No Child Left Behind

THE FEDERAL journey into public has followed a long and winding road. Most educators know that the federal No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is simply the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which dates all the way back to 1965. In the years since its initial passage, the ESEA road has taken a number of turns and has been reauthorized many times, in various forms, under various names. The 1994 reauthorization, for example, was called the Improving America's Schools Act. In the past, ESEA was seen as a positive, supportive law, designed to help local school districts provide equitable and adequate to children who face challenging and expensive hurdles to learning. This segment included students with disabilities, poor children, and children whose first language is not English. About five years ago, ESEA reached a fork in the road, and the decision was made to go down the very different NCLB road. This new path was carved out of the landscape by the kind of high-stakes accountability that is based on inexpensive standardized tests and comes with an extremely narrow focus on low-level knowledge and skills. In addition, NCLB replaces decision making by those closest to the students in the school community (e.g., teachers, parents, school boards, and site-based councils) with rigid control by the federal government. The NCLB path has been fraught with numerous unintended consequences. Most fundamentally, NCLB fails to address the needs of the whole child and reduces the guiding purpose of public from the development of effective and contributing citizens to an unending quest for higher scores on tests that cannot assess what we value most in a democratic society--things like critical and creative thinking, problem solving, effective and persuasive communication, cooperation, perseverance, caring, respect, and appreciation for diversity. These qualities empower citizens to thrive in a democratic society and in our complex, ever-changing world, and they cannot be measured on the easy-to-score, paper-and-pencil tests that are the centerpiece of NCLB's accountability policy. The good news, however, is that these important qualities can be demonstrated by means of 21st-century, real-world, authentic performance assessments and that our schools can be encouraged to foster them through rich, meaningful, empowering learning experiences in caring, high-participation learning environments. The bad news is that NCLB's focus on once-a-year, multiple-choice tests--until 2007 in just two subjects--actually works against such a learner-empowering approach. In other words, the aspirations of Sen. Kennedy and the other architects of NCLB that our public schools would guarantee every child in America, regardless of race, economic background, language or disability, the opportunity to get a world-class have deteriorated into the pursuit of a single reading score and a single math score per year on low-level, paper-and-pencil tests. NCLB's advocates call this achievement--as if there were no other indicators of student learning and performance. Why this profound reduction of aspirations? Because NCLB's accountability provisions mean that the test scores themselves have become the motivators and chief driving force of the system. Educators, students, and their schools face stiff consequences if these predetermined test-score standards are not met every year. Hence, in too many U.S. schools, education for life has been reduced to preparation for tests, and as a result the teachers in those schools are witnessing the serious discouragement of their students and colleagues. The more teachers are compelled to focus on producing scores, the less time they have to focus on the learning that they feel will most benefit their students in the long run. …

THE National Education Association (NEA) has been asked whether we endorse petition (see page 273) being circulated by Educator Roundtable that calls on members of U.S. Congress to vote against reauthorization of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The short answer? Absolutely not. While initiators of petition are well meaning and share many of same concerns NEA has about NCLB, petition does not represent our views. For example, it calls for dismantling of NCLB and does not propose any positive changes or alternatives, such as those articulated in our own document, ESEA: It's Time for a Change: NEA's Positive Agenda for ESEA Reauthorization. The NEA agrees with many of 16 reasons articulated in petition that argue why law cannot be salvaged. However, association disagrees with petition's conclusion--that NCLB should be repealed. Instead, we believe that several substantive changes that overhaul statute would produce a far better result. In addition, there is no chance that Congress will repeal NCLB. Those who do not articulate a positive set of changes to law will simply not be at table in negotiating any improvements to it. Furthermore, NCLB is current version of Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), so it's not clear what repealing NCLB would actually mean. Eliminating ESEA and its important programs such as Title I? Reverting back to 1994 version of ESEA, which would eliminate key provisions added in 2002, such as strengthened rights for homeless children? Or eliminating law's negative features, such as adequate yearly progress (AYP) and annual testing provisions? Among positive provisions mandated by NCLB is disaggregation of student data. That requirement alone has highlighted deficiencies in educational opportunities for several groups of students. In addition, NCLB