accountability america assistivetechnology base broad citizenship education flagstaff government history historyup issues issues_movie law_research_paper learning leftbehind nclb nclb_epi0003 no policies policy politics readme recess srw students teacher thesis todo

My tags:

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110), often abbreviated in print as NCLB and sometimes shortened in pronunciation to "nicklebee",^[1] is a United States federal law (Act of Congress) that was originally proposed by President George W. Bush on January 23, 2001, immediately after taking office.^[2] Congress based its legislation on this "blueprint" proposed by the President. The legislation was coauthored by Representatives John Boehner (R-OH) and George Miller (D-CA) and Senators Judd Gregg (R-NH) and Edward Kennedy (D-MA), and signed by President Bush. The law reauthorized a number of federal programs aiming to improve the performance of U.S. primary and secondary schools by increasing the standards of accountability for states, school districts, and schools, as well as providing parents more flexibility in choosing which schools their children will attend. Additionally, it promoted an increased focus on reading and reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA). The Act, introduced as HR 1 during the 107th Congress, ^[3] was passed in the House of Representatives on May 23, 2001^[4], United States Senate on June 14, 2001^[5] and signed into law on January 8, 2002.

NCLB is the latest federal legislation (another was Goals 2000) which enacts the theories of standards-based education reform, formerly known as outcome-based education, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The Act requires states to develop assessments in basic skills to be given to all students in certain grades, if those states are to receive federal funding for schools. NCLB does not assert a national achievement standard; standards are set by each individual state, in line with the principle of local control of schools.

The Act also requires that the schools distribute the name, home phone number and address of every student enrolled to military recruiters and institutions of higher education, unless the student (or the student's parent) specifically opts out.^[6]

The desirability of NCLB's measures are hotly debated. It is very difficult to assess the effectiveness of the act per se, because it applied to all states making it difficult to infer what would have happened without the act. However, analyses of the state accountability systems that were in place before NCLB indicate that accountability for outcomes led to faster growth in achievement for the states that introduced such systems.^[7] The direct analysis of state test scores before and after enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact.^[8] A primary criticism asserts that NCLB could reduce effective instruction and student learning because it may cause states to lower achievement goals and motivate teachers to "teach to the test." A primary supportive claim asserts that systematic testing provides data that shed light on which schools are not teaching basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing the achievement gap for disadvantaged and disabled students.^[9]

Over the time of this law, Congress increased federal funding of education, from $42.2 billion in 2001 to $54.4 billion in 2007. No Child Left Behind received a 40.4% increase from $17.4 billion in 2001 to $24.4 billion. The funding for reading quadrupled from $286 million in 2001 to $1.2 billion. ^[10] A 2008 study from the Department of Education, “Reading First Impact Study: Interim Report,” analyzes the performance of students in 12 states who were in grades one to three during the 2004-5 and 2005-6 school years and concluded that the Reading First Program, a major billion dollar a year NCLB effort, had proven "ineffective." A final report on the impacts from 2004-2007 (three school years with Reading First funding) and on the relationships between changes in instructional practice and student reading comprehension is expected in late 2008.^[11]

Contents 1 Summary of the act 2 Claims made in favor of the act 2.1 Improved test scores (NAEP) 2.2 Improvement over local standards 2.3 Increased accountability 2.4 Attention to minority populations 2.5 Quality of education 2.6 School choice 2.7 Funding 2.8 Public perception of public education 3 Criticisms of the Act 3.1 'Gaming' the system 3.2 Problems with standardized tests 3.3 Incentives against low-performing students 3.4 Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students 3.5 State refusal to produce non-English assessments 3.6 Narrow curriculum 3.7 Narrow definition of research 3.8 Limitations on local control 3.9 Facilitates military recruitment 3.10 Variability in student potential and 100% compliance 4 Funding 4.1 State education budgets 5 Proposals for reform 6 See also 7 References 8 External links

[edit] Summary of the act

This section requires expansion.

No Child Left Behind requires all public schools to administer a state-wide standardized test annually to all students. Schools which receive Title I funding must make Adequate Yearly Progress in test scores (e.g. each year, its fifth graders must do better on standardized tests than the previous years).

If a Title I school fails to make Adequate Yearly Progress, then it is put on a list of "failing schools" published in the local paper and parents are given the option to transfer to another school. If it does not meet AYP for a second year, then it must provide special tutoring for its economically disadvantaged students.

