Skip to main content
Language in education

No Child Left Behind: a study in unintended consequences

By May 23, 201952 Comments5 min read14,248 views

President George W. Bush signs the “No Child Left Behind” act in 2002 (Image credit: Wikipedia)

In 2001, the United States government responded to the apparent lack of quality education in the country by passing Public Law 107 – 110, also known as “No Child Left Behind”. Its purpose was “to improve educational achievement by assessing student progress through standardized testing, mandating curricular reforms, and improving teacher quality” (Mangual Figueroa, 2013, p. 333). Section 3202 of the law states that Limited English Proficient (LEP) students should be able to “meet the same rigorous standards for academic achievement as all children are expected to meet, including meeting challenging State academic content and student academic achievement standards” (No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2002, p. 283). While the intentions seemed honorable, unfortunately the policy neglected to recognize relevant second language acquisition research into how the needs of emergent bilinguals may differ considerably from the needs of mainstream students.

The “No Child Left Behind” educational policy arose during the George W. Bush administration in the United States as a piece of legislation aimed at improving low achieving schools across the country. After continued reports of poor test scores from students across the country compared to other countries around the world, the United States developed an educational policy that was supposed to encourage and incentivize schools to revise their instructional methods so as to promote higher tests scores. Initially, this might sound beneficial for all students, but the policy failed to acknowledge students’ diverse language backgrounds.

How did the policy affect English language learners?

Researchers in the field of TESOL were frustrated with the lack of attention the NCLB policy paid to evidence for the amount of time it takes students to learn a language and the specific needs of students learning such language that will be used for instruction and assessment. NCLB completely neglected the research on how it can take four to seven years for students to acquire an English proficiency sufficient for academic performance that will truly reflect their knowledge (Crawford, 2004).

NCLB’s focus on accountability disrupted ESL classrooms because teachers and school administrators were financially pressured into valuing test preparation over communicative skills building. As schools were expected to show growth and improvement in scores each year, ESL students were not given enough time to cultivate an understanding of the English language sufficient to demonstrate their content knowledge.

How did the policy affect ESL teachers?

A second unintended outcome of the NCLB policy affected teachers of English language learners. Within the NCLB Act, there was a section that discussed the necessary qualifications required for teachers. However, it only focused on the teachers of “core academic subjects” defined as “English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and geography” (NCLB, 2002, p. 534).

In other words, the policy overlooked the same requirements for ESL teachers, even though the policy is supposed to serve English language learners in particular.

The idea was that improved teacher qualifications would increase the overall quality of education that all students receive, including those with limited English language proficiency. Unfortunately, “this failure to acknowledge ESL as a subject in which teachers must be highly qualified effectively denies its value and status as curriculum ‘content’ and reinforces the common assumption that teaching English language learners requires little more than a set of pedagogical modifications applied to other content areas” (Harper, De Jong, & Platt, 2008, p. 271).

How did the policy affect bilingual programs?

Yet another unintended consequence of the NCLB policy was that support that had previously been in place for bilingual language programs diminished after the passage of the act. Whereas previous improvements to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) included explicit support for bilingual education, the 2002 document hardly mentioned it. That means that with the introduction of NCLB, English language learners were cut off from explicit support for developing their native language as well as English.

This flies in the face of the agreement among linguists and educators that “development and maintenance of a child’s first language is critically important to his or her psychological, linguistic, and cognitive well-being” (Cummins and Swain, 1986, p. 97).

The root of the problem here was that NCLB placed such a high level of pressure to succeed on the tests given in English that schools and teachers were discouraged from helping students develop their native language. Again, even though the language within the act suggests flexibility and inclusion, the emphasis on accountability throughout the document severely limited the attention that could be given to individual students and their specific needs.

Deficit views and unintended consequences

NCLB obviously places little or no importance on multiculturalism and multilingualism as resources for the classroom and for the nation more broadly. Regrettably, the NCLB policy approached language education through the perspective that speakers of other languages come to the classroom with deficits rather than valuable experiences and knowledge that can add to the overall learning experience in the classroom. In practice, this kind of policy marginalizes students labeled as ‘LEP’ – not only because the label itself can be considered demeaning. By ignoring relevant research in language learning, linguistics and education, the NCLB policy – despite its stated aims to raise standards – effectively further disadvantaged already marginalized students and the educators who serve them.

