Will NCLB Improve or Harm Public Education?

Abstract

Drawing on their legal expertise and their experience working with public school districts, John W. Borkowski and Maree Sneed discuss the controversies surrounding the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). They acknowledge that its principal benefits lie in its recognition of the right of each child to learn and be assessed by high academic standards, as well as in the act's requirement that test results be disaggregated by race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, disability, and English language learner status. However, they critique the act's imposition of untested, federally mandated remedies driven by ideology rather than by scientific, educational research. These unproven, federally mandated remedies, along with inconsistencies in state and local implementation, are potentially more harmful than helpful. Finally, the authors examine the federal funding needed to implement additional tests, accountability measures, and the proven reforms necessary to improve educational outcomes. They argue that adequate funding has not been provided for these purposes, and that federal funds allotted for NCLB implementation should reflect the increases in resources necessary to improve public education and should be used for appropriate remedial measures designed and implemented at the state and local level. Borkowski and Sneed remain hopeful that with appropriate and consistent assessments, locally driven educational improvement measures, and adequate federal funding, NCLB can fulfill its promise to ensure educational equity for all students in American public schools.