[edit] Claims made in favor of the act

This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding reliable references (ideally, using inline citations). Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. (March 2008)

The academic achievement of minority students has increased under NCLB.This is reflected on the California Standards Test (CST). More of these students are also enrolled in higher level of math courses than before the law was passed.

Support for NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

[edit] Improved test scores (NAEP)

The Department of Education points to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) results, released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:^[12]

• More progress was made by nine-year-olds in reading in the last five years than in the previous 28 years combined.
• America's nine-year-olds posted the best scores in reading (since 1971) and math (since 1973) in the history of the report. America's 13-year-olds earned the highest math scores the test ever recorded.
• Reading and math scores for black and Hispanic nine-year-olds reached an all-time high.
• Achievement gaps in reading and math between white and black nine-year-olds and between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds are at an all-time low.
• Forty-three states and the District of Columbia either improved academically or held steady in all categories (fourth- and eighth-grade reading and fourth- and eighth-grade math)..

Critics argue that these statistics are misleading. They compare 2005 with 2000, when No Child Left Behind didn't even take effect until 2003. They point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 was roughly the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which calls into question how any increase can be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some of the subgroups are cherry-picked -- that in other subgroups scores remained the same or actually fell.^[13]

[edit] Improvement over local standards

Many argue that local government had failed students, necessitating federal intervention to remedy issues like teachers teaching outside their areas of expertise, and complacency in the face of continually failing schools.^[14] Some local governments, notably New York State, have voiced support for NCLB provisions, because local standards had failed to provide adequate oversight over special education, and that NCLB would allow longitudinal data to be more effectively used to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP).^[15] States all over the United States have shown improvements in their progress as a result of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first of all fifty states, and the District of Columbia at ninety-eight percent of its schools, achieving the No Child Left Behind Standards.^[16]

[edit] Increased accountability

Supporters of NCLB claim the legislation encourages accountability in public schools, offers parents greater educational options for their children, and helps close the achievement gap between minority and white students.^[17] NCLB aims to show achievement toward these goals through federally mandated standardized testing.

In addition to and in support of the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:

• Links State academic content standards with student outcomes.
• Measures student performance: a student's progress in reading and math must be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school via standardized tests.
• Provides information for parents by requiring states and school districts to give parents detailed report cards on schools and districts explaining the school's AYP performance. Schools must also inform parents when their child is being taught by a teacher or para-professional who does not meet "highly qualified" requirements.
• Establishes the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly enhance parental involvement and improved administration through the use of the assessment data to drive decisions on instruction, curriculum and business practices.

[edit] Attention to minority populations

• Seeks to narrow class and racial gaps in school performance by creating common expectations for all.
• Requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as low-income students, students with disabilities, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups".^[18] Each state is responsible for defining major racial and ethnic subgroups itself.^[18] Many previous state-created systems of accountability only measured average school performance, allowing schools to be highly rated even if they had large achievement gaps between affluent and disadvantaged students.

[edit] Quality of education

• Ideally, increases the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance^{[citation needed]}
• Improves quality of instruction by requiring schools to implement "scientifically based research" practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for those students that are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
• Supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative [9].
• Emphasizes reading, writing, mathematics and science achievement as "core academic subjects".

[edit] School choice

• Gives options to students enrolled in schools failing to meet AYP. If a school fails to meet AYP targets two or more years running, the school must offer eligible children the chance to transfer to higher-performing local schools, receive free tutoring, or attend after-school programs.
• Gives school districts the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor," a precursor to growth-based or value-added assessments.

[edit] Funding

As part of their support for NCLB, the administration and congress backed massive increases in funding for elementary and secondary education funding. Title I funding to districts for disadvantaged children increased from $42.2 billion to $55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the law's passage, to fiscal year 2004.^[19] A new $1 billion Reading First program was created, distributing funds to local schools to improve the teaching of reading, and over $100 million for its companion, Early Reading First.^[20] Numerous other formula programs received large increases as well. This was consistent with the administration's position of funding formula programs, which distribute money to local schools for their use, and grant programs, where particularl schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003.^[21]

Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB, is administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and updated research. EETT allocates funds by formula to states. The states in turn reallocate 50% of the funds to local districts by Title I formula and 50% competitively. While districts must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies indicate that most EETT recipients use far more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curricula. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $159 million in EETT funds towards professional development during the 2004-05 school year alone. Moreover, even though EETT recipients are afforded broad discretion in their use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars towards improving student achievement in reading and math, engaging in data driven decision making, and launching online assessment programs. ^[22]

In addition, the provisions of NCLB permitted increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money. ^[23]

The NCLB increases were companions to another massive increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed very large increases in funding for the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at the same time as the NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, a state formula-funding program that distributes money to local districts for the education of students with disabilities, was increased from $6.3 billion in 2001 to $10.1 billion in 2004.^[24] Because a district's and state's performance on NCLB measures depended on improved performance by students with disabilities, particularly students with learning disabilities, this 60 percent increase in funding was also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation.