Related content

References

Cummins, J., & Swain, M. (1986). Bilingualism in education: Aspects of theory, research and practice. London: Longman.

Harper, Candace A., De Jong, Ester J., & Platt, Elizabeth J. (2008). Marginalizing English as a Second Language Teacher Expertise: The Exclusionary Consequence of “No Child Left Behind“. Language Policy, 7(3), 267-284.

Emily McKinney

Author Emily McKinney

Emily McKinney is currently completing her MSc TESOL degree at the University of Bristol in the UK. She is originally from the United States and her research interest areas include international education and language policy as well as language socialisation within EAP progams.

More posts by Emily McKinney

Join the discussion 52 Comments

  • Nazzia says:

    Although the No Child Left Behind Act generally did seem to improve test scores of students, even those of minority students, it has been a topic of controversy. The strict qualification requirements for teachers made the teacher shortage situation worse. Policymakers should therefore not always focus on numbers and try to look at the holistic picture when deciding on policies.

  • Rajendra Prasad Kandel says:

    Even in the advanced democratic countries like the USA, Australia, the government, legislation and the stakeholders do have lapses in formulating the education policies, especially with regard to addressing the issues faced by the students coming from bilingual /multilingual backgrounds. Countries indirectly or directly promote one language even if they appear inclusive and critique of any kind of discrimination and marginalization in their policies. Because of that, students from marginal language backgrounds are weaker in the language of the medium of instruction in schools and universities; they can not effectively share their content knowledge to the class neither they do have a sound understanding of the content delivered by the teachers.
    Even in Nepal, the constitution has guaranteed that every citizen do have the legal rights to have a basic education in their mother language but practically almost all educational institution use Nepali or English language as the medium of instruction. As a result, the academic success rate of the students coming from linguistic backgrounds other than Nepali is very lower than the students who speak Nepali as their mother language.

  • Irene Nguyen says:

    Thank you for this sharing on the negative aspects of the NCLB policy in the United States towards students of multilingual-language and immigrant background. It seems to me that as the policy places its stress on suiting the national educational standards, it has dramatically neglected the real aim of recognizing these students’ language learning difficulties. This alarming experience is calling for the revolution of the nation’s education policy to be able to truly support these language-privileged students in their academic development, particularly, their second language acquisition.

  • Teufeld says:

    The purpose of No Child Left Behind is good for children and has set high golds for teachers and learners. However, for ESL teachers and learners, they are ignored. While ESL teachers are overlooked, ESL students are treated to achieve same golds as native speaker learners. As a Public Law, it may push ESL teachers and learners to change something to meet the low’s needs. These changes may affect ESL rules, then affect the education of whole country, so it is hard to say whether this low is good or bad for the United States; the initial purpose of it is good, at least.

  • Yongqi says:

    Hi Emily,

    Thank you for your sharing on the NCLB policy. It is absolutely good news that it drew the government’s attention on improving the quality of education. However, the effectiveness of the policy is likely to be reduced as the policy tended to mainly focus on the needs to improve education for mainstream students but neglected the importance of multicultural and multilingual backgrounds of the students and the sufficient support to be provided to the ESL teachers. I personally think that it would be a shame if education improvement was only being treated as a political means to gain political advantage rather than truly considering the education improvement itself.

  • Mia says:

    Hi Emily,

    Thank you for your sharing. Although the NCLB policy has good intentions, it does have many negative problems. I think the policy makers ignored the diversity of the society and the diversity of the language. For English learners, it is difficult to reach the similar level of their mother tongue. Also, this policy certainly raises the requirement for ESL teachers. In my view, education policies should be enacted after adequate consideration of the current situation and feasibility of implementation.

  • Saichon says:

    Hi Emily,

    Thank you for sharing this.

    This is the first time I have heard about the NCLB policy. I think I agree that the policy can be a huge problem, especially the US have a wide spectrum in diversity. This can discourage students in the US to multilingualism and it effects to all students who are not mainstream students. The thing you mentioned about the ESL teachers is a insightful point. As I used to be an ESL student in the US, I have realized that ESL teachers are special and different from other academic subjects. They need to be more trained since the language teaching is different.

