The No Child Left Behind Lagislation

The No Child Left Behind Legislation

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 was a strategic move towards reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act enacted in 1965 and later reauthorized in 1994. NCLB Act was signed into law on January 8, 2002 by President Bush (Hanushek Eric A., 2010). This legislation came at a time where there was a growing uproar on the state of education across the country. By expanding the federal mandate in education, the legislation took strategic measures on uplifting the quality of education especially on disadvantaged students. Putting into consideration the investment made by the American taxpayers since 1965, it is worth noting that more than $750 billion has been used in facilitating federal programs for elementary and secondary education. This has resulted to the development of broad federal education administration where federal funds are spent to meet administrative costs (Hanushek Eric A., 2010).  

With the introduction of NCLB Act of 2001, there was a radical increase in federal expenditure on public education in America. According to Department Of Education (2009), the stipulated budget by the Bush Administration to meet the cost of NCLB in 2008 alone was $24.4 billion; a 42 percent budgetary increase compared to the previous stipulation. In addition to this, the budget was set to increase Title I grants to local education agencies by 58 percent. Unmistakably, this legislation has increased both the state and local authorities’ administrative burden. With its new regulations, No Child Left Behind has increased the annual correspondence load by $141 million, increasing the local and state compliance cost. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is a good legislation, however, this policy has far reaching challenges on its implementation and effective sustainability.

As a teacher, to effectively deliver and impart quality skills in students, a collective support and conducive, uninterrupted learning environment must be put in place. The ability of the state and the local authorities in effectively meeting their responsibility in creating such an environment is of great significance. Every policy formulated must therefore effectively uphold the principle of fairness and sustainability. Considering the timeframe stipulated, feasibility and the impartiality of its objectives the legislation if implemented will without a doubt undermine public schools. The school progress evaluation based on demographic subcategories as stipulated in the legislation will inexplicably castigate schools with assorted student populations, which is the case in most public schools across the country (Connecticut State Department of Education, 2005).