Left Behind: Low-Income Students under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)

Abstract

I. INTRODUCTION While the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 attempts to ensure that all have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education,1 the consequences of the statute may instead deny access to adequate education for a large portion of the population. Its implementation, primarily through its system of rewards and punishments, may actually inhibit educational opportunities for the very population it was designed to serve - lowincome students. If its provisions are enforced, the statute could practically force low-income students to remain in poor-performing public schools while failing to address their real educational needs, thus decreasing the chances of them ever attaining academic proficiency. II. BACKGROUND Tide I funding is the statutory provision that is most associated wim NCLB. In 1965, Congress initiated Title I funding, a provision to assist children of low-income families,2 as part of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). As part of President Johnson's War on Poverty, Title I assistance could be used directly for educational services for low-income students rather than as block grants that would serve the general needs of the districts or schools.3 Implicit in the statute was the recognition that in poverty performed poorly compared to their wealthier peers, so the federal money went through the school to directly assist those students identified as low-income.4 ESEA placed few restrictions on the use of Title I funding, allowing, but not requiring, schools to use it to implement supplemental services that addressed students' needs, such as medical and dental services, parental counseling services, and meal plans.5 While the statute allowed these services and even encouraged them, studies demonstrated that schools rarely implemented programs only tangentially related to education and that the achievement gap between lowincome and middle-income did not improve.6 Beginning with the Brown v. Board of Education decision in 1954, society addressed education from an equity perspective, asking whether students were receiving an equal education.7 After the San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez decision, the paradigm began to shift to an perspective, whereby the central focus became whether or not every child received an adequate education.8 Understanding the sufficiency of one's education as adequate, however, means only that the education meets some minimal standard and does not breach the issue of an achievement gap.9 During the 1980's and 1990's, the trend toward adequacy continued in the form of standardsbased reform with the passage of NCLB.10 III. NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Under the No Child Left Behind Act, education continues to be evaluated by viewing the outputs of schools rather than their inputs, an approach that reflects the distinction between adequate and equal.11 In the previous era, as Congress attempted to fund education equally among all populations, legislatures focused on the resources going into schools, the inputs, rather than the results of the funding. In contrast, the approach, with its emphasis on standards-based reform, evaluates student performance, or the outputs. Also contrary to an equity theory, Title I no longer explicitly allocates funds to children of low-income families.12 Now the purpose of the law is to ensure that all have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.13 Failing to reference explicitly the low-income population belies the policy shift. Indeed, the structure of the statute now provides block grants to Title I schools rather than direct aid to low-income students.14 The funds are dispersed to assist all the students at the school; therefore, the lowincome students get a smaller percentage of the grant to themselves. In fact, some programs may not be directed to low-income students at all. …