has good intentions--closing achievement gaps between various groups of students, raising overall student achievement (at least as measured on statewide tests in reading and math), and ensuring that all students have highly qualified teachers. However, NEA has long argued that law's good intentions have gone seriously awry. While Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings has said that NCLB is like Ivory Soap; it's 99.9% pure or something ... there's not much needed in way of change, reality is that it is not working. Among its myriad flaws and negative outcomes are a narrowing of curricula and projection that virtually all schools will eventually fail to meet its one-size-fits all, all-or-nothing AYP mandate. There is also little evidence that NCLB has directly contributed to its own major goal--raising student test scores. In addition, law has significant flaws in how it tests and counts test scores earned by both English-language learners and students with disabilities. And its regimen of consequences, sanctions, and punishments has no research base and has not been shown to help close achievement gaps. Finally, NCLB is seriously underfunded--with cumulative shortfall between amounts actually appropriated and amounts authorized in law exceeding $56 billion over six years. The NEA is not alone in calling for fundamental changes in law. A coalition of more than 129 national groups--including NAACP (National Association for Advancement of Colored People), Children's Defense Fund, National PTA, National Council of Churches, and National Alliance of Black School Educators--has called for 14 changes to law, noting that the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making systemic changes that improve student achievement.(1) Let's take a look at some of these flaws and failures in more depth. …

Control over education is a power that the Constitution reserves for the states, not the federal government. But, for the reasons Ms. McColl explains in this article, answering the question she raises in the title is not such an easy matter. THE No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, has become a symbol of all things good and bad in education. While the basic concepts of the legislation -- accountability for results, research-based education programs, increased parental options, and expanded local control and flexibility -- have wide support, some critics have argued that NCLB has failed to deliver.1 Others have focused on how best to implement its provisions.2 Although this scrutiny of the requirements and outcomes of NCLB is crucial to the policy debate, the law has largely escaped a more fundamental review, and answers to the following questions are needed: Has Congress overstepped its legal authority with No Child Left Behind? Is NCLB a constitutional exercise of congressional power, or does it infringe on states' rights? What is the role of the U.S. Department of Education (ED) in addressing ambiguities in the law? Answering these questions requires a close examination of federalism as it is expressed in the U.S. Constitution and interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court. call to examine the law in this light comes with a warning: reaching conclusions about whether Congress acted within the limits of its constitutional authority may cause some discomfort. Liberals may find their customary inclination to favor a more expanded role for the federal government to be in conflict with their concern about the substance of NCLB. Conservatives may similarly find their general bias in favor of states' rights to be in conflict with their support for the accountability and school-choice elements of NCLB. And if the courts ignore, as they should, both the politics surrounding NCLB and its education reform goals, the results of a legal challenge could be interesting, indeed. A conservative Supreme Court may ultimately conclude that President George W. Bush's education agenda exceeds constitutional bounds. Is There Constitutional Authority for NCLB? There is little dispute over whether NCLB represents an unprecedented level of federal involvement in the affairs of our public schools. However, there is disagreement between the law's supporters, who hail this federal intrusion into state and local education as effective national reform, and its detractors, who argue that the intrusion consists of a set of politically motivated mandates that are detrimental to our schools. language of NCLB speaks to the sweeping authority intended by its passage: The purpose of the title is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments. To accomplish this, NCLB sets extensive requirements for states, including establishing an accountability system and staffing schools with high-quality professionals. This level of federal intrusion into a domain typically under state control raises legal questions because Congress must act within the limits of federal authority established by the U.S. Constitution. Constitution reflects a careful balance between the powers of the federal government and those of the states. James Madison argued, The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite.3 Constitution defines this balance in the 10th Amendment: The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people. Past court decisions, most notably San Antonio v. …

Changes Proposed to No Child Left Behind

Advocating for All Children

