7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
1/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 1
No Child Left Behind Waiver of Proficiency Requirements Recommendation for
Murrieta Valley Unified School District,
Murrieta, California
A White Paper
Ronald Guilliams
National University
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
2/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 2
Abstract
This paper delves into the history of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA) and its latest/current reauthorization No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2002 via
books, published articles, Department of Education website, and numerous online sources
to build a practical understanding of the pros and cons surrounding this highly charged
topic. The articles vary widely in their treatment of NCLB and potential courses of action
facing the educational and political communities. The three major purposes developed
include the absolute need to retain current NCLB positive attributes of Accountability
and parental school choice (Alliance for Education, 2010), recommend incorporating
continuous school improvement (CSI) (Hawley, 2006) as the fundamental guiding
directive in the next ESEA reauthorization, and energize Californias political base to
collaborate with the other states in the take-back of control of our schools from the
continuing overreach of the federal education bureaucracy (Marshall, 2011b). Todays
consensus places the teacher as the single greatest contributor to the learning successes of
American youth (Ventriglia, 2010b). Government Accountability Office (GAO) data of
2006 notes that up to thirty-five percent of the $55 Billion appropriated federal education
dollars ($19 Billion) were consumed as overhead and administrative set-asides by the
twenty administering federal agencies (Marshall, 2011a). The demographics (Capps,
Murray, Ost, Passel, & Hernandez, 2005) of a seven percent K-12 enrollment increase
since 1970, eighty-three percent administrative staff increase and nineteen percent
decline in the number of teachers points to the appalling results of public education in
2011 (Marshall, 2011a).
Keywords: accountability, parental choice, continuous improvement, local control
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
3/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 3
Table of Contents
Abstract2
Chapter One: Introduction.......5
Background to the White Paper7
Purpose of the White Paper...8
Personal Statement....9
Research Question..10
Significance of the White Paper.10
Delimitations...11
Definitions..12
Summary.13
Chapter Two: Literature Review...13
Introduction....13
History of No Child Left Behind Act 2002....17
NCLB Absolutist Requirements of 100% Proficiency by 2014.19
NCLB and Continuous School Improvement.21
Summary.23
Chapter Three: Implementation24
Introduction....24
Proposed Solution...25
Rationale/Benefits of Proposed Solution28
Limitations..31
Implementation...32
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
4/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 4
Summary.33
Reflective Essay.34
References..36
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
5/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 5
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Our United States education system is once again at a transformational crossroads
or, as many of the educational community would say, is as many as four years past the
needed and expected reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
(ESEA), now known - No Child Left Behind (NCLB), 2002. ESEAs beginning came out
of President Lyndon Johnsons Great Society War on Poverty series of 1965
legislative initiatives. Customarily, ESEA has been renewed every four to seven years
since the initial 1965 signing. Prior to NCLB, 2002, ESEA was last reauthorized in 1994
during the first term of the Clinton Administration. As a former governor of South
Carolina, President Clintons Secretary of Education, Richard Riley, was instrumental in
laying the groundwork for the NCLB, 2002 reauthorization (Berlak, 2010).
As laid out by Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003), the 1994 ESEA reauthorization
focused on high standards for all children, linking teaching and learning, educational
community partnership, flexibility and responsibility, and targeting resources to greatest
needs. The Clinton Administration championed the movement to standards-based
education and assessment that began with A Nation at Riskwent national with the
passage of Improving Americas Schools Act of 1994 (IASA) (Jorgensen and Hoffman,
2003, p. 4) ESEA reauthorization. The experiences of the Clinton years disappointments
with their administrations perception of the states failures to adopt content standards,
states slowness to embrace accountability, and resistance to change of the educational
community (Cohen & Mofitt, 2009), served to focus a political (principally Democratic)
consensus (Hess & Petrilli, 2004). This Congressional consensus saw educators as
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
6/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 6
accepting of mediocrity and the States continuing to fail our at riskcommunities of
African American, Latino, socioeconomically challenged, and disabled children.
