a lot of tired, burned-out teachers, and little or no funding to achieve the awesome job of remediation. Is there any doubt in anyone’s mind that this is an unfunded federal mandate being carried squarely on the backs of teachers?”
—School District President, Oregon Education Association
The National Education Association and the American Federation of Teachers have been forceful in their critique of No Child Left Behind. These organizations have criticized the legislation for putting the focus on teachers and targeting them for all the problems in schools. Former Education Secretary Rod Paige angered teachers when, during a White House meeting with governors, he called the nation’s largest teachers union a “terrorist organization.” Paige later said he was joking but stood by his claim that the 2.7 million-member National Education Association uses “obstructionist scare tactics” to oppose education reforms (King, 2004). While steadfast in their critique of NCLB, these organizations continue to offer informed recommendations for statutory changes and amendments to improve the act.
State Departments
“Too many children begin life disadvantaged, attend poor schools, learn little, drop out in school or in college, and wind up at the margins in low-skill, low-paying jobs. We have made progress in closing the gap, but not enough…. Both research and our progress so far show that people can achieve at much higher levels.”
—New York State Commissioner of Education (Hoff, 2005, p. 23)
“Here comes No Child Left Behind … and there go states’ rights.”
—State Department Official, Utah
Several state department of education leaders have criticized the legislation as yet another unfunded federal mandate and are calling for significant changes. Others are unhappy that the federal come-lately legislation interferes with the standards and assessment policies that they have been implementing and perfecting for years. States like Texas, North Carolina, and Colorado began requiring districts to test all students and report results by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and disability years before the federal government established the No Child Left Behind policy (Chaddock, 2004). While some states’ policies and practices were far ahead of the new federal policies, more than 20 other states have requested relief from and exceptions to the legislation; yet today, most of that early opposition has dissipated. As of early 2005, only the governors of Maine, Utah, and Vermont signed bills critical of the act.
School Boards
“I am absolutely infuriated. Whatever happened to local control of public education? Whatever happened to our elected politicians resisting this encroaching federalism? What on earth is going on?”
—School Board Member, Utah
Many school board members have been shocked and angered by the federal government imposing this mandate on their district policies and practices. School boards and administrators often see No Child Left Behind as an intrusive federal effort designed to erode the authority of local boards—a directive that requires significant new accountability without adequate fiscal support. Despite these widespread concerns, most board members tend to agree with the Act’s purpose of closing achievement gaps and holding high expectations for all students.
School Districts
“This NCLB law is untenable for our small district. Who is going to do all of this accounting and paperwork? Where is the money for more staff and technology?”
—Superintendent of a Rural School District, Nebraska
Most school districts in the United States are diligently working to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind; however, it has not been easy. Early resistance and disbelief have given way to a growing resolve that the law is here to stay, that all students can indeed succeed and reach proficiency, and perhaps most important, that change must occur if we are to make required progress.
Parents
“I know we need to help our school with the kids that are furthest behind, but I don’t want to see it coming out of the resources going to my child.”
—Parent, Michigan
Parents and parent groups, especially those from middle-class and affluent families, have expressed concern with the No Child Left Behind legislation. They fear that the resources for their children will be redirected toward underachieving poor and minority students, and that closing the achievement gap means lowering expectations and standards for the most successful students. More recently, news stories have focused not only on the lack of attention provided to high-achieving students, but also on the lack of attention to average students (“Class Focus,” 2005).
When Kati Haycock, executive director of the Education Trust, meets with parents and educators around the country and challenges them to replace their schools’ inferior curriculum for underachieving, poor, and minority students with a rigorous educational program and to start assigning experienced and qualified teachers to poor schools and classrooms, she often hears the same troubling response:
If schools eliminate the general education or vocational tracks, then who will become the next generation of plumbers, electricians, maintenance personnel, chefs, customer service employees, landscape technicians, and builders? … We could probably do what you are suggesting. We could put these kids in tougher classes. We could beef up the rigor of their assignments. We could assign them some of our strongest teachers, instead of novices. But I’m thinking about the black lady who served my room service breakfast this morning [at my hotel]. She seemed so very happy. And I am only thinking, if she had gone to college for even a little while, she probably wouldn’t be so happy. (Haycock, 2003, p. 2)
Analysis of Parent Perception Shows Encouraging Results
The 36th Annual Phi Delta Kappa/Gallup Poll showed that public school parents believe (by a margin of 2 to 1) that the No Child Left Behind legislation will improve student achievement. These findings show that No Child Left Behind is gaining support and momentum.
According to Susan L. Traiman, a proponent of No Child Left Behind and the director of Education and Workforce Policy for the Business Roundtable, “It is also encouraging that the more people know about the law, the more likely they are to favor it” (Rose & Gallup, 2004, p. 43). However, the poll found that two-thirds of the respondents still knew little about the law. As Traiman notes, their views may depend on whether they receive accurate facts or misinformation about the legislation. The language used in the poll’s questions, she believes, also has an impact and can lead to negative results; other polls have produced more positive responses, especially among African-American and Hispanic parents. Traiman notes, “I would have expected more favorable attitudes in this poll had respondents been given the facts about testing, including the percentages of students who cannot perform at even the basic level in reading and math” (p. 43).
Traiman believes that as the legislation moves all students toward proficiency, support will continue to grow from the public because No Child Left Behind supports learning in reading and math—the gateways to all other learning.
Fortunately, these reactions do not characterize the majority of parent voices in our public schools. Many other parents take exception to this thinking and suggest that class prejudice, bigotry, and institutional racism are the driving forces behind opposition to the legislation and it is about time that our schools focus on the most in-need students. Yet negative reactions do consistently appear, often providing opposition to