As we look to the future, it is imperative that we recognize that our national effort to raise standards is not just about testing, Mr. Riley notes. Rather, it represents a broad and sweeping endeavor to reform American education from top to bottom. An unflinching commitment to excellence and equity must be our guiding principle. WHEN President Clinton took office in 1993, it was clear that American education needed to be strengthened at every level. Ten years had passed since the release of A Nation at Risk, which alerted many people to the woefully inadequate state of American education. Yet, because of a lack of rigor, standards, and funding at the local, state, and national levels, the crisis had continued. High-poverty schools were beset by the tyranny of low expectations, and there was little in the way of a national consensus on what to do about it. The idea of higher standards for all children was emerging, but only in fits and starts. Just a handful of states and communities were consistently engaged in pursuing high standards, and the progress was slow. Many people doubted or simply did not believe in the fundamental principle underlying the standards movement: that we should have high expectations for all children -- including poor children, children with disabilities, and the many new immigrant children flooding into our nation's classrooms. Thus in 1993 American education was struggling to redefine itself, as well as to respond to the many new demands being placed on it. In many respects, we were unprepared. Yet, over the next eight years, a remarkable transformation took place. Improving education moved to the top of the nation's domestic agenda, and a national consensus formed around the need to raise standards for all children, increase accountability, close the achievement gap, and reach clear national education goals. And instead of being eliminated, as sought by some in leadership positions, the U.S. Department of Education once again became the recipient of bipartisan congressional support that resulted in new and increased funding. Credit for this remarkable turnaround must go largely to the American people -- the parents, teachers, school boards, principals, superintendents, and others who dug in their heels and demanded a new level of excellence for their children. And no one was more gifted than President Clinton in rallying the American people around this call to make education a new national priority. The Clinton/Gore Agenda To challenge the status quo, our Administration focused the federal government on supporting state reforms. We sought to align federal programs with state reforms so that decisions would be made closer to the classroom and the system would be less chaotic. Our proposals were based on three connected and defining principles: high standards for all children, new accountability measures linked to high standards, and new investments to improve the quality of education for all children. The task was not easy. It took a lot of hard work to pass the Goals 2000 Act in 1994. I remember my staff and me working in my office until midnight to track down senators before the final vote. Three senators who had already returned to their home states actually flew back to Washington to make sure we had enough votes to win passage. We made more progress in the 1994 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which, among other things, ended the practice of giving poor children a watered-down curriculum and framed the issue of accountability. Unfortunately, this progress soon gave way in 1995 and 1996 to a bitter battle over the very existence of the U.S. Department of Education. The intensity of this fight should not be forgotten. Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) and his followers held true to their belief that the best U. …

ABOUT THE AUTHORS PREFACE: By What Means? The Devil is in The Details! (Fenwick English). INTRODUCTION: NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND, SYMBOLISM OR REALITY? (Frank Brown and Richard C. Hunter) PART I: EDUCATIONAL EQUITY AND NCLB. Fiscal Equity Under Title I and Non-Title I Schools in Local School Districts. (Jim Lyons). NCLB and Diversity in Schools. (Stephen B. Lawton). School Choice and Equity under NCLB In The Post-Brown Era. (Frank Brown). No Child Left Behind: The Balm of Gilead Has Arrived in American Education. (Philip T.K. Daniel). NCLB and the New ESEA Title I Program: Poverty and Education. (Richard C. Hunter). Reconceptualizing Accountability in Urban Schools. (Carolyn Talbert-Johnson and Charles J. Russo). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and Charter Schools. (Preston Green and Joseph Oluwole). Struggling to Mend it or End it: Legal and Legislative Issues in the Brief History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. (Saran Donahoo and Norman Greer). Title VII, Bilingual Education of NCLB and Immigrant Students in Urban Schools. (Reynaldo Contreras). PART II: NCLB AND PROCESS Accountability, High Stakes Testing and No Child Left Behind. (Linda Tillman). Resiliency Among African American male students. (Tawannah Alan). The Achievement Gap and the No Child Left Behind Act: Is There a Connection. (Mark A. Gooden and Teresa Y. Nowlin). Public Education in an Era of Neo-Liberal Globalization: The Broken Promise of No Child Left Behind. (Jite Eferakorho). Democratic Notions Informing Equity in Mathematics Education. (Lecretia A. Buckley). Public School Choice: The New K-12 Desegregation Model? (Dawn G. Williams). The Role of Parents under NCLB. (Richard C. Hunter). Educational Equity, Globalization, and the No Child Left Behind Act. (Frank Brown). Immigration, Urban Schools, and Accountability. (Xue Lan Rong). A Nation Still at Risk: No Child Left Behind and the Salvation of Disadvantaged Students. (M. Christopher Brown II, T. E. Dancy II, & Nicole Norfles).