  • Xin Zhang says:

    Thank you for sharing negative effects of NCLB policy. Although this policy tends to improve the quality of education in America. However, it ignores a number of disadvantages for ESL students and teachers. Diverse cultures and different language are not considered in the policy. For these students, it is important to improve their literacies and think about different learning background. The native language also can be negatively affected by the policy. In addition, the policy gives too much pressure for English language learners for improving grades of examinations. This is more likely to cause that ESL teachers focus on methods to improve students’ grades instead of values of learning the second language in diverse cultures. Teachers need to acquire more professional knowledge to develop English curriculum in order to help students to learn English.

  • Jasmine says:

    Hi Emily, thank you for sharing the disadvantages of NCLB policy in emphasizing all students’ academic achievement standards in English tests. Although its intentions seemed honorable, I agree that the NCLB policy could negatively influence language education, which inflicted pressure to improve the test scores of English language learners and neglected diverse language backgrounds, overlooked the requirements for the ESL teachers who serve ESL learners, and failed to facilitate students’ native language and English. It ignores the required time and effort to ensure ESL learners and mainstream students are can have excellent language skills, which overemphasizes the importance to achieve higher test scores.

  • Summer Dang says:

    Thank you for your useful sharing of the negatives in NCLB policy in the United States towards multilingual students from immigrant background. The tension of striving to meet the national education standards seems so huge today, especially when the educational policy fails to comprehend these students’ linguistic difficulties and support their academic development. It is so true that the efforts that ESL students must put into studying English as a second language is enormous and allowing a certain sufficient time for their English competence to grow to the point where it could accurately reflect their academic knowledge should be taken into careful account. Besides, instead of viewing these students based on their English skills and national standards, their multicultural values should be evaluated and raised within schools. From my perspective, to countries whose large population is of multicultural background, improving ESL students’ literacy proficiency is extremely necessary, therefore, the roles of ESL teachers and developing English language curricula should be given more focus as a cornerstone for fostering the whole country’s academic performance.

  • Thi Thanh Huyen Do says:

    Since the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law took effect in 2002, it has had a sweeping impact on U.S. public school classrooms. It affects what students are taught, the tests they take, the training of their teachers and the way money is spent on education. NCLB has goals set and philosophy behind. The law targets overall achievement for specific categories of students, such as English language learners or economically disadvantaged students. In my country, Vietnam, the Ministry of Education introduced the National Foreign Language to comprehensively renovate foreign language teaching and learn in the national education system, and implementing new foreign language teaching and learning programs at all educational levels and training levels. It can be said that this is an important milestone in the history of foreign language education in Vietnam.

  • Pramanandra Joshi says:

    No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act 2001 was introduce by Bush administration to improve the education quality in the United States of America, but it has negative impacts on second language learners and teachers as well. As NCLB impacts American education policy, political decisions impacts on the education policy in other countries as well. In my country Nepal there are changes in education policy which impacts in teachers, students and other concern authority. This kind of changes in education policy must be taken after long research, because it impacts whole life of students. Country like America has to make education policy to second language learners as well. It is also important that government has to consult with education experts when it changes in education policy, then it will address all problem in education field.

  • Katy D says:

    This interesting reading signifies the paramount importance of considering, analyzing and comprehending contextual elements prior to imposing any regulations. Without thorough consideration, proposed regulations can not go fas as policymakers expected and even lead to unintended consequences. Initially, I found a little surprised of the inadequate consideration of American policy composers because I often assumed such powerful nations such as the U.S, or European countries had thorough, effective and practical regulations. Now, I realize every country can make mistakes during the process of mandating law and policy. Vietnam also has ineffective and unpractical rules with the aim of enhancing educational quality. Apparently, the reality is more complicated than policymakers expect and such rules when applied in the large scale seem to impinge on children and young learners’ education and academic performance. Every individual should be literate and educated; it is true but to make it real, the policy-making needs more investment, consideration and effort

  • Chi Tam Nguyen says:

    I think the context of NCLB Act could be similar to some education regulations in my country. The government introduced a regulation that requires students to reach a certain proficiency level of English to graduate from their university. This regulation seems to intend to motivate students to learn English as their second language. However, as far as I observed and experienced, this regulation gives students pressure rather than motivation. Even worse, some students have to delay their career journey because their lack of English proficiency to graduate. I hope the regulation composers should put more consideration to the impracticability of their piece of work. They should test their rules in small scale prior to publicly introduce it.

