers the policy's stated goals, the needs met or services provided, policy strengths, policy weaknesses and challenges, the stated impact versus actual impact, and issues not addressed by the policy. The reflection section offers a concise and comprehensive review of the findings from the previous sections. While the intentions and goals of both NCLB and IDEA were noble, the outcomes were fairly and obviously at odds with what was originally expected.
For those subject to and affected by No Child Left Behind, the families of children under the law's purview need basic necessities such as food and shelter, while the children themselves need a quality education that enables them to become productive members of society — regardless of the path they choose as adults. The IDEA program similarly serves a population with pressing needs: children with learning disabilities who require specialized instruction and support from birth through age 21 in order to reach their full potential.
The NCLB website is hosted as a sub-page of the U.S. Department of Education. Its stated goals include effective teaching, accountability and reporting, and expanded choices for parents (NCLB, 2015). The strengths of NCLB include the principle that the federal government should play a meaningful role in education, the law's establishment of one hundred percent proficiency as an aspirational goal, and the use of standardized testing as a measurable tool for assessing that proficiency.
However, the weaknesses are substantial. State constitutions also govern education, creating jurisdictional complexity. Achieving one hundred percent proficiency within the twelve-year timeline specified by the bill is not realistic. Furthermore, the test scoring methods employed are not properly calibrated. Loopholes have allowed data to be cherry-picked and manipulated, meaning the stated impact of NCLB is far less authentic than what is actually occurring in schools. An issue not adequately addressed in the policy is the absence of a realistic timeline for achieving target test scores, alongside the broader unreliability of the testing system itself (Arkansas, 2005).
The IDEA program is also administered under the U.S. Department of Education. It is specifically designed for children with learning disabilities and is divided into two major parts: Part B, covering ages 3 to 21, and Part C, covering birth to age 2 (IDEA, 2015). A strength of IDEA is that parents are enthusiastically behind the law and its efficacy. However, a significant weakness — and a gap between stated and actual outcomes — is that no states are in full compliance with the law. This non-compliance effectively functions as a loophole, allowing schools to continue operating without meeting the law's requirements. The primary issue not adequately addressed in the legislation appears to be funding: a shortage of resources seems to be the principal reason for widespread non-compliance (Wright's Law, 2015).
Both programs discussed above have noble intentions and are largely structured in a functional way. However, funding shortfalls and configuration problems are clearly preventing either law from performing at the level it could or should achieve. School-age children and their parents depend on these programs to build a strong future — not only for themselves, but for America as a whole. Addressing the gaps between stated goals and real-world outcomes must be a priority for policymakers going forward.
Arkansas. (2005). NCLB debate. University of Arkansas, Office of Education Policy. Retrieved 24 July 2015, from http://www.uark.edu/ua/oep/policy_briefs/2005/NCLB_Debate.pdf
"Parental support, state non-compliance, and funding gaps"
Wright's Law. (2015). IDEA reauthorization: Information, resources, reports from Wrightslaw. Wrightslaw.com. Retrieved 24 July 2015, from http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/idea2002.resources.htm
You’re 94% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 1 section.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.