[edit] Public perception of public education

• Addresses widespread perceptions that public education results fall short of expectations.

[edit] Criticisms of the Act

Critiques of NCLB can be organized into the following categories:

[edit] 'Gaming' the system

The system of incentives and penalties sets up a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to employ "creative reclassification" of drop-outs (to reduce unfavorable statistics).^[25]

Critics argue that these and other strategies create an inflated perception of NCLB's successes, particularly in states with high minority populations.^[26]

The incentives for an improvement also may cause states to lower their official standards. Because each state can produce its own standardized tests, a state can make its statewide tests easier to increase scores.^[27] Missouri, for example, improved testing scores but openly admitted that they lowered the standards.^[28] A 2007 study by the U.S. Dept. of Education indicates that the observed differences in states' reported scores is largely due to differences in the stringency of their standards.^[29]

[edit] Problems with standardized tests

Critics have argued that the focus on standardized testing (all students in a state take the same test under the same conditions) as the means of assessment encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that will increase test performance rather than focus on deeper understanding that can readily be transferred to similar problems.^[30] For example, if the teacher knows that all of the questions on a math test are simple addition equations (e.g., 2+3=5), then the teacher might not invest any class time on the practical applications of addition (e.g., story problems) so that there will be more time for the material which is assessed on the test. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."

Moreover, many teachers who practice "teaching to the test" actually misinterpret the educational outcomes the tests are designed to measure. On two state tests (New York State and Michigan) and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) almost two-thirds of eighth graders missed math word problems that required an application of the Pythagorean theorem to calculate the distance between two points.^[31] Wiggins and McTighe blamed the low success rate on teachers who correctly anticipated the content of the tests, but incorrectly assumed each test would present rote knowledge/skill items rather than well-constructed, higher-order items.

The practice of giving all students the same test, under the same conditions, has been accused of inherent cultural bias because different cultures may value different skills. It also may conflict with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which states that schools must accommodate disabled students.^[32] For example, it is normally acceptable for visually impaired students to be read test material aloud. However, on a NCLB-mandated test, a group of blind students had their scores invalidated (reported as zeros) because the testing protocol did not specifically allow for test readers to speak.^[33]

The practice of determining educational quality by testing students has been called into question.^[34]

[edit] Incentives against low-performing students

Because the law's response if the school fails to make adequate progress is not only to provide additional help for students, but also to impose punitive measures on the school, the incentives are to set expectations lower rather than higher^[35] and to increase segregation by class and race and push low-performing students out of school altogether.^[36]

[edit] Incentives against gifted, talented, and high-performing students

Some local schools are only funding instruction for core subjects or for remedial special education. In other words, NCLB forces school programs to ration education in such a manner as to only guarantee mandated skill levels in reading, writing, and arithmetic to all students. All other programs not essential to providing mandated skills to regular students or remedial special education students are being gutted by those districts. ^[37] While Federal law is silent on the requirement for funding gifted programs, the practice can violate the mandates of several states (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) to identify gifted students and provide them with an appropriate education, including grade advancement.

[edit] State refusal to produce non-English assessments

All students who are learning English have an automatic three-year window to take assessments in their native language, after which they must normally demonstrate proficiency on an English language assessment. However, the local education authority may grant an exception to any individual English learner for another two years' testing in his or her native language on a case-by-case basis. In practice, however, only 10 states choose to test any English language learners in their native language (almost entirely Spanish speakers). The vast majority of English language learners are given English language assessments.^[38]

[edit] Narrow curriculum

NCLB's focus on math and English language skills (and eventually science) may elevate scores on two fundamental skills while students lose the benefits of a broad education.^[39]

A study conducted by the American Heart Association and the National Association for Sport and Physical Education contends that diminishing physical education in school has contributed to rising levels of childhood obesity.^[40]