  • Stacey says:

    Hi Emily, thank you for sharing this article.
    I have not heard about this policy before. It is surprising to know even the US, a multinational country, when making educational policies, would fail to pay enough attention to non-mainstream students. However, students with different language background should be given a level playing field to compete. In my country, China, although there has been some new policy to “reform” the education system, true reforms of standardized tests are difficult to be realized as long as the political system is not changing.

  • luwen huang says:

    It is a trend that more and more parents expect their children to become bilingual children. In addition, many governments have also developed related policies for bilingual education. Considering the impacts of these policies on language teaching, teachers and learners should be considered firstly. On the one hand, good policies should support teachers’ work including teaching language, training support, career, and so on. On the other hand, many aspects of the students including learning needs, special needs, and so on are both should be involved in the policies. In addition, in the teaching practice and the learning process, the development of learners’ mother language and second language should keep a balance while the excessive emphasis on one of these languages.

  • yofa says:

    A policy is not supposed to be implemented without careful and insightful research and consultation with the experts. This phenomenon reminds me of how the Indonesian education system ever applied what they called as International-standardized curriculum in which most of the textbooks used in school are written bilingually and the learning and teaching process was supposed to be delivered more in English. School facilities were somehow improved, for instance, changing the fan in the classroom into AC or laboratories were more equipped. However, this educational intention did not go as what was expected because the teachers as the key point of the pedagogical process were not prepared with English as the language of instruction. Schools were more busy with improving infrastructures and paying less attention to the main concern; preparing the teacher and students for a bilingual class. Consequently, this governmental program did not last long and somehow wasted the money that could be allocated into more important matters.

  • Joseph says:

    Thank you for an interesting post. Personally, I never heard of such education policy so I was surprised to read about it. It is unfair that ESL education is not meeting the standard that students are needing it in their academic success. Something that wonders me is that why is United States of America even considered such education policy when their country has a spirit of multinationalism? Australia has a similar national spirit but its view towards ESL education is totally different. Personally, I believe that Japanese language education is similar to the US because it requires the students to study in a class-oriented group even if they are failing to understand the content. I strongly believe that individual-oriented learning system needs to be considered in many different countries.

  • Alfa says:

    I did not expect the contents of this article to open my eyes about the issues happening in the U.S. I feel disappointed because in the current year, you’d think there are measures in place to help include ESL students. But the reality is, they’re seen as a disadvantaged group and that saddens me. Those students deserve a tailored, good quality education just as any other students. With the innovation of technology and the wealth of resources, ESL students can thrive with their English skills while maintaining their mother tongues. Perhaps a program to motivate teachers can assist the momentum in the classrooms too. I’m utterly disappointed by the education laws in the U.S. and I hope the ‘No Child Left Behind’ policy really improves to do what it literally means to do.

  • Ana says:

    I have heard about this US policy regarding education; however I was unaware of the intricacies of it. It seems that legislators have drafted this piece of legislation without any consultation from language experts. It really bewilders me that still members of government do not fully appreciate the importance of making informed decisions when it comes to pedagogic approaches.
    It appears that monolingual language ideologies dominate this US bill, and little value is given to multiculturalism and multilingualism. I believe that all children should be afforded the opportunity to be literate in their mother tongue and to keep that language instead of losing it to the dominant one in their society. This post showcases another example of by submersion education does not work, and why second language learners should be given the opportunity to learn the target second language separate from academic content in order to avoid further compounded disadvantages.

  • T. N. says:

    The failure of NCLB underlines the importance of thorough, sound research behind any policy, the inept handling of which is bound to bring about expansive detrimental consequences. For example, in Vietnam, education is a constantly worrying issue as too much attention is paid to tests and examinations and theoretical knowledge while practical skills are largely ignored. Although several educational reforms have been proposed and implemented to change this situation, the Vietnamese education still appears to be stuck in a rut and people’s trust (if ever existent) in the competence of those at the helm of the country’s government can’t help but falter.