Hess and Petrilli (2004) posited that NCLB was the Clinton administrations
experiential assumption that state and local educational communities suffered from
political paralysis and that the only savior would be the white knight of the federal
educational establishment. Political decision makers, after years of perceived, ineffective
school reform, became convinced that high standards and meaningful sanctions were
essential to changing business as usual schooling (Hess & Petrilli, 2004, p. 3). The net
effect of NCLB was to essentially provide a Nuclear Option to school boards and
superintendents (Manna, 2011). Either get with the program in eliminating ineffective,
under-performing administrators and teachers, prioritizing spending for poorer schools,
challenging the status quo with unions, linking teacher quality and pay, and rapidly
modernizing administrative support, or they would essentially be replaced via extreme
sanctions. NCLB was described by Hess and Petilli (2004) as a splendid piece of
bipartisan sausage-making (p. 3). The Obama administrations recently advocated
NCLB waivers for all states may well serve to undermine the two salient measures of
setting and achieving high standards and the accountability of annual yearly progress
(AYP) methodology (Burke, 2011). This will be the signature event for the entire
legislative/educational community to work to modify and strengthen NCLB based on our
numerous lessons learned rather than knee-capping the many positive NCLB aspects
through executive fiat of an administration repeatedly demonstrating an affinity for
unions at the expense of our children (Marshall, 2011b).
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
7/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 7
Background of the White Paper
When able to attend any parent-teacher development committee, departmental
instructional meeting, or administrative staff meeting, invariably the conversation will
gravitate to California Standards Testing (CST) achievement results in reading and
mathematics. This discussion then naturally moves on to CSTs role in the Standardized
Testing and Reporting (STAR) programs impact on school district and individual
schools Academic Performance Index (API) and accompanying Adequate Yearly
Progress (AYP) goals attainment. The negative aspects of NCLB invariably center on the
onerous demands of the accountability phase overwhelming the purist aspects of learning
the prescribed content standards. Additionally, reading and mathematics preparation
always supersedes the value of the other curriculum areas of science, history, health, and
music.
Additional effecters of this educational soup are the extended interactions of
groups beyond the primary student, parent, teacher, and school administrator
stakeholders. The state budget battles, union intransigence, educational thinkers, social
activists/groups, ethnic activists/groups, rampant illegal immigration, over-regulation,
global warming, and environmentalism at state and federal levels are just a few of the
many hands in the pockets of our local, front-line, stake holders (Manna, 2011).
After interviewing two, current Murrieta Valley Unified School District
(MVUSD) single subject secondary teachers, their observation of the unintended
consequences of NCLB centered on the intense focus on meeting and exceeding the ever
increasing NCLB proficiency requirements. As committed math teachers astride one the
two content areas to be tested for student proficiency (mathematics), they both expressed
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
8/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 8
anxiety and disappointment in their inability to continually use the numerous best
practice teaching methods of engagement in authentic learning projects. Instead, both
were, of necessity, forced to singularly focus on the testable areas of mathematics for
several months each year leading up to the CSTs. An unsolicited observation centered on
their feeling that they were being forced into a one size fits all (Ventriglia, 2010a)
teaching method in order to ensure that their students, their school, and, ultimately, their
jobs were sustained.
Purpose of the White Paper
The purpose of this white paper is to explore and recommend a position of
adoption of an educationally focused continuous improvement approach to NCLB rather
that the currently legislated NCLB absolutist format (Hawley, 2006). In the current
NCLB, the requirement of one hundred percent proficiency of all students by 2014 is, at
best, an admirable goal worthy of challenging. However, to invoke sanctions for failing
AYP attainment is not statistically or mathematically possible. NCLB authored this
position in January, 2002 for one hundred percent proficiency attainment 12 years later.
The game changing potential of NCLB was to immediately force the state and local
educational community to assess its readiness and to quickly develop and implement
strategies to achieve the culminating requirement or propose alternate solutions based on
the lessons learned in early implementations. From its inception, ESEA and its ongoing
reauthorizations were envisioned for four to seven year reauthorization cycles. No
legislation, not even the U.S. Constitution, was envisioned to remain unchanged with the
passage of time. The stakeholders of the educational community have known for several
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
9/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 9
years that the currently defined AYP was not attainable or sustainable and it is now
imperative that the next reauthorization incorporate the positive aspects of NCLB while
mitigating the unintended consequences. Continuous improvement methodology will be
proposed by this white paper as a viable strategy for MVUSD instead of being included
in a potential California statewide waiver whose purpose is to primarily benefit the many
urban schools who have not achieved the positive benefits of NCLB to educate at risk
children.
Personal Statement
If I had the power to ignore reality, I could probably be a California legislator. If I
also had the power to ignore the legitimate and real needs of students, then I could be an
unabashed supporter of the needs of teachers, unions, and administrators above that of
our children. Instead, I am a 61 year old semi-retired Marine officer desirous of
continuing a life of service through teaching our children, all of our children: English
Language Learners (ELL), socio-economically challenged, Latinos, Native American
Indians, African Americans, disabled, and all others in our rainbow of children.