Numerous researchers (e.g., Academic Pathways to Access and Student Success, 2006, ACT, Inc., 2009; Bragg, Kim, & Barnett, , 2006; College Board, 2010; Hargrove, Godin, & Dodd, 2008; Keng & Dodd, 2008; Morgan & Klaric, 2007) have concluded that participating in challenging high school curriculums such as Advanced Placement (AP) courses and exams positively contribute to students' college readiness, college achievement, and career success. Specifically mentioned in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2002) was the AP program as a college prep course (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). Moreover, Section 1702 (Access to High Standards Act) of the No Child Left Behind Act acknowledged federal confirmation of AP coursework as college prep curriculum and encouraged states and school districts to incorporate these programs as a means of elevating academic standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2004). In his 2006 State of the Union Address, President George W. Bush thrust the AP program into mainstream education; accordingly, the national perception on AP program involvement increased (Klopfenstein & Thomas, 2009).In a policy brief for the Education Commission of the States (ECS), Dounay (2006) recommended an all-inclusive state policy on advanced placement. First, each state and school district should require a minimum number of AP courses to be offered. As a result, state policy would provide consistency in AP content and leverage AP curriculum offerings in low-income and high minority schools. Second, a state-wide AP framework would establish standards and opportunities for all students to gain access to college preparatory courses. As the result, the federal government, along with most states, and the College Board subsidizes AP exam fees for low-income students. In addition, most states (including Texas, New York, and Florida) provide additional incentives for students and teachers of students who achieve AP exam scores of 3 or higher (Holstead et al., 2010). In September 2006, U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings announced that 33 grants in the amount of $17 million were awarded to increase the participation of low-income students in AP courses and exams. In 2006, an additional $5,867,284 was awarded to 26 states to fund AP exam subsidies programs (U.S. Department of Education, 2006).In 2012, Arne Duncan, the current Secretary of Education, announced that federal support of AP program incentives and exam subsidies were reinstated (U. S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2012). Over $21.5 million was budgeted to subsidize AP exam fees. As the result of these financial awards, the federal government continued to acknowledge AP course and exam participation as curriculum of college readiness and success. Although funding for AP programs and exams was approved, researchers (e.g., Davis, Joyner, & Slate, 2011; Moore & Slate, 2008) have documented the persistent AP achievement and participation gaps among Black students in the United States. Specific to this study, few researchers (Davis, Joyner, & Slate, 2011; Koch; 2012) have investigated AP program involvement and performance of ethnically diverse, primarily lower socioeconomic, student groups across states.PURPOSE OF THE STUDYThe purpose of this study was to determine the cost effectiveness of covering AP exam fees by comparing the success value provided by overall AP exam outcomes to test expenditures for Black students in three researcher-selected states (i.e., Texas, New York, and Florida). According to the Centers for Disease Control (n.d.), cost-effectiveness analysis is commonly used in the health care industries to confirm if the intervention and the results desired validate the cost or investment. As it pertains to this research, cost-effectiveness analysis compares the costs of AP exam to the results or level of success on these exams. In addition, the cost effectiveness analysis evaluates the extent to which AP achievement can be regarded as providing value for the dollars spent (Davis, 2013). …

