Running head: FINAL REPORT 1

No Child Left behind Act

Report to Congress
on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
Name
University
29-September-2019
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 2

Table of Content

1. Executive Summary …………………………………………………………. 3

2. Introduction …………………………………………………………………...4

3. Impact of the Act on the local schools………………………………………...5

4. Protest………………………………………………………………………….6

5. Recommendations ……………………………………………………………7

6. Reference…………………………………………………………………… 8
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 3

Executive Summary

The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1963 (ESEA) was modified by the Act
of No Child left behind Act of 2001. The requirement of this act was to submit an annual report
to Congress that gives an elaborated data for state as well as National level data based on the data
collected by the Education department under the Title 1 .

This yearly report for the school year gives information on the topics given below.

 State standard and evaluation system

 Performance of the students
 Proficient in English language.
 Accountability
 Supplemental educational services.
 Trained teachers.

The report also contains multiyear data and summary data. The main objective of the ‘No
Child Left behind Act is to reduce the gap in accomplishment between American student that
cross the boundaries of sex, race, color, ethnicity status of an immigrant and rich. It is very
important to note that a country and economy is only successful only if the education is being
given to all level .

Many legislative bodies along with the state schools working hard for several years to
bring in improvement in the level of education for all the children and to narrow the achievement
gap . This act of 2001 does not include a new objective made for the nation level but it develops
struggle that were in a phase of development within states and across the whole country.

In March 2004, the Executive Committee of the National Conference of State

Legislatures made a Task Force of state specialists and authentic staff and referenced that they
spin around the rest of the two solicitations. It guided the Task Force to destroy the law, lead
hearings all through the nation, counsel with specialists and different specialists, look at the
reasonable organization and explore, and plan a far reaching course of action of suggestions
prepared toward improving the No Child Left Behind law, making it powerfully important,
dynamically open to arrangements among states and continuously compelling in improving basic
and right hand planning.

It includes the impact of this Act on the local school system. It also include such children
that have disability and partial English speaking proficiency in the evaluation desires of No Child
Left Behind that is a splendid objective . However it depicts the substantial challenges faced by
the states, schools and the districts. But the conflict is between NCLB and the individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). NCLB needs pupils with incapacities to be verified by score
level, though IDEA orders that pupils should be educated according to aptitude.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 4

Introduction

The objective of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB): to close or by and large
controlled the differences in accomplishment among American pupils that cross lines of skin ,
ethnicity, distant status and riches. The achievement of American lion's offer guidelines structure
and our financial future rely on a general populace wherein everybody is told to their most
extraordinary cutoff.

Through their drive of the rules based change advancement during the past two decades,
state overseers have demonstrated their motivation and creative mind in improving preparing
quality for all pupils and in keeping an eye on the educational achievement gap.

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which ended up fruitful in January 2002,
depends on state executives, other state policymakers and guidance specialists to execute the
enthusiastic changes it makes to the nation's state financed guidance and for its complete
accomplishment in raising the guidance achievement everything being equivalent. Directors
must adjust their states' laws, reasonable resources and find salary sources to meet the law's
necessities. Since of their occupations in their systems and their expert on preparing course of
action, state heads are in an ideal circumstance to know how the new law is working – - what
parts are illustrating convincing, which courses of action ought to be changed and what it costs to
realize the law.

Segment of the No Child Left Behind Act made fast energy among state chairmen also,
incited a remarkable number of solicitation to the National Conference of State Overseeing
bodies (NCSL) as for the substance of the law and its association with existing state guidance
goals. The request kept running from significantly particular to objective. It was clear that the
law had propelled an enthusiastic reaction over the political range, bringing out both vigorous
sponsorship and limitation in both ideological gatherings and among free thinkers,
conventionalists and moderates. Authorities' request to NCSL tumbled, as it were, into two
characterizations:

NCSL responded to this excitement by giving specific assistance with different state
authoritative focuses, taking note of many telephone and email requests, driving ventures for
administrators additionally, staff at national and regional social affairs, and giving a couple of
opportunities to Secretary of Education Rod Paige and other association specialists to offer their
perspectives on NCLB. The affiliation's boss met on a couple of occasions with Secretary Paige
and White House preparing specialists to compress overseeing bodies' experiences with the law
and to express support for alterations that could be made, especially through rules and other
administrative exercises.

NCSL plans to utilize this report to start a helpful discourse with Congress and the
organization that will prompt enhancements to the law and make its commendable objectives a
reality—simultaneously making it increasingly steady with the country's for some time built up
standards of federalism, state protected power and adaptability
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 5

The co-chair and individuals from the Task Force have discovered the previous 10
months hugely obliging and fulfilling. The Task Force is thankful to all who looked at the social
gatherings and contributed in different propensities to this report. Made by the Task Force has
pronounced our conviction that there is an enormous course of action of policymakers and
masters utilizing any methods levels of government who have submitted their lives to
guaranteeing a rich and fulfilling enlightening background for all kids. This report couldn't have
been managed without their assistance and the motivation they have given us.

Building up this report has been diligent work. We understand, however, that the hardest
piece of this undertaking—seeing that its proposals are screened completely in Congress and the
organization and at last embraced is simply starting. We anticipate that stage of the work with
eagerness and high expectations.

Impact of the Act on local schools

Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law produced results in 2002, it has sweepingly
affected U.S. state funded school study halls. It influences what pupils are instructed, the tests
that is taken, the training of their educators and the manner in which cash is spent on training.

Numerous incentives have been given to those schools who try to narrow gap between
mall group of pupils and increase academic achievement objectives. States are given authority to
use federal funds to give salary and bonuses to the teachers and also they are allowed to
designate such schools who have met the target and they are given the title of ‘Distinguished
schools’.