Surveys of public school principals indicate that since the implementation of NCLB, 71% believe instructional time has increased for reading, writing, and math (subjects tested under the law), and decreased for the arts, elementary social studies, and foreign languages.^[41][42][43]

In some places, the implementation of NCLB during a time of budget restraints has been blamed for the elimination of classes and activities which are outside of NCLB's focus area.^[44] "It hurts me to give up art, but it hurts me even more to have kids who can't read," said school Principal Kathy Deck in Indianapolis, Indiana.^[45] These restraints may have affected humanities and social studies curricula as well. Common Core, a group that encourages a broad inclusive curriculum, recently found that many American high school students lack basic knowledge in history, civics, and literature. The group blamed NCLB for not including these topics in its focus.^[46]

[edit] Narrow definition of research

Some school districts object to the limitation created by the "scientifically based research standard." Research based on case studies, anecdotes, personal experience, or other forms of qualitative research are generally excluded from this category. Furthermore, the inability to employ random assignment for important educational predictors such as race and socio-economic status may exclude a large amount of quasi-experimental work that could contribute to educational knowledge.^[47]

[edit] Limitations on local control

Some conservative or libertarian critics have argued that NCLB sets a new standard for federalizing education and setting a precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarians and some conservatives further argue that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional: States need not comply with NCLB, as long as they are willing to forgo the federal funding that comes with it.^[48]

[edit] Facilitates military recruitment

NCLB (In section 9528) requires public secondary schools to provide military recruiters the same access to facilities as a school provides to higher education institution recruiters. Schools are also required to provide contact information for every student to the military if requested. Students or parents can opt out of having their information shared, and educational institutions receiving funding under the act are required to inform parents that they have this option.^[49][50] Currently, many school districts have a generic opt out form which, if filled out and turned in, withholds students' information from college and job recruiters as well as the military.

[edit] Variability in student potential and 100% compliance

The Act is promoted as requiring 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and mathematics by 2014. Critics charge that a 100% goal is unattainable. Critics of the NCLB requirement for "one high, challenging standard" claim that some students are simply unable to perform at the level for their age, no matter how good the teacher is.^[51] While statewide standards reduce the educational inequality between privileged and underprivileged districts in a state, they still impose a "one size fits all" standard on individual students. Particularly in states with high standards, schools can be punished for not being able to dramatically raise the achievement of students that have below-average capabilities.

In fact, the "all" in NCLB means only 95% of students, because states must report the assessment scores of 95% of students when calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) scores.^[52] A specific exemption is given to students with intellectual disabilities or learning disabilities, and students with severe academic disabilities are not assessed. Students that have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and that are assessed must receive the accommodations specified in the IEP during assessment; if these accommodations do not change the nature of the assessment, then these students scores are counted the same as any other student's score. Common acceptable changes include extended test time, testing in a quieter room, translation of math problems into the student's native language, or allowing a student to type answers instead of writing them by hand.

If the accommodations change the nature of the assessment, then it is considered an alternative assessment. In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, regulations allow schools to use alternate assessments to declare up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act.^[53] States are given broad discretion in selecting alternate assessments. For example, a school may accept an Advanced Placement test for English in lieu of the English test written by the state, and simplified tests for students with significant cognitive disabilities.

An additional exemption is given to all students with limited English proficiency, who do not participate in NCLB testing until they have attended American schools for three consecutive years (although their progress is assessed for other purposes).^[54] In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exemption comprises a majority of young students.

Organizations that support NCLB assessement of disabled or LEP students say that inclusion ensures that deficiencies in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Opponents say that testing students with disabilities violates the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by making students with disabilities learn the same material as non-disabled students .^[55]

[edit] Funding

Several provisions of NCLB, such as a push for quality teachers and more professional development, place additional demands on local districts and state education agencies. Some critics claim that extra expenses are not fully reimbursed by increased levels of federal NCLB funding. Others note that funding for the law increased massively following passage^[56] and that billions in funds previously allocated to particular uses could be reallocated to new uses. Even before the law's passage, Secretary of Education Rod Paige noted ensuring that children are educated remained a state responsibility regardless of federal support:

“

Washington is willing to help [with the additional costs of federal requirements], as we've helped before, even before we [proposed NCLB]. But this is a part of the teaching responsibility that each state has. ... Washington has offered some assistance now. In the legislation, we have ... some support to pay for the development of tests. But even if that should be looked at as a gift, it is the state responsibility to do this.[57]