It has been several years since the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was renamedthe No Child Left Behind Act. In this major expansion of the federal role in education, the No Child LeftBehind (NCLB) Act of 2001 required annual testing, specified a method for judging schooleffectiveness, set a timeline for progress, and established specific consequences in the case of failure(Wenning, 2003). The Washington Post referred to it as the "broadest rewriting of federal educationpolicy in decades"(Milbank, 2002). The effects of the overwhelming pressure to perform well on thePennsylvania System of School Assessment (PSSA) tests on teachers, students, and parents hadbrought about "PSSA Panic and Paranoia." Although strides have been made in overcoming the stressand pressure created by these tests, teachers (veteran and new), parents, and students are stillshowing signs of panic and paranoia. Now, young professionals entering this challenging field ofteaching are also affected by the implementation of the NCLB legislation. The domino effect isprofoundly influencing the education profession. The government pressures the state, the statepressures the schools, the schools pressure the educators, the educators pressure the parents andstudents, parents pressure the students and teachers, and finally, the students pressure themselves.Panic as defined by Dictionary.com Unabridged is "a sudden overwhelming fear, with or without cause,which produces hysterical or irrational behavior, and that often spreads quickly through a group.Paranoia is defined as "a baseless or excessive suspicion of the motives of others characterized bysystematized delusions and the projection of personal conflicts" (Random House, 2006). Signs of this"PSSA panic and paranoia" are still present today. Dedicated educators had embraced the challengethat President Bush put before them. Just as Ronald Edmonds had lectured years ago, teachersbelieve that effective schools do have closely monitored student achievement and orderly environmentscharacterized by high expectations. Upon recognizing the positive aspects of the legislation, it isimportant to recognize what it is lacking. Two of these weaknesses attributing to the panic andparanoia are the amount of skills tested in a specified time frame and unrealistic, not high,expectations placed on teachers and students.

This thesis addresses the attempts made by the U.S. federal government to test education vouchers during the late 1960s and 1970s in response to the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Specifically, it will examine the demonstration at Alum Rock Elementary School District in eastern San Jose, California from 1972-76, and the two subsequent efforts which failed to make it past the planning stages in East Hartford, Connecticut and the state of New Hampshire from 1973-76. I will argue that all three voucher experiments planned or implemented by the federal government during the 1970s failed as a direct result of a Great Society context which emphasized regulation and compensatory funding, as well as the historical usage of vouchers by segregationists. In order to prove this argument, I will emphasize the way that fears concerning segregation, as well as the efficacy of vouchers in relation to pre-existing education models were at the forefront of the critiques made against vouchers by federal legislators, state and city governments, and local school district populations in all three cases. First, I will clarify the segregationist background of vouchers by examining the attempts by Virginians to use vouchers as a means to continue segregated education inPrinceEdwardCountyfrom 1956-1969. In the second and third sections, I will show how these ideas concerning vouchers on behalf of segregationists were adopted and reshaped by academic and religious figures during the second half of the 1960s in a way that would appeal to the Johnson and Nixon administrations. In the final two sections, I will discuss the three experiments and show how they were deemed unnecessary at both the federal and local levels. I will conclude with a discussion of why education vouchers today are no longer seen as a revolutionary force in education capable of replacing the ESEA.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderPolicy Analysis1 Sep 2007Reauthorization of No Child Left Behind Inches Ahead Neil Snyder Neil Snyder Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.PA2.12132007.38 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In Reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is uncertain as Congress returns from its summer break, but legislators have made a preliminary move. On Aug. 28, Reps. George Miller (D-Calif.), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee, and Howard “Buck” McKeon (R-Calif.), chairman and ranking member of the Committee on Education and Labor, released a staff discussion draft of Title 1 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The draft was developed through input received at nearly two dozen congressional hearings and from discussions with many groups, including ASHA, about re-authorization legislation. The information, along with ASHA’s comments, can be viewed on the “Take Action” Web site. Comments were due by Sept. 5. The draft focused on Title 1, the core of NCLB, which includes