No Child Left Behind: Who Wins? Who Loses?

IN 2002, PRESIDENT BUSH SIGNED INTO LAW THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND (NCLB) Act, which changed the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA) of 1965. This new law focuses on policy and distribution of funds to public schools. Federal funds under NCLB are mostly distributed to school districts whose populations come from lower economic levels and represent culturally diverse populations (African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, and Latinos). Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act claim that its mission is to close the achievement gap by holding school districts and states accountable, encouraging the use of flexible educational approaches, and supporting parents' rights to school choice (Meyer, 2005). On the surface, no one would argue with this goal; however, one must question the means by which the Bush administration's public school agenda attempts to deliver this "high quality education." A critical analysis of the law, according to education scholars (Coles, 2003; Garan, 2004; Meier and Wood, 2004), confirms that NCLB is specifically harmful for the children described as "disadvantaged students," the same socioeconomic groups that have historically received inferior education. In fact, NCLB's goals are highly restrictive for lower-income families whose children attend low-income schools. In analyzing the current legislation from the perspective of equity, educational access, and social justice, it is important to explore the distribution of NCLB funding and the requirements imposed upon low-income schools. Whose interests are served? Who is profiting from the implementation? Which students are being affected? This article attempts to respond to these questions and provide insights into the effects of NCLB. We closely examine this law in relation to corporate profit-making, its direct impact on a student population consisting of 4.4 million English Language Learners enrolled in U.S. public schools (Peterson, 2001), and the growing grass-roots resistance by educators, teachers' unions, and parents (Apple, 2001; Eslinger, 2005). The act has come under scrutiny by a wide range of citizens, including state legislators who are concerned with the direction of public education (Eslinger, 2005; Connecticut State Department of Education, 2005). Who Is Profiting from No Child Left Behind? Education has become a major issue of discussion among politicians, the media, corporate leaders, and fundamentalist religious groups (Apple, 2001). The unanimous approval and bipartisan support for NCLB came from efforts by lobbyist Sandy Kress, a Democrat, who played a key role in crafting and passing No Child Left Behind. Kress was instrumental in putting together the bipartisan push behind the bill, pulling Democratic lawmakers Ted Kennedy, George Miller, and John Boehner into the president's court (Pyle, 2005). Apple (2001) describes this example of coalition building as conservative modernization, in which unlikely interest groups cooperate on a common goal. He views this conservative coalition as intentionally promoting a hegemonic ideology (a common culture and traditional white American values) that penetrates all levels of U.S. society. This movement or coalition consists of several groups: neoliberals, neoconservatives, authoritarian populists, and the professional/managerial middle class. The neoliberals appear to be committed to free markets, individual choice, and expansion of consumerism. They prefer a less involved state that supports expanding "free enterprise." Neoliberals align with neoconservatives to attack government spending on social services, including education. Yet they support government spending that benefits corporate interests, whether for educational assessment tools, military contractors, or the prison-industrial complex (Giroux, 2004). NCLB has opened many avenues for private industries to make a profit from federal funds (Miner, 2004), thus creating a corporate welfare state (Giroux, 2004). …