  • Alisa says:

    Indeed, the birth of some education policies did not meet the original expectations, but had a negative impact on education. It is very difficult to formulate a perfect system. I can only say that I hope to improve on the basis of the original. As a policy that hopes to improve student achievement, the “No children left behind” policy failed to realize its value, but it also hindered the development of bilingualism. For countries like the United States, it is difficult to come up with a perfect policy based on such a large area and population. Fortunately, some people have seen the shortcomings of these policies, and it is better to make improvements on this basis.

  • Sofia says:

    It is so disappointing when a policy implemented with the hope to improve education turns out to worsen the situation. This is ubiquitous in many countries’ educations as well. The thing is once the negative consequences are observed, there need to be adjustments. In a lot of Asian countries, test scores are set as the standard to judge a students’ language ability. To make sure the teaching quality is improved, teachers try to push students to study with test-based strategy, so that other people believe that students’ language ability really enhanced. But in fact, the test only covers limited language skills, which is not enough to judge the improvement in language ability. Policymakers should focus on reality instead of numbers

  • Sue says:

    The consequences disclosed in ‘no children left behind’ should make every language teacher(especial teaches a specific language as a second language) aware that there is huge difference between teaching a language and teaching a language as a second language. ESL teaching requires more expert knowledge on pedagogy, learner needs, cultural differences,etc. Instead of a traditional way that views being a second language learner as a disadvantage, the ESL teachers should make the best of the learners’ experiences and their learning cognition based on their learning needs, conversing their disadvantage to advantage. Furthermore, any educational policy should be made on the basis of scientific researches, consultations from experts and teaching staffs in the field, avoiding broad detrimental effects on students, teaching staffs, schools involved.

  • Odno says:

    I find that this act is one of the examples how educational policy and act could fail if there is no insightful, outreach research done by qualified researchers and educators. Policy makers wanted make a good impression on audience and this act was done. In many countries, education is important field and politicians have always wanted to reform and being liked by majority of the people. However, this act neglected the minority students whose mother tongue are not English. In my view, in that case educators who involved in educating those students should have said a word and must have been active. Hence, in general, parents and students do not know the nature and flaw of this act and educators understand well. Most importantly, politicians should not implement the policy without sound, well-done research on it.

  • Abbie says:

    I agree that the policy should consider multiculturalism and multilingualism as reference for diverse classes, especially for migrant students in the country. It is challenging for ESL learners to acquire native-like English proficiency, and the learners certainly need to take more time than local students to perform themselves in academia. Although it is really challenging for ESL students to achieve the same expectation as mainstream students would meet, I wonder whether the government provides certain resources for schools to develop or support the extra needs for ESL students to achieve a certain level. Appropriate and enough resources may benefit both ESL education development and the achievement of the policy.

  • Dee says:

    Hi Ingrid, Thank you for your insightful view of the NCLB policy of the U.S government. I agree that the policy places a considerable challenge on both students and teachers because the test has to take linguistic diversity into account. And, when something is involved in the term “diversity”, it does not have a specific definition to capture its variation. Therefore, I think that it is an inherently challenging task for the educators in that context to tailor the school’s curriculum to meet the test’s requirements. To lessen the challenge, in my viewpoint, there should not be the standardised tests; instead, more attention and time should be paid to the local or classroom assessment.

    Dee

  • fidjicz says:

    Well, it is always surprising to read that policy makers hardly listen to the recommendations of experts who have actually something worthy to say about a specific topic and a policy. We can only wonder why would certain decisions and policies, such as this No Child Left Behind are introduced despite its obvious flaws. Teaching to the test is hardly a good idea as students tend to be merely seen as numbers/results rather than little humans keen to learn and who may also have their special learning needs. Would it make a difference if the majority of politicians had a personal experience with bilingualism?

  • Jamie says:

    I have read from “Creative School” of Ken Robinson that this act was resulted from the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) report. In 2000, PISA was performed the first time to measure 15-year-old school pupils’ performance on mathematics, science, and reading in more than 70 countries. The report showed that the US was not in the top 10 in any subjects, yet they had always been among the countries that spend the most money for education. The US government was not happy that their country was falling back in an international competition like this, so they decided “to improve educational achievement by assessing student progress through standardized testing” to make sure that their rankings would increase. And we all know the consequences of this unwise decision now.
    I heard that the NCLB was changed into “Every Student Succeeds Act” (ESSA) in 2015. As far as I know, standardized testing is not eliminated; it is promoted that states and districts are now given the autonomy to set their own standards and goals which used to be determined by the federal government like in NCLB act. The thing that I find funny is that those standards and goals are still required to be submitted to the US Department of Education for feedback and approval. I has not updated about how it is working now. It would be great if someone can share with me more information about this act.