assessment requirements, aggregated data, and other hot-button issues. NCLB, first passed in 2002, includes 12 titles. Some reports speculate that Miller will introduce a major re-authorization bill and move it through his committee as early as this month. ASHA is promoting several NCLB reforms, including greater access to professional development opportunities for members, public disclosure of professional qualifications of teachers and school-based SLPs and audiologists, the use of multiple measurements for assessing children with disabilities, and improvements to Early Reading First and Reading First programs. Although public sentiment supports re-opening and repairing the law, politics behind it may prevent a quick resolution. Nearly a dozen members of the House and Senate are running for re-election, and thus are focused on their campaigns. It may be impossible to pass a bill through two legislative chambers for signature by the president before the current administration ends in 2008. Education Programs Update ASHA is supporting H.R. 3419, the Reducing Barriers to Learning Act of 2007, introduced by Rep. Dave Loebsack (D-Iowa). Loebsack’s bill would establish an Office of Specialized Instructional Support Services in the U.S. Department of Education (DOE) and provide grants to state educational agencies to reduce barriers to learning. No position or office within the DOE is responsible for coordinating federal government efforts involving school-based professionals such as SLPs, audiologists, occupational therapists, physical therapists, psychologists, counselors, and social workers. In his bill, Loebsack cites “70% of children receiving services from speech-language pathologists make progress in emergent literacy skills, and 75% make progress in word recognition, an important component of literacy skills; over two-thirds of classroom teachers report that students receiving these services show improved reading skills in the classroom.” IDEA, last re-authorized in 2004, is not scheduled for another review until 2010. The Higher Education Act, already passed by the Senate, is in progress in the House. Visit the “Take Action” Web site to contact members of Congress or visit the ASHA NCLB Web site for more information. NCLB Web sites U.S. Department of Education Commission on NCLB House Education& Labor Committee, Democrats House Education & Labor Committee, Republicans Library of Congress, Thomas Legislative Information Author Notes Neil Snyder, director of federal advocacy, can be reached at at [email protected] or 800-498-2071, ext. 4257. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 12Issue 13September 2007 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Sep 1, 2007 Metrics Downloaded 58 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2007 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

Richard Murnane observes that the American ideal of equality of educational opportunity has for years been more the rhetoric than the reality of the nation's political life. Children living in poverty, he notes, tend to be concentrated in low-performing schools staffed by ill-equipped teachers. They are likely to leave school without the skills needed to earn a decent living in a rapidly changing economy. Murnane describes three initiatives that the federal government could take to improve the education of these children and increase their chances of escaping poverty. All would strengthen the standards-based reforms at the heart of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) by bracing the three legs on which the reforms rest: accountability, incentives, and capacity. Congress, says Murnane, should improve accountability by amending NCLB to make performance goals more attainable. The goals should emphasize growth in children's skills rather than whether children meet specific test score targets. Congress should also amend NCLB to develop meaningful goals for high school graduation rates. Congress should strengthen states' incentives to improve the education of low-income students. It should also encourage states to develop effective voluntary school choice programs to enable students who attend failing public schools to move to more successful schools in other districts. Finally, Congress should use competitive matching grants to build the capacity of schools to educate low-income children and the capacity of state departments of education to boost the performance of failing schools and districts. The grants would help develop effective programs to improve teaching and to serve students who do not fare well in conventional high school programs. Murnane estimates the annual cost of these three initiatives to be approximately $2.5 billion.