Amount is being given to train the teachers. It is very important that parents must
know that the districts have authority and flexibility to spend the amount the way they find
it appropriate. They are allowed to utilize and spend the fund give to them by Federal that
they can use to train and retain good quality trained teachers especially for the math and
science teacher.

Grants are given to read instruction, in this every child is given the opportunity
through reading first program to learn how to read well by using ‘scientifically based’
research .States are again given authority to use the fund to design new and innovative
programs to enhance reading .

Flexibility in using the fund to train teachers by developing such training programs
and have leeway to spend around 50% of the non-Title 1 fund to give training to the
teachers , enhance their technological skills, workshops, and to develop a secure a drug free
school New guidelines gave in October 2008 make it simpler for schools to utilize Title I
assets for effort to guardians to settle on them mindful of their school decision and free
mentoring alternatives.

The generous, autonomous Center on Education Policy discharges yearly report

cards on NCLB. The association, which supporters for government funded schools,
overviewed instruction authorities in 50 states and gave the law a blended report card in
2006.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 6

Regions are better adjusting classroom instructing with state academic principles.
Teachers and staff members are using the result by evaluating and finding ways to improve
their teachings. Teachers report high sentiments of tension and poor staff resolves in
perspective on the strain to improve scores. Most school areas are diminishing social
examinations, science, workmanship or various subjects to make greater open door for
scrutinizing and math, the subjects that are attempted. Marks on states assessments are
greater in a large majority of states and school districts.

The results shows different result of achievement gaps amongst different group of
pupils of various races, ethnicities is still not clear. There are reports from different sates
and districts that the gap between achievements in these test have reduced and some say that
they have remained the same. Hence the study shows that it is not possible to reach to and
overall assumptions’ about these achievement gap.

Protest

Due to a strict law and penalties there has been a very aggressive effect as protest
occurred due to the law and officials protest that the Act needs them to spend money that
they don’t have it

The single greatest analysis is that the government has not completely financed the
law, a charge the Bush organization counters by saying that the law is an association
between the U.S. government and the states.

Others discuss that this law executes a very hard solution to issues that can be better
resolved at both the State and local level .In 2005 Utah certain to fine federal cash than to
track the law. New regions and federations have recorded a legal test or are anticipating
them.

Numerous urban and provincial schools face remarkable difficulties in teaching

pupils and, as a result, in gathering the prerequisites of No Child Left Behind. The law,
generally, doesn't perceive these distinctions and, rather, forces a uniform arrangement of
prerequisites that all schools must meet. A portion of the difficulties looked by urban
schools identify with their heterogeneity and the enormous number of subgroups they have
because of their decent variety. In expansion, urban schools share with country schools the
difficulties of giving school decision what's more, supplemental administrations. School
decision is troublesome in a urban region where numerous other schools in the area are
recognized as requiring improvement; and it is troublesome in rustic zones due to the long
separations between schools. The geology of country schools presents extra difficulties to
state funded training, including access to supplemental help suppliers.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 7

Recommendations

States can make tests more straightforward with the objective that more pupils can
satisfy the rules. Many Critics discuss that this is really what has happened from time to
time. Moreover, regardless of an essential in the law that parents be allowed to move
children out of unsafe schools, not a single one of California's more than 9,000 schools has
ever been named "always dangerous," a conclusion that was being discussed by the
government chiefs.

Military officials have right to get the information about the students but if parents
oppose this practice then they must be kept out of the list but unfortunately schools have not
made this point clear with the parents.

The state must put in more effort to enhance the system in particular areas. Congress
must work on to make state and federal partnership amongst them in order to bring in
harmony and diversity amongst state and they should shift their focus from the procedures
and needs to fulfil the result. It is the duty of the Congress to eradicate ambiguity
concerning the law’s funds. A study must be conducted in order find if the law is unfunded.
It should be the responsibility of the U.S Department of Education to generate a transparent
and identical procedure for the consideration of the waiver’s application.

States should be allowed to use multiple methods of testing rather than just relying on
the same method of testing. States should be allowed to intervene in that school where there
is a need for improvement.

Give states adaptability in deciding the level of a specialized curriculum understudies who
can be tried by their capacity, not their evaluation level. Enable states to decide the proper
time to utilize local language tests and English-just tests. Correct the law so specialized
curriculum educators who encourage various subjects can meet the meaning of a profoundly
qualified educator without demonstrating content information in each subject. States should
be allowed to consider such teachers teaching different subjects to be considered as a trained
and high qualified teacher. It is recommended to increase funding for the law by the federal.
NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT 8

References

Bergstrom, Theodore, Daniel Rubinfeld, and Perry Shapiro. 1982. “Micro-Based Estimates of

Demand Functions for Local School Expenditures,” Econometrica, 50, 1183-1206.

Reitz, Matthew. 2007. “The Cost of Proficiency: Assessing the Financial Impact of NCLB at The

High School Level.” Thesis. The Pennsylvania State University.

Reschovsky, Andrew and Jennifer Imazeki. 2003. “Let No Be Child Left Behind: Determining

the Cost of Improving Student Performance,” Public Finance Review, 31, 263-290.

Reid, Gary, 1990. “The Many Faces of Tiebout Bias in Local Education Demand Parameter

Estimates,” Journal of Urban Economics, 27, 232-254.

Silva, Fabio and Jon Sonstelie. 1995. “Did Serrano Cause a Decline in School Spending,”

National Tax Journal, 48, 199-215.

US Department of Education. 2010. State Funding History Tables.

http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/history/index.html