  • Leo says:

    To me, “No children left behind” policy did not acknowledge the diversity of students’ language background, but focused on how to promote higher test scores in children. U.S is a multicultural country, so if the policy neglected this aspect, it is a burden not only to ESL students, but also ESL teachers and it also affects bilingual program. Therefore, enacting a policy, especially on education, would make a great impact on generations. In my country, the government has recently had the changes in the ways of testing, for example from short-answer questions to multiple choices, which also provokes a debate whether it is a good way to test the students’ knowledge and performance or not.

  • Loulou says:

    It is obvious that an improper educational reforms can have several negative impacts on the young generation, and so do the NCLB. Such educational reforms have caused the imbalance between native and non-native English speaker.
    In my home country, the Ministry of education have also made some educational reforms, reflecting via the change of textbook every five-year-period. Consequently, both teachers and students have to adjust themselves to follow the new curriculum

  • Sunny says:

    Thank you for sharing this article. The main drawback of the policy’No children left behind’ issued by the United States is that it neglects the significance of multiculture. Instead, in order to pursue high scores in tests given in English, the policy does not give enough respect for ESL students as well as ESL teachers. The standards presented in the policy bring much pressure on students who are not native English speakers as well as ESL education institution. It means that they have to help ESL students achieve native-English speakers’ language proficiency and have a good understanding at other subjects in a limited time, which disobeys the language learning rules. It also means that score is the main tool to measure students’ learning outcomes and performance, instead of attaching importance to comprehensively mental and physical development. Besides, ESL will gain less cultural identity during this process.

  • Milo Han says:

    After reading the article, I am conscious that the educational reforms make great impacts on learner’s language learning process, particularly on the next generations. Unless educational planners find effective solutions to reform the appropriate curriculum for learners, the consequences will become more serious. The Vietnamese Educational Ministry has posed numerous educational reforms, notably in textbooks. However, there are several contents which is improper for learners; moreover, the curriculum is relatively complex, compared to the proficiency of learners, especially the syllabus for secondary learners. Therefore, the Ministry has encountered an array of criticisms from the parents and the public.

  • Alex P. says:

    One must question just how “honourable” it actually was. Possible hidden agendas may have been at work. The end result was the further marginalization of already segregated parts of the community. Why were experts ignored? Why not take into account warnings from professionals in the field. I do not know what the immigration policy was in those days, but, if it is anything like today’s then dissociation through discourse is not new. Presidents appeasing their constituents is not novel. From a linguistic point of view, it simply does not make sense to only teach to the test as the consequences of backwash are all too familiar.

  • Mary Burr says:

    As a U.S citizen and student, I can speak with certainty when I say the NCLB act had disastrous consequences for many students across a vast range of disciplines. Not only was bilingualism and multiculturism disenfranchised in the classroom but education has a whole became heavily standardized. With this policy came quarterly, semesterly, and yearly state exams which only focused on very specific aspects of English, mathematics, history and some sciences. As a result of the added pressure on educators, entire lesson plans and lectures were devised around test material and acres of information and knowledge was left to dust. Every student’s education and academic performance was minimalized and defined by state exams and exam results. Schools which performed below the state or national level were often penalized by the reallocation of funds, which were originally allocated as a means of improving classroom resources in the form of new books, computers, and more educators. This created a vicious circle of subjugation which kept schools, especially schools with higher populations of minority students- or bilingual students, in a system that could not adhere to its student’s needs.

    • Mark says:

      It’s disappointing that the U.S. government was willing to institute such a vast, influential new education policy despite its failure to acknowledge the latest academic research regarding bilingualism and second language acquisition at the time. When government policies fail to heed the advice of relevant academic research, it makes you question the competence of government and whether there are alternative motives behind such policy decisions. It’s disappointing to see how these decisions have resulted in emergent bilinguals particular educational needs being neglected so that teachers can try to meet these ‘standard targets’ that fail to recognize the particularities of the local teaching context.
      I’ve been living in Japan for the past three years and can see the detrimental effects of heavily standardized testing regimes on English language education here. Although there are many other issues involved in English language education in this context, the national standardized testing system in particular places a heavy and restrictive burden on what teachers can do in class. In Junior high school where I work, even the teachers who want to focus on teaching English for communication have to resort to repetitive drilling of grammar points and vocabulary in an effort to help students to rote learn the answers for upcoming exams (which occur quite regularly – around 4 times per year). From my perspective, I can see how standardization outcome education policies restrict teachers creatively and prevent them from addressing the needs of their unique local teaching context.

