When the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was enacted in 2002, it was hailed as a bipartisan victory for education reform, promising student proficiency in math and science by 2014 — but funding issues and controversial measurement systems have hindered its success. According to the U.S. Department of Education’s National Center for Education Statistics, about 70 percent of schools are making adequate yearly progress, and national math achievement among tested students has improved since 2000. Certain areas, however, have not seen similar progress, such as reading achievement among 8th graders and graduation rates among minority students The NCLB makes states accountable for holding their schools and students to exacting standards, and schools that fail to meet those standards for two consecutive years must undergo federally-mandated restructuring. While the basic premise of NCLB — to provide quality education to all children — is well accepted, it has suffered, in the view of many, from inadequate funding. In 2006, Democrats criticized the Bush administration for underfunding NCLB by more than $40 billion since 2001, and noted that the FY 2007 budget allocated only half the promised funding to assist disadvantaged students. The Department of Education’s inability to track and allocate funds, moreover, has made it difficult to provide necessary resources to schools most in need of assistance, according to the Government Accountability Office. Budgetary issues aside, stipulations in the law have made it difficult for some to implement the program. States are required to follow strict guidelines and success is measured by standardized tests, but critics say the law doesn’t allow for differing demographics or students’ varying abilities. This emphasis on test scores, they claim, created unintended consequences: Instead of seeking to prevent dropouts, schools had an incentive to weed out lower-achieving students to meet testing standards, and to “teach to the test,” leaving teachers with little room for innovation or classroom flexibility. The quest to meet federal guidelines also forced schools to cut programs geared for the long term, such as English language programs for minority students.

Follow-up:
When the No Child Left Behind Act came up for reauthorization in 2007, Congress put education reform on the backburner, leaving many schools in limbo. The Department of Education has yet to provide detailed guidance to schools that continue to struggle. In 2008, more schools than any previous year failed to meet testing benchmarks because of increasingly high standards geared to the law’s 2014 deadline. Education Secretary Margaret Spellings acknowledges that parts of the law need tweaking, and, in October 2008, announced a series of regulations to strengthen NCLB, including a focus on accountability and transparency. But she remains bullish on the law. “NCLB has shined a spotlight on schools,” said Spellings in late October. “It is compelling grown ups to do the right thing by kids. And it’s working.” Ultimately, though, a Department spokesman told the Center that the new administration, along with Congress, will determine the program’s future.

Photo credit: White House

Reading First was established under the No Child Left Behind Act as a six-year, $1 billion initiative to help students achieve reading proficiency by the end of third grade, but the Department of Education’s own inspector general has criticized it for favoritism and ineffectiveness. Under the plan, appointed board members would give grants to states, which in turn would award sub-grants to school districts to establish reading programs for kindergarten through third-grade students. But allegations that program directors and board members pressured states to adopt particular reading programs prompted the first of six investigations by the Inspector General. The IG’s conclusion: Department officials were playing favorites, giving grants for certain programs over others. The Department of Education contended that it screened board members for conflicts of interest. But the inspector general in 2006 deemed the process ineffective, noting that the department failed to look at applicants’ resumes, which clearly indicated potential conflicts. The following year Senator Ted Kennedy, a Massachusetts Democrat and chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, issued a report concluding that four regional program directors maintained ties with educational publishers while they were under contract with the department for Reading First. The directors were paid to promote certain publishers while simultaneously advising schools to adopt the company’s products. Regardless of the scandal, the program failed to meet its objectives. An April 2008 study revealed the general ineffectiveness of Reading First and found that students in schools receiving funds for the program had no better reading skills than children in schools that did not.

Follow-up:
At an April 2007 hearing, Representative George Miller, a California Democrat and chairman of the House Committee on Education and Labor, condemned Reading First’s practices as “unfair and costly to states and school districts that were denied the opportunity to use their first-choice reading curricula and assessments.” Miller proposed a measure to prevent future conflicts of interest but the program’s future became uncertain when Congress slashed its $1 billion budget by more than 60 percent in late 2007. For FY 2009, the president asked to restore $1 billion for the program, but the House and Senate continued to slash funding. A Department of Education spokeswoman did not respond to a request for comment, but the department issued a final report on Reading First in November 2008. While the report found “no statistically significant difference in reading comprehension,” between students who participated in Reading First and those who didn’t, it did conclude that Reading First “had a significant impact on students’ decoding, phonics, and fluency skills.”

Photo credit: White House

Without proper oversight or enforcement by the Department of Education, the $85 billion student loan industry became tainted in scandal. In 2007, New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo revealed widespread unethical relationships between schools and lenders, with colleges and universities accepting gifts and other inducements from loan companies. In turn, financial aid officers would steer students toward lenders on their “preferred lender lists,” often at inflated prices at the students’ expense. This gave a few loan companies a substantial advantage. Cuomo launched his investigation after receiving a complaint from a new lender that felt it could not fairly compete. Meanwhile, the Education Department remained conspicuously absent. In testimony before the House Committee on Education and Labor, Cuomo accused the department of being “asleep at the switch” and urged congressional action. Representative George Miller, chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor, called on Education Secretary Margaret Spellings to put an end to lender bribes and require full disclosure of school-lender relationships. Spellings responded that the focus of Cuomo’s investigation pertained to the private loan industry, an area outside her department’s jurisdiction, but she conceded that the practices conducted by the institutions were unacceptable. In the midst of the revelations, Theresa Shaw, head of Education’s student loan office, resigned after five years in the position, but told Spellings, “I had accomplished all that had been asked of me including . . . ensuring that proper financial management and internal controls were in place.” Thousands of students suffered as a result.

Follow-up:
In May 2007, the House passed the Student Loan Sunshine Act, which requires schools to adopt strict codes of conduct, bans all gifts, and ensures that students are getting the best possible deal on loans. Cuomo settled with a dozen student loan companies, including the eight largest in the country: Citbank, Sallie Mae, Nelnet, JP Morgan Chase, Bank of America, Wells Fargo, Wachovia, and College Loan Corporation. Some of these companies, along with several schools, agreed to give $13.7 million to the National Education Fund, which educates student borrowers. Twenty-six schools embroiled in the controversy have since adopted a code of conduct, and 10 planned to reimburse students more than $3 million. A department spokeswoman said that, in the midst of today’s economic downturn, they are “working tirelessly to ensure that students have continued access to federal student loans.”

Photo credit: Department of Education