In The News Issue Review: No Child Left Behind Act
Written by: Deborah Binkley-Jackson, Gifflene C. Charles and Danny Johnson

IT Connection
The NCLB act has a multifaceted impact on the overall landscape of education in America.  One such area of impact is technology integration in schools.  The Office of Educational Technology (OET) is responsible for maximizing technology's contribution to improving education (Office of Educational Technology, 2006). The OET is responsible for verifying that every 8th grader is technology literate and has created two plans to achieve this; the National Education Technology Plan (U.S. Department of Education, 2006) and the Partnership for 21st Century Skills (Partnership for 21st Century Skills, 2004). These two plans combined draw a greater emphasis on the use of technology (computer skills) in the classroom.  This emphasis on technology not only has a great impact on teachers and school systems it also has a tremendous impact on the instructional design professional. 
            The NCLB act’s technology proficiency clause requires that educational professionals such as instructional designers use their very best skills in instructional technology.  Even educational software companies, for example the manufacturers of Inspiration, a concept-mapping tool, are taking the extra step in ensuring that their software is NCLB compliant.  Some might say that teachers are now teaching to the test rather than teaching to the student because of NCLB.  While this may be a concern, it is no more of a concern than what state and local school system policy requirements are for student scores.  NCLB focuses on the gap between educational achievement of minority students and their peers.  What is evident by the NCLB act is a greater improvement in what really works in the classrooms for teachers, administrators and even the instructional designer.  The NCLB act has no requirements in what the instructional material is and how it is used.  Furthermore, the NCLB has actually created a working cohesion among teachers, schools and states in what actually works in the classroom.  This is evident by the sharing of information through the What Works Clearinghouse (WWC).
The WWC is a repository of educational practices, programs, interventions and such that has proven to be a trusted source of scientific evidence of what works in education (What Works Clearinghouse, 2006). From Instructional designers to policy makers, administrative staff to teachers can, and does use the WWC in an effort to find and help to create educational practices that work.  While the WWC makes available instructional programs that have empirical evidence to prove their worth, some question the idea that one holding source of information has so much power.  The idea of the central repository for what works in education is not a mandate to use any of its holdings.  The WWC is providing an avenue for educational staff to find remedies to failing educational practices.  An instructional designer would do well to make a note of the WWC and what research exists in its holdings.

Local Impact
The NCLB Act will ultimately affect anyone who is employed in the public school system. It is the maintaining of records that appear to be of most critical importance for local school districts that accept Title I federal funding also known as, Education for the Disadvantaged–Grants to Local Education Agencies (LEA) and State Education Agencies (SEA), Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged, Title I Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA,) Title I LEA Grants. Accountability for documenting and reporting the progress of individuals with backgrounds inclusive of the following: ethnic minorities, disabilities, limited English proficiency, and the economically disadvantaged is essential if grant aid is to be provided (National Access Network, 2005). This academic performance must be readily available to anyone who wants the information. It can be useful to prospective teachers who desire to know which schools are deemed successful, and also to school boards in an effort to determine the success of a superintendent. The information may also serve to assist voters in determining the effectiveness of their school boards.
            In May 2001, The Oklahoma State Department of Education received a letter regarding the outcome of the Department of Education’s (DOE) peer review of the final assessment system. At that time there were five areas that did not meet the assessment requirements. In November 2001, the DOE issued another letter in response to Oklahoma’s September 2001 submission of a two-year timeline to complete various activities, and to provide evidence of compliance in order to remain eligible for Title I funding. The Oklahoma State Department of Education received a final letter in September of 2004, regarding the approval of its assessment system and its full compliance that satisfied the requirements under Title I.
Research findings between 2002 and 2005 show that there have been improvements in education; Fifth-grade reading proficiency increased by seven percentage points, Fifth-grade mathematics proficiency increased by 13 percentage points, the Black-White achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points, the Black-White achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by five percentage points, the Hispanic-White achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by 11 percentage points, the Hispanic-White achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by eight percentage points, the American Indian-White achievement gap in fifth-grade reading narrowed by four percentage points, and the American Indian-White achievement gap in fifth-grade mathematics narrowed by four percentage points (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

1.:. 2.:. 3