  • PJ says:

    Apparently, this NCLB made a lot of bilingual students feel stuck in their study at school. This policy follows a standardized testing which doubly adds more work and burden on bilingual students and even teachers. Moreover it could lead to serious consequences in education as both teachers and students are pressured by achieving standard outcomes. To me, any reform of education, any change to the national educational system, all educators, teachers and even parents need to be involved in. They expect to be given more rights in every educational reform.

  • Quang Huy Nguyen says:

    This article provides a useful insight into the “NCLB”. Such an inadequate move will adversely affect on learners, notably our young generations. If educators are not taking any potential factors into consideration, the effect will be of great hazard.
    In my home country, there has been a number of educational reforms especially in learning materials with inappropriate content to the young. This was confronted with many oppositions from the public.

  • Quang Huy Nguyen says:

    Such an useful article.
    This makes me aware of the importance and enormous effects of educational reforms on learners, notably the young generation.
    If the reforms do not take every potential factors into consideration, the influence will be hazardous just like ‘NCLB’ in the article. All in all, it will be our young generation who will be adversely affected by such inadequate educational reforms.

  • Keelan says:

    A very interesting read with so many insights on the NCLB policy. The policy seems to have had only a superficial effect, tackling the problem only on the surface. I think it was created to serve a political purpose rather than educational by promoting “bilingualism” as something like a brand. I love the last part where you pointed out the policy ignored the notions of multiculturalism and multilingualism and saw speakers of other languages as having deficits rather than different experiences to add to the pedagogical environment, which is totally against the true nature of education in the first place.

  • Judy says:

    This is an insightful article that points out negative aspects of standardized tests. Such tests often overlook test takers’ individual traits, such as language and cultural background. Although diversifying tests according to different types of students could cost a lot and be time-consuming, negative washback should be minimised. As mentioned, I also feel it is a serious side effect that schools and teachers are pressured to achieve high scores on the tests and have difficulty with delivering truly quality education for their students.

  • Thuong Tran says:

    There is always inequality of linguistic competence between native speakers and non native ones. This reality is understood by only teachers whose teaching philosophy is all about human development. However, politics dictate many social aspects including educations. Hence, teachers are getting stuck in a dilemma which one side they have to follow the educational policies, the other side is they have to complete a duty of a teacher to train the students. Obviously, there is more urgent necessity to listen more to teachers who are actually teaching from educational politicians. Because despite the common target of education and educational politics serves people, not anything else. The role of teachers in education is absolutely paramount because they directly give instructions to learners, but teachers are not gatekeepers. I think teachers must be entitled to have more rights to decision.

  • Kina says:

    Thank you for sharing this post. What an ironic and unfortunate name for such a Public Law.
    There is a part of me that believes tests do not always accurately reflect or demonstrate one’s knowledge in a particular area. However, when that idea is combined with ESL students who do not have ample time in order to generate a complete understanding of English which is sufficient enough to reveal their knowledge of particular curriculum, they have been set up to fail. On top of that, not focusing on ESL teachers seems incomprehensible. It seems completely bizarre that students with limited english proficiency would be left in the dark in a sense.
    What is also interesting is the NCLB’s failure to accommodate for bilingual education and provide support for native language development. I personally believe this is a huge loss as native languages are essential to preserving cultural connections, as well as the passing of a language and culture onto future generations.

  • DrHandstand says:

    Standardised testing! Politicians more concerned with the bottom line and superficial figures that make them look good for re-election but do absolutely nothing to address important issues again and again! Why do we still have politicians in this day and age? Also, does this not also have parallels with NAPLAN in Australia? Furthermore, teaching to the test would have to be the most useless and demotivating form of learning and teaching there is. The disregard to professional opinion and lack of emphasis on ESL teacher qualification is pretty sad with the latter also being a major contributor to the sometimes bad reputation of the industry in Australia and the USA from my experience.