I also know and understand that the relation of an employee to his employer is
that I must fulfill the requirements of the job I am hired to perform. Based on current
NCLB requirements, I must master the art of teaching todays youth, fulfill desired best
practices teaching methods, authentically engage students, challenge students to develop
personally and academically, but above all, I must help my students master the California
content standards of mathematics or the sciences. My personal desire is to see MVUSD
adopt a continuous school improvement (CSI) learning format within a California
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
10/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 10
continuous learning methodology. As a teacher, this would allow me to teach the content
standards through authentic learning projects and experiences to truly transform my
students learning. As a teacher, I cannot legitimately take newly arrived middle school
ELLs or immigrant children from their current proficiency all the way to 100% proficient
by 2014. What I know I can do is to challenge them to grow and improve year, over year,
over year (Hawley, 2006).
Research Question
The research question that will define this literature review and proposed
solutions section is, what does research show as a link between research on cognition and
cognitive processing enabling schools to become learning organizations capable of
continuous improvement (Hawley, 2006, p. 4)?
Significance of the White Paper
According to Dewey (1916), the broader social purpose of education is to help
people become more effective members of democratic society (p.1). Stated otherwise, a
signature purpose of education is to help students prepare for adulthood. In our
grandparents or great-grandparents more agrarian societies, preparation for adulthood
occurred at the hands of parents and grandparents in hands-on work around the farm,
ranch, or on the hunt. In todays specialized workforce, our youths preparations may be
for college or technical training, service in the armed forces, public service such as law
enforcement or healthcare, and/or as parents.
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
11/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 11
When looking at todays stories of the various Occupy demonstrations and civil
disobedience, the need for students to learn to think critically is imperative. In a way,
NCLB focuses our critical thinking development in the necessary areas of reading and
mathematics. Reading to help us explore and learn deeply of the world around us and
mathematics as a foundation of modern life extending from learning of borrowing money
to purchase a car to how to understand the taxes of the ninety-nine percent. This white
paper proposes the modification of NCLB to incorporate the values of lessons learned
rather than casually waiver out of existence the positive benefits of high expectations
complimented by accountability through improved AYP measurements/assessments
(Alliance for Education, 2010).
This white paper is further focused on all members of MVUSDs stakeholders
starting first with students and including parents, teachers, administrators, local school
board members, local community, and local and state elected officials. Teachers,
counselors, and parents must continue to challenge their students to look forward into
their lives and to personally define their learning values in terms of NCLB measured
reading and mathematics proficiency (Holden, 2010). The greater battles of whether to
waiver or not waiver NCLB requirements are far above their current learning needs. No
one can argue with the premise that reading and mathematics proficiency will help them
in their preparation for adulthood.
Delimitations
Societal impacts of progressive educational thought from President Johnsons
Great Society and its War on Poverty permutations through todays dysfunctional
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
12/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 12
political process could be considered in great detail. However, the focus of this white
paper is on the science of cognition and understanding necessary to fully consider the
opportunity of embracing continuous improvement rather than the time honored reform
or change (Hawley, 2006, p. 3). The breadth of this paper will explore the opportunities
for retaining the positive features of NCLB as the MVUSD evolves forward developing
the capacity within its member schools for the benefits of continuous improvement versus
the arbitrary (overcome by events-OBE) one hundred percent proficient by 2014.
Definitions
ESEA
Elementary and Secondary Education Act was initially approved in 1965 and variously
reauthorized through the year 2002.
IASA
Improving Americas Schools Act was an ESEA 1994 reauthorization sponsored by the
Clinton Administration.
NCLB
No Child Left Behind: Elementary and Secondary Education Act last reauthorized in
2002 and predominantly developed by the Clinton Administration and completed by the
Bush Administration. Bill approved with broad bipartisan support in the House of
Representatives and the Senate.
Nuclear Option
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
13/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 13
Idiomatic description of the first implementation of significant sanctions available and
required for schools failing to make satisfactory Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in
student achievement of proficiency in reading and mathematics.
SEA
State Educational Authority/Agency:California Department of Education.
Summary
In Chapter One, the background, purpose, significance, delimitations, and
definitions of this white paper were defined and initially discussed. In a look forward to
Chapter Two, the Literature Review will explore the various histories, expectations,
political underpinnings, lessons learned and possible solutions for the unintended
consequences of NCLB, 2002 and the subsequent executive order bypassing Congress by
encouraging all states to apply for waivers in lieu of completing the ninth reauthorization
of ESEA. This executive office over-reach includes verbiage referencing the states
having college and career ready standards (Burke, 2011, p, 2). This over-reach is
envisioned as providing the Department of Education with the opportunity to skirt every
previous ESEA reauthorizations preclusion of the federal government from involvement
in the content taught in schools (Marshall, 2011b).
