The federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) expanded the federal role in American education, and by doing so altered the distribution of power among the federal government, states, and local districts. When the law was enacted, it was unclear how this change in the distribution of power would play itself out. This study examines the developing set of relationships between federal, state, and local officials under the new law and the factors that have contributed to a growing conflict over implementation. To fully understand the implications of NCLB requires examining these interactions as well as understanding the substantive educational issues it raises. We identify three factors that contributed to the growing dissatisfaction with the law, namely, the Bush administration's approach to federalism, the states’ limited capacity to meet the new requirements, and the fiscal constraints facing state governments. We argue that these factors have contributed to the conflict with federal officials, eroded state commitment to the law, and complicated implementation efforts.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AdkinsL. T. (2003, October 1). Federal act sends dozens more students to Kenwood. Hyde Park Herald, 1—2.
2.
AmreinA. L., and BerlinerD. C. (2002). High-stakes testing, uncertainty, and student learning. Retrieved August 22, 2003, from Education Policy Analysis Archives, 10(18) http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v10n18/
BoydD. (2003). The current state fiscal crisis and its aftermath. Albany, NY: The Nelson A. Rockefeller Institute of Government.
5.
BushG. W. (2003, January 8). President Bush celebrates first anniversary of No Child Left Behind. Remarks by the President on the first anniversary of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved March 23, 2003, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/01/20030108-4.html
6.
CibulkaJ. G. (1996). The reform and survival of American public school: An institutional perspective. Washington, DC: The Falmer Press.
7.
Connecticut State Department of Education. (2005, March 2). Cost of implementing the federal No Child Left Behind Act in Connecticut: State-level costs part I. Hartford, CT: Author.
8.
DriscollW., and FleeterH. (2003). Projected costs of implementing the federal “No Child Left Behind Act” in Ohio. Columbus, Ohio: Levin, Driscoll & Fleeter.
General Accounting Office. (2002). Title I: Education needs to monitor state's scoring of assessments. Washington, DC: Author.
11.
General Accounting Office. (2003a). No Child Left Behind Act: More information would help states determine which teachers are highly qualified. Washington D.C.: Author.
12.
General Accounting Office. (2003b). Title I: Characteristics of tests will influence expenses; information sharing may help states realize efficiencies. Washington, DC: Author.
13.
GewertzC., and ReidK. S. (2003). Hard choices: City districts making cuts. Education Week, 22(21), 1,14.
14.
GodwinK., and SheardW. (2001). Education reform and the politics of 2000. The Journal of Federalism, 31, 111—129.
15.
HeldermanR. S. (2003, September 12). Schools in VA fail federal standards, no area district satisfies new law. The Washington Post, p. B1.
16.
HenriquesD. B. (2003, September 2). Rising demands for testing push limits of its accuracy. New York Times, p. 1.
17.
HirschmanA. O. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
18.
ImazekiJ., and ReschovskyA. (2004). Is No Child Left Behind an un (or under) funded federal mandate? Evidence from Texas. National Tax Journal, 57, 571—88.
19.
JorgensenM. (2002, January 1). Can the testing industry meet growing demand?Issues in Science & Technology, 19.
20.
KaestleC. F., and SmithM. S. (1982). The federal role in elementary and secondary education, 1940–1980. Harvard Educational Review, 52(4), 384—408.
21.
KingdonJ. W. (1995). Agendas, alternatives, and public policies (2nd ed.). New York: Harper Collins.
22.
KnappM. S., StearnsM. S., TurnbullB. J., DavidJ. L., and PetersonS. M. (1991). Cumulative effects of federal education policies at the local level. In and and OddenA.R. (Ed.), Education policy implementation (pp. 105—124). New York: State University of New York Press.
23.
LovelessT. (1999). The tracking wars: State reform meets school policy. Washington D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
24.
MannaP. (2003). Federalism, agenda setting, and the development of federal education policy, 1965–2001. University of Wisconsin-Madison.
25.
MathisW. J. (2003, May). No Child Left Behind: Costs and benefits. Phi Delta Kappan, 84, 679—686.
26.
MichelauD. E., and ShreveD. (2002). Education reform from the top down. State Legislatures, 21—25.
MurphyJ. T. (1971). Title I of ESEA: The politics of implementing federal education reform. Harvard Educational Review, 41, 35—63.
29.
NathanR. P., GaisT. L., and FossettJ. W. (2003, November 7). Bush federalism: Is there one, what is it, and how does it differ? Paper presented at the Association for Public Policy Analysis and Management, Washington, DC.
30.
National Association of State Budget Officers. (2003). 2002 state expenditure report. Washington, DC: Author.
New Hampshire School Administrators Association. (2002, November 26). Memo regarding analysis of cost impact of ESEA (No Child Left Behind Act) on New Hampshire. Penacook, NH: Author.
37.
OddenA. (Ed.). (1991). Education policy implementation. New York: State University of New York Press.
38.
Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2004). Evaluation report: No Child Left Behind. St. Paul, MN: Office of the Legislative Auditor, State of Minnesota, Program Evaluation Division.
39.
OhlemacherS., and OkobenJ. (2003, March 6). Education hit hard by Taft's budget cuts. The Plain Dealer, p.1.
40.
PaigeR. (2002, October 22). Letter to the Chief State School Officers regarding implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act. Retrieved December 1, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/News/Letters/021022.html
41.
PalaichR., AugenblickJ., SilversteinJ., and BrownA. R. (2005, May). The cost of fulfilling the approved procedural requirements of NCLB in New Mexico. Denver, CO: Augenblick, Palaich and Associates, Inc.
42.
PetersonP. E., RabeB. G., and WongK. K. (1986). When federalism works. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.
43.
ReesN. (2003, October 8). Public school choice, letter to the editor. New York Times p. 30.
44.
SundermanG., and KimJ. (2004). Inspiring vision, disappointing results: Four studies on implementing the No Child Left Behind Act. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
45.
SundermanG. L., and OrfieldG. (2006). Domesticating a revolution: No Child Left Behind and state administrative response. Harvard Educationl Review, 76 (4), 526—556.
46.
SundermanG. L. (2006). The unraveling of No Child Left Behind. How negotiated changes transform the law. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project at Harvard University.
47.
Title I Report (January 2002). A detailed outline of provisions in H.R. 1 that make significant changes in Title I and related programs. Available at http://titlei.com/ishindex/jan02.htm
48.
Virginia Board of Education. (2003, June 9). Virginia's accountability system and “No Child Left Behind.” Richmond, VA: Virginia Board of Education.
49.
Virginia Department of Education. (2005, September 21). Report to the governor and general assembly on the costs of the federal No Child Left Behind Act to the Virginia Department of Education. Richmond, VA: Author.
50.
WineripM. (2003, October 1). In “No Child Left Behind,” a problem with the math. New York Times, p. 21.
