Nclb Case Studies

959 Words4 Pages
Running Head: Case Study 2 No Child Left Behind Act Analysis
Case Study 2 No Child Left Behind Act Analysis
Lonnie Wilborn
PUA 44 Spring 2017
University of Las Vegas Nevada

Case Study 2 No Child Left Behind Act Analysis
Define the Problem
In this analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the authors (Stephens
& Wikstrom, 2007) posit the policies from this legislation that affects intergovernmental relations for the federal, state, and local levels. The decision maker in this case is the Department of Education which establishes educational policy, administers federal assistance , coordinates this assistance for education, and enforces federal education laws to protect privacy and civil rights. Through the principle position
…show more content…
117). When schools could not meet these requirements then

Case Study 2 No Child Left Behind Act Analysis
sanctioning by the Department of Education was enacted upon them including school improvement plans and major restructuring.The major criticism of the NCLB is that it violates the states’ rights to administer their own educational policies and traditional functions of local governments (Stephens & Wikstrom, 2007). These issues have arisen since the inception of the
NCLB evaluations by testing and national surveys from the Department of Education showing failing rates of students not meeting standards of proficiencies for several states. This criticism includes complaints that the NCLB mandates are not being funded federally to an appropriate level to allow success of educators for the educationally disadvantage school children but the retort is that these resources are not to supplant the states funding of education but to supplement state funding of local government by this federal agency. The urgency of the situation
…show more content…
The states and local governments argue that funding for NCLB mandates is not sufficient and policy implementation is unclear for regulation of this act. The
Department of Education believes that states are not putting their best effort forward in regards to meeting standards for the NCLB while the states are changing requirements and redefine the proficiency standards for their involvement to define achievement evaluations. Stephens &
Wikstrom (2007) believe that because “the NCLB requires administrators to report scores by race and ethnic groups” that it is successfully promoting the improvement of pupils’ performance of these minority groups (p.121). This shows that states funding of federal mandates can be quite difficult to meet the expectations without making modifications for evaluations to meet the needs of each state. Not all states are the same and meeting the NCLB standards as an equal measurement across national boundaries is not fair without making modifications to the evaluations of assessment for each state to meet these requirements. The key decision here is to match the appropriate level of educational funding to the needs of each state and provide
Open Document