Public Law 107–110, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, represents the most sweeping reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since it was enacted in 1965. The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is to improve the academic achievement of all American students so that they all meet their own state’s standards for competence by 2014. The law focuses on closing the achievement gap that exists among the economically disadvantaged, those with limited English proficiency, racial/ethnic minorities, and students receiving special education services. The No Child Left Behind Act has created both support and controversy in education circles. Although the No Child Left Behind Act does not legislate the practice of school nursing, as professional staff working in schools, school nurses are affected indirectly by the heightened emphasis on accountability for achievement in public education. School nurses actively promote and support achievement for all students in specific ways and help to provide a safe school environment.

You have accessThe ASHA LeaderASHA News1 Apr 2005Speaking Out on IDEA RegulationsMembers Submit More than 1,600 Letters to U.S. Department of Education Susan Boswell Susan Boswell Google Scholar More articles by this author https://doi.org/10.1044/leader.AN1.10052005.1 SectionsAbout ToolsAdd to favorites ShareFacebookTwitterLinked In ASHA members are hoping to shape the development of regulations for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA ’04) by submitting more than 1,600 comment letters and speaking at nearly all regional public hearings hosted by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). The pre-regulatory comment period ended Feb. 28. Regional meetings took place in Delaware, Ohio, Massachusetts, California, Georgia, Wyoming, and the District of Columbia from Jan. 28 through Feb. 24 to gather input and suggestions for developing regulations for IDEA ’04. The ED reported that a total of 6,000 written comments were collected and about 450 people testified at the seven regional meetings. ED is expected to release proposed rules for IDEA ’04 by the end of April, and a series of regional meetings will be scheduled on its notice of proposed rulemaking. Anticipated sites include Texas, Illinois, New York, Nevada, and Tennessee. Watch for coverage of continued developments in future issues of The ASHA Leader. Boston In testimony at the Feb. 7 meeting in Boston, ASHA President Dolores Battle focused on ASHA’s concerns about personnel qualifications changes in IDEA ’04 and the potential standards and hiring practices that may result from these changes in IDEA 2004. Battle stated that it is critical that state education agencies establish appropriate qualifications for related service providers. Battle also submitted written comments to the ED on this and other issues of concern to ASHA. The establishment of qualifications for school-based clinicians that are less rigorous than those required in settings outside schools will create a two-tiered system where children served in the schools receive services from those less well prepared to meet their needs,” said Battle. She emphasized the practice was not in the best interest in meeting educational goals for these children and the Adequate Yearly Progress criteria in compliance with No Child Left Behind. Battle recalled that as an SLP at Buffalo Children’s Hospital in New York, she was required to meet the highest state standard to provide services to children who attended a hospital-operated school. The children had severe disabilities, including cerebral palsy, genetic syndromes, neurological impairments, and hearing loss. In the interest of mainstreaming, the children were transferred to the public school system where they received services by a lesser-qualified individual. In the end, provider qualifications affected the children’s progress. “The children did not continue to make the progress they had made in the previous setting,” Battle said. The meeting in Boston attracted a wide array of participants, including related services providers; representatives of state departments of education, parents, association and coalition representatives; regular education teachers; and attorneys. Other issues addressed included personnel qualifications; related services; IEP excusal; three-year IEP; paperwork; short-term objectives; transition; funding; discipline; due process; over-representation; and funding. Delaware In testimony, the ED heard support from SLPs across the country for maintaining the highest provider qualifications. At the Jan. 28 meeting in Newark, DE, Jennifer Means, an associate professor in the Department of Communicative Disorders at West Chester University in PA, addressed the need for the highest qualified provider standards from the standpoint of academic programs. “As university professors, we are responsible for educating clinicians to the fullest extent, which is the master’s degree,” Means said. “We are held accountable by ASHA to teach specific skills utilizing the