Commentary on the “No Child Left Behind Act”
...d on scientific research; expanded parental options; and expanded local control and flexibility. The law includes ten different sections, or titles which are: TITLE I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, TITLE II—Preparing, training, and recruiting high quality teachers and principals, TITLE III—Language instruction for limited English proficient and immigrant students, TITLE IV—21St century schools, TITLE V—Promoting informed parental choice and innovative programs, TITLE VI—Flexibility and accountability, TITLE VII—Indian, Native Hawaiian, and Alaskan native education, TITLE VIII—Impact aid program, TITLE IX—General provisions, TITLE X—Repeals, redesignations and amendments to other statutes (Public Law 107–110). The "No Child Left Behind" federal legislation, enacted a year ago, has not been credited with increases in American student achievement, but it is making its mark on the education landscape, and is changing the face of education in the United States. The No Child Left Behind Act encourages increased centralized and federal control of local school procedures and decisions. The model seeks causal relationships and requires employment of randomization in experiments and sophisticated statistical analyses of data. “Other research traditions including case studies, qualitative analyses, historical inquiries, and surveys, for example lie outside of this narrowed privilege” (Davis). Furthermore, the plan explicitly seeks transformation of the educational research enterprise its assumptions, conduct, and preparation of researchers from what it dismissively labels as opinion or ideology to research inquiries guided by strict adherence to scientific standards. The Act may be dangerous, because it creates the possibility that federal education authorities might dismantle local programs in physics or history or music because they are not performing according to research. “Government approval, in combination with its power to withhold or deny massive funds, creates a monopoly on the style and means of education” (Davis). Allowing the government to have such direct and ultimate control is a slippery slope. When in control of such power one must wonder, what’s next? Professional development, also, rather than being based on local educators' recognition of a particular problem in a particular school, may be constrained by some yet to be determined scientifically based professional improvement scheme announced in an all-hands directive authorized by anonymous Department of Education officials. On the other hand, the act has the possibility of greatly improving upon the educational landscape. The act allows schools to cut down on federal red tape and bureaucracy and enhance local control. This is because the Act will offer most local school districts in America the freedom to transfer up to 50 percent of the federal dollars they receive among several education programs without separate approval and the states will be able to transfer up to 50 percent of the non-Title I state activity funds they receive from the federal government without advance approval. Allowing for schools to have more direct control upon spending allows for more change within the schools. In addition to aiding with funding the Act expands the options for children from low...