CHAPTER TWO: LITERATURE REVIEW
Introduction
The conundrum of todays daily educational discourse is the intractable nature of
achieving even the semblance of any lasting solutions. The following randomly selected
http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/http://www.cde.ca.gov/7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
14/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 14
example of conundrum from Merriam-Websters online dictionary highlights our
collective problem: giving parents a wealth of educational options sometimes presents
a familiar inner-city conundrum: What if all your choices are bad ones? (Merriam-
Webster, 2011, p. 1). Realizing that Boo (2001) wrote her After Welfare article almost
nine months to the day before President Bush signed the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act (NCLB) into law on January 8, 2002, demonstrates the depth of this
challenge to all educational stakeholders. To see this quote referenced today, October 31,
2011, is a jarring call for the entire educational community to reflect on what we are,
what we do, and who this is about?
The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA renamed NCLB) was
signed into law in the fervor of bipartisan cooperation during Congress reflective,
cooperative period following the national disaster of the 911 terrorist attacks on the
World trade Center, New York, NY . As much as our Washington policy makers desired
the positive benefits of the re-authorization, their actions and efforts also reflected their
collective frustration with, as they saw it, the education establishments lack of
cooperation in promoting and living reform in acts and deeds. From the American
Enterprise Institute (AEI) article, Hess and Petrilli (2004) described our law makers as
ready to ruffle some feathers (p. 2), as they forced change on this same reluctant
education community. What is important to understand is the oft perceived lack of
genuine progress of educators in promoting accountability and improvement advocated
by the 1994 reauthorization of ESEA. Eight years and for all intents and purposes, it
appeared that little to no progress was made by our nations schools. The Achievement
Gap (Marshall, 2011a) continued to widen and resulted in a form of tough love (Hess
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
15/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 15
& Petrilli, 2004, p. 3) approach embraced by the leadership of both the Democrat and
Republican parties. The time for change was here.
As the preliminary 1990s (1993~2001) work progressed on the follow-on
reauthorization of ESEA, the effort was heightened by the inputs from former governors
Bill Clinton, AR (then President), Richard Riley, SC (Secretary of Education), and Lamar
Alexander, TN (former Education Secretary). The education community was asked to
voluntarily adopt stronger, assessment testing, accountability, and universal high
expectations of its administrators, teachers, students, parents, state and local elected
school boards (Jorgensen & Hoffman, 2003). In practice, the high expectations espoused
by these former governors (one now President) and the remainder of the Washington
political class was not met with the same intensity at the state and local level. This
perceived foot dragging, somnambulant pace, and apparent resistance to change served to
energize Congress to take charge of what, up to then, had been previously a state and
local issue (Berlak, 2010).
In consideration of the ultimate goal of education, it is reasonable to
reflect back on the contributions and foundations of the current Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (NCLB) of 2002. This literature review will explore the history
leading to the No Child left behind Act of 2001 (signed Jan. 8, 2002), pros and cons of
the underlying science and political motivations of NCLB, continuous improvement as a
NCLB model for the future, and current California progress on the NCLB continuum.
This vital area of teacher awareness is not more apparent than a quick search of the
Department of Education (2011a) website where the only feature item is: ESEA
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
16/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 16
Flexibility where we Find out how states can get relief from provisions of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (NCLB) (Department of Education, 2011b).
The true significance of this ESEA Flexibility initiative is that it is must be considered
in the context of this Executive Branchs ongoing efforts to work around the previous
bipartisan efforts ofour duly elected legislators overwhelming approval of NCLB Act of
2002. Where this is of further concern is in the additional language explaining ESEA
Flexibility. This additional explanation includes: The U.S. Department of Education is
inviting each State educational agency (SEA) to request flexibility on behalf of itself, its
local educational agencies, and schools, (Department of Education, 2011b, p. 1). At
face value, this NCLB waiver seems helpful; however, to an administration challenged
by continuous over-reaches of dubious value such as Solyndras Sept. 6, 2001bankruptcy
default of Department of Energy $535M loan guarantee; Executive Branch notice of
blanket Congress work-around, Sept. 15, 2001; NCLB Waiver notice (ESEA Flexibility)
of Sept. 23, 2011; Executive Branch directed bypass of Mortgage Home Loan program
requirements dated Oct. 25, 2011; Student Loan program bypass of Oct. 26, 2011and the
SIGA-HHS $433 Million no-bid contract, it is hard to understand how this will ultimately
benefit our students. The ESEA Flexibility words imply that this encouraged bypass of
original NCLB requirements will benefit our students. Even though NCLB was
considered by many to be a massive federal government over-reach of state and local
governments, it served to jump-start educational change and provided significant
sanctions for schools repeatedly failing to achieve the required annual yearly progress
(AYP). This