  • Amal says:

    Hi everyone,

    As a student of English as a second language in an English-native country, I could feel the disappointment ESL students faced when pushed to achieve high score in standardized, often unrealistic and less likely to be practical tests to prove their level. I personally find such an approach to measure literacy does not necessarily reflect actual proficiency, and in the most part, neglects the important role of time, exposure, motivation, resources and other factors for second language acquisition.

  • Giang says:

    I totally agree that this No Child Left Behind made a lot of chidren left behind. This post illustrates that both ESL teachers and students have to incur many constraints from the society and particularly the educational system. Personally, I’m wondering about another consequence from this policy. In the case that ESL students cannot catch up with the mainstream ones, they may seek for after-school private English classes, which creates burden on both the family’s financial status and the learners’ workload. I think if we delve into all possible scenarios, we might see some more unintended outcomes of the policy.

  • *This particular topic was fantastic as it combines my passion for politics, policy-making, law and of course education!

    Under the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act 2001, the USA law no longer required schools to provide bilingual programs. The word “bilingual” was completely expunged and previous legislation was overturned. Landmark Supreme Court cases, such as the 1974 Lau v Nichols case were dismissed as irrelevant, replacing a new precedent that encapsulated the inefficient Bush Administration policy-making. The USA entered a new era of education depletion and left behind a legacy that caused devastating loss of opportunities for bilingual children and their future. This was deliberately implemented with all intention of no longer accepting a mandate nor a preclude for the use of a particular curricular or a pedagogical approach to education and thereby limiting the needs of bilingual children.

    Therefore, the argument that the Bush Administration had “good intentions” is baseless and endorses the blatant rise of the political neoliberalism and the deregulation of the US economy, trade, education, health and social welfare. Extensive research reveals how the testing and accountability provided the justification for blaming and dismantling bilingual education programs (Menken & Solorza, 2012, p. 21).

    The legacy of the NCLB left behind an unequal education system rort with negligent treatment of those who could not speak English proficiently. Classrooms were no longer meaningful as they became unbearably incomprehensible for those who could not understand English. As a result of imposed NCLB standards of giving all students the same textbooks, curriculum, facilities and teachers did not improve bilingual students’ English.

    A persistent gap remains due to the enactment of NCLB. The academic gap of achievement between children in the USA and their international counterparts came at an enormous cost. The economic loss of $2.3 trillion in economic output in 2008 highlighted the failure of the Bush Administration.

    https://www.k12academics.com/Federal%20Education%20Legislation/Bilingual%20Education%20Act/bilingual-education-act-no-child-left-behind

    Hursh, D. (2007). Assessing No Child Left Behind and the Rise of Neoliberal Education Policies. American Educational Research Journal, Vol. 44, No. 3, p.p.493-518.

    Menken, K., & Solorza, C. (2012). No Child Left Bilingual: Accountability and the Elimination of Bilingual Education Programs in New York City Schools. Education Policy, Vol.30, p.p.1-30.

    Uzzell, L (2005). No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy. Policy Analysis, No. 544, p.p.1-28.

    Wright, W.E. (2005). Evolution of Federal Policy and Implications of No Child Left Behind for Language Minority Students. Language Policy Research Unit, Arizona State University, p.p.1-56.

  • Alexandra Grey says:

    Even the good intentions are debatable if policy formation takes so little notice of research as to run into the “unintended” consequences that were entirely foreseeable. How practically or morally good are civil servants and politicians who ignorantly or even deliberately avoid engaging with research? Surely they have a higher standard of “good” to meet than simply being people who generally wish children well.

    • Emily McKinney says:

      Very good point. It makes me wonder about how our civil servants are trained? Just like doctors/teachers/soldiers are trained to meet certain expectations, shouldn’t our politicians be trained/required to have more of an understanding of the relevant research in their area of governance? But of course, another question would follow…how could that be practically implemented into the system?

  • Chris says:

    My sister is also an educator who had dealt with this and derisively refers to the law as the “No school left standing”. Good intentions but poor planning, execution and lack of consideration of unintended consequences. I wish George Bush and other legislators would read your article.

  • David Marjanović says:

    It was very soon called the No Child’s Behind Left Act…

Leave a Reply