”

Various early Democratic supporters of NCLB criticize its implementation, claiming it is not adequately funded by either the federal government or the states. Ted Kennedy, the legislation's initial sponsor, has stated: "The tragedy is that these long overdue reforms are finally in place, but the funds are not."^[58] Susan B. Neuman, U.S. Department of Education's former Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education, commented about her worries of NCLB in a meeting of the International Reading Association:

“

In [the most disadvantaged schools] in America, even the most earnest teacher has often given up because they lack every available resource that could possibly make a difference. . . . When we say all children can achieve and then not give them the additional resources … we are creating a fantasy.[59]

”

Organizations have particularly criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the act. Noting that appropriations bills always originate in the House of Representatives, it is true that neither the Senate nor the White House has even requested federal funding up to the authorized levels for several of the act’s main provisions. For example, President Bush requested only $13.3 of a possible $22.75 billion in 2006.^[60] Advocacy groups note that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal alloted $61 billion for the Education Department, cutting funding by $1.3 billion from last year. 44 out of 50 states would receive reductions in federal funding if the budget passes as is.^[61] Specifically, funding for the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) has continued to drop while the demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, these claims focused on reallocated funds, as each of President Bush's proposed budgets increased funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including his final 2009 budget proposal. ^[62]

Members of Congress have viewed these authorized levels as spending caps, not spending promises. Some opponents argue that these funding shortfalls mean that schools faced with the system of escalating penalties for failing to meet testing targets are denied the resources necessary to remedy problems detected by testing. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period^[63] and state and local funding increased by over $100 billion from school year 2001-02 through 2006-07.^[64]

[edit] State education budgets

According to the book, NCLB Meets School Realities, the act was put into action during a time of fiscal crisis for most states^[65]. While states were being forced to make massive budget cuts, including in the area of education, they had to incur huge expenses to comply with the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funding they received from the federal government in support of NCLB was not enough to cover the added expense necessary to adhere to the new law.

[edit] Proposals for reform

The Joint Organizational Statement on No Child Left Behind^[66] is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, civic, labor and religious groups that have signed on to a statement calling for major changes to the federal education law. The National Center for Fair & Open Testing (FairTest) initiated and chaired the meetings that produced the statement, originally released in October 2004. The statement's central message is 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 the systemic changes that improve student achievement." The number of organizations signing the statement has nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, as the law's scheduled reauthorization approaches.

Education critic Alfie Kohn argues that the NCLB law is "unredeemable" and should be scrapped. He is quoted saying "[I]ts main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills".^[67]

In February 2007, former Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson and former Georgia Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendations for the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act.^[68] The Commission is an independent, bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis and research, the Commission uncovered the successes of NCLB, as well as provisions which need to be changed or significantly modified.

The Commission's goals are summarized as follows:

• Effective Teachers for All Students, Effective Principals for All Communities
• Accelerating Progress and Closing Achievement Gaps Through Improved Accountability
• Moving Beyond the Status Quo to Effective School Improvement and Student Options
• Fair and Accurate Assessments of Student Progress
• High Standards for Every Student in Every State
• Ensuring High Schools Prepare Students for College and the Workplace
• Driving Progress Through Reliable, Accurate Data
• Parental involvement and empowerment

The Forum on Educational Accountability (FEA), a working group of signers of the Joint Organizational Statement on NCLB has offered an alternative proposal.^[69] It proposes to shift NCLB from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to supporting state and communities and holding them accountable as they make systemic changes that improve student learning.

[edit] See also

• Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
• Campbell's Law
• List of standardized tests in the United States
• Ohio Graduation Test
• Prairie State Achievement Exam
• Stanford Achievement Test Series
• Annenberg Foundation via Annenberg School Reform Institute Major Supporter of Program
• Edison Schools
• FairTest

[edit] References

[edit] External links

Law and regulations

• NCLB Desktop Reference (online version, includes Microsoft documents and PDF links)
• NCLB and Children with Disabilities National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities NICHCY

Administration comments

• Remarks by President Bush at signing ceremony
• President Discusses No Child Left Behind and High School Initiatives, Speech text and video, January 12, 2005

Interest groups

• National Education Association 'No Child Left Behind'/ESEA (NEA's position)
• "No Child Left" site and journal opposed to NCLB and highly critical of its approach to schools.
• No Child Left Behind Act Reauthorization Association for Career and Technical Education's position on NCLB reauthorization, including background information