Did No Child Left Behind L eave Our Children Behind?

1. Did No Child Left Behind Leave Our Children Behind? Charlon Gibbs Liberty University EDUC 518 Dr. Chris Taylor

2. Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was implemented by George Bush to help with the educational problems for this generation. This paper seeks to expose the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 and the negative effects on high school students. The NCLB legislation had the ultimate goal of ensuring schools closed the achievement gaps between all students, ensure students have every opportunity to be successful and implemented an accountability system to ensure states were meeting expected goals. The paper will review literature from several different resources with research based evidence proving schools have not closed the achievement gaps, but instead passed children along to the next grade levels without meeting the basic comprehension levels.

3. Purpose of study The purpose of this study is to examine whether the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 was beneficial for students. NCLB was a major reform implemented by George Bush in order to close the achievement gap being found in the educational school systems. The achievement gap was not just black and white, but also based on economical backgrounds. Many reforms have been implemented for the past 70 years; however, NCLB went to unseen levels of intervention to correct an increasing trend of wealthy and non-minority students excelling.

4. Research questions • Is there evidence to show an increase in test scores due to the implementation of NCLB? • Is there evidence that the achievement gap has been closed between all students? • What are the personal effects/consequences of NCLB on teachers, administrators, students, and parents?

5. hypotheses • There will be a negative correlation between the implementation of NCLB and test scores. • There will be no correlation between the implementation of NCLB and test scores. • N/A

6. Definition of variables • Current Test Data • Data from the past four years • Pre-Test Data • Data from the years 1998 - 2001 • Minority • African-American • Hispanic • Proficient • On or above grade level in the subject area • Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • Annual status check of identified data elements to determine whether schools and school districts are meeting state progress goals

7. Definition of key terms • No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 – President George W. Bush’s education reform passed in January 2002, which stated that all states across the U.S. will have 100% proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014. • Accountability - the responsibility of the schools, state, teachers, and students for failing scores. • Achievement - the goal and objective for the grade level have been accomplished successfully. • Literacy - ability of students to successfully read and write at or above grade level at the end of each academic year.

8. Definition of key terms cont’d • Mandate - the tests and assessments are required by local, state, and/or federal authority. • Comprehension - ability to understand all information being taught in the classroom and being able to understand the material on the standardized tests (Brummitt-Yale, 2008).

9. Review of literature • Duffy, M.; Giordano, V.A.; Farrell, J.B.; Paneque, O.M.; Crump, G.B. Counseling & Values. Oct 2008, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p53-66 • This quantitative study examined the feelings and consequences of those who are not benefiting from the mandates. The study also gives a brief overview how the goals and objectives of NCLB only focus on Reading and Mathematics, but the other subjects are left lacking and students are not well-rounded in other areas.

10. Review of literature • McDermott, K.A. What Causes Variation in States' Accountability Policies? Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X). 2003, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p153 • The article examines the educational conditions and resources, institutional characteristics, and political factors that contribute to shaping states' educational accountability policies. The article addresses accountability for schools and educators, rather than high-stakes tests for students, because of the emphases of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Prior to the implementation of NCLB, many of the states had already begun planning ways to change the educational standards for their low-performing schools and districts.

11. Review of literature • Auerbach, S. and Collier, S. Bringing High Stakes From the Classroom to the Parent Center: Lessons From an Intervention Program for Immigrant Families. Teachers College Record. March 2012, Vol. 114 Issue 3, Special section p1-40. 40p. • Article suggested teachers were not the only people who were handled the success and failures of the students. The Families Promoting Success (FPS) program was an intervention that trained parents in reading skills to improve student test scores in schools that had not met targets under NCLB. The district implemented the program in order to involve parents in helping students once they have left the school. The purpose of this study was to investigate what happens when low-performing urban schools bring high-stakes accountability pressures to parent programs to shed light on possible new directions in family engagement.

12. Gap in literature • The gaps in literature were based upon the researchers’ inability to study several groups from across the nation and develop conclusive findings to satisfy all ethnicities, demographics, regions, special education subgroups, and all other students within the United States. This would take a very long time; however, the results would be very interesting to compare how students from different regions within the United States compare to one another.

13. Learned from Literature review While reviewing the literature on NCLB, many similarities emerged showing there were negative results because of the federal educational system implementing these laws. There were more requirements placed on teachers and additional stress factors for teachers to meet the progress mandated by the government. Many schools were failing to meet the requirements and had to initiate several programs to help close the gap.

14. Future research • Since NCLB has expired, the new educational platform is centered around the Common Core State Standards. Future studies should focus on how and if the Common Core State Standards being adopted across the nation will support the NCLB legislation or how it differs. More research should be completed to verify if there were any successful parts of NCLB and how to expand upon those ideas.

15. Research design • Descriptive Research • The specific descriptive design would be correlational research because the study is seeking to “describe the statistical association between two or more variables” (MCREL, 2004). • A combination of qualitative and quantitative methods are best for this type of question because data may not tell the entire story and the research question should be answered entirely with all variables represented.

16. sampling • Students who were enrolled in school prior to NCLBand during NCLB (1998 – 2012) • Students and teachers from the following states: • North Carolina • Texas • Georgia • Oregon • Caucasian Students • African-American students • Latino/Hispanic Students

17. Methods of data collection • Interviews • Personal interview • Phone interview • Skype/Webinar interview • Questionnaires • Open-ended questions provide important detail and feedback • Test Results and Data • National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) • Individual State Websites

18. Data-analysis • It is important to emphasize that descriptive research methods can only describe a set of observations or the data collected. • Data from State Tests will be used to compare student growth. • Individual student scores will be compared to their previous scores (if the scores are increasing, decreasing or remaining the same) • Data from NAEP showing test scores from all years.

19. Data analysis • Descriptive statistics to examine the data • Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) to determine if there is a positive or negative relationship between the test scores each year.

20. Ethics and human concerns • There are a few ethical concerns which could arise during this study: • How to keep privacy and confidentiality of the people participating in the interviews and surveys. • This research is voluntary so participation in the study will not result in any gifts or any promised material or non-material things. • The participant will be informed about the purpose of the study and all procedures which will be used.

21. Ethics and human concerns • Adequate interpretation and representation of data must be addressed (Baker, 2012). • Human concerns: • Stressing the participant. • Requiring too much time for answering questions. • Interviews should be conducted in a relaxed environment (so interviewee does not feel pressured)

22. timeline • Months 1 – 3 to prepare questionnaires, gather participants and organize the study. • Months 4 – 9 will be used to collect data from the various websites, state testing websites, and results from questionnairesand interviews. • Months 10 to 14 will be used to analyze the information gathered.

23. References • Auerbach, S. and Collier, S. Bringing High Stakes From the Classroom to the Parent Center: Lessons From an Intervention Program for Immigrant Families. Teachers College Record. March 2012, Vol. 114 Issue 3, Special section p1-40. 40p. • Baker, T.D. Confidentiality and Electronic Surveys: How IRBs Address Ethical and Technical Issues. The Hastings Center. September-October 2012. Volume 34. Number 5. Retrieved from http://www.thehastingscenter.org/Publications/IRB/Detail.aspx?id=6001

24. References • Brummitt-Yale, J. (2011). The Relationship Between Reading and Writing. K12 Reader. Retrieved from http://www.k12reader.com/the-relationship-between-reading-and-writing/ • Duffy, M.; Giordano, V.A.; Farrell, J.B.; Paneque, O.M.; Crump, G.B. Counseling & Values. Oct 2008, Vol. 53 Issue 1, p53-66 • McDermott, K.A. What Causes Variation in States' Accountability Policies? Peabody Journal of Education (0161956X). 2003, Vol. 78 Issue 4, p153

25. References • MCREL. A Policymaker’s Primer on Education Research: How to Understand, Evaluate and Use it. February 2004. Retrieved from http://www.ecs.org/html/educationissues/research/primer/appendixa.asp