Knowledge And Skill Acquisition (KASA) document for each student.” Students who graduate at the BA/BS level have not acquired these skills, yet school districts are hiring them on emergency certification to be “speech therapists,” Means said. Ohio On Feb. 3 in Columbus, OH, Nancy Creaghead cautioned about changes in IDEA. “Before the ‘highest qualified provider’ language was included in IDEA, some districts would hire regular education teachers and other individuals on emergency certificates to provide services to children with communication disorders,” Creaghead recalled. Because of IDEA, the Ohio Department of Education collaborated with universities to upgrade the education level of SLPs through the Ohio Master’s Network in Education, which resulted in over 100 fully qualified school-based SLPs. Ohio’s licensure law will be opened this year, Creaghead noted, and if provider qualifications in IDEA are lowered, superintendents may lobby the legislature to remove schools from the licensure law so that they can hire unqualified SLPs. Washington, D.C. At the final meeting on Feb. 24 in Washington, D.C., SLP Tommie Robinson stressed that bachelor’s level clinicians do not have adequate preparation to work in the schools. “Given the fact that children are coming to school with more complex disorders, it is clear that there is a need for the fully qualified provider as a minimum standard,” said Robinson. “Without fully qualified clinicians, our school systems will fail to diagnose early; will miss children who should be enrolled in services; or will diagnose children too late, leaving many behind.” Robinson called for the ED to take two key steps in the regulations: provide incentives to meet the demand for SLPs, similar to those in place for current shortages of math, science, and special educators; and outline strategies for state and local education agencies to recruit and retain fully qualified SLPs. Joining Robinson was Wendy Fox, an SLP in the Arlington Public Schools in Arlington, VA. She drew on her experiences as a traveling SLP to illustrate the challenges that face SLPs today which could not be met by a bachelor’s level clinician. In each of her work settings-a Navajo reservation, an upper-middle class district in California, and a culturally diverse southern California district-Fox quickly adapted to the setting, cultural differences, the program and its administration, and the students. “Our responsibilities become more demanding with increasing student numbers as well as continuously changing caseloads. At the same time, we have fewer resources and less time to deliver services,” she said. “Having lesser-credentialed individuals attempting to do what a master’s level person is capable of may prove harmful for the whole process.” Advocacy Grows ASHA staff met with OSERS staff in February to discuss the Association’s comments on its Dec. 29, 2004 Federal Register notice, particularly the potential changes in qualification standards and hiring practices that may result from changes in IDEA ’04 on this issue. In written comments to the ED, ASHA focused on members’ concerns, including: the potential changes in qualification standards and hiring practices: early intervening services specific learning disabilities evaluation and eligibility determinations of limited English proficient students assistive technology the birth-to-6 program For more information, contact Catherine Clarke, ASHA’s director of education and regulatory advocacy, at [email protected]. Author Notes Susan Boswell, an assistant managing editor of The ASHA Leader, can be reached at [email protected]. Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Advertising Disclaimer | Advertise With Us Additional Resources FiguresSourcesRelatedDetails Volume 10Issue 5April 2005 Get Permissions Add to your Mendeley library History Published in print: Apr 1, 2005 Metrics Downloaded 56 times Topicsasha-topicsleader_do_tagleader-topicsasha-article-typesCopyright & Permissions© 2005 American Speech-Language-Hearing AssociationLoading ...

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002 and is regarded as the most significant federal education policy initiative in a generation. The primary focus of the No Child Left Behind Act is on promoting educational success for all children; however, the legislation also contains opportunities to advance school-based mental health. Unfortunately, the complexities of the provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act have made it difficult for educators, stakeholders, and mental health professionals to understand the legal and practical interface between No Child Left Behind and the school mental health movement. Therefore, the goals of this article are to (1) raise awareness about the challenges educators and school mental health professionals face as a result of the implementation of No Child Left Behind and (2) provide ideas and recommendations to advance the interface between No Child Left Behind and school mental health, which will support key provisions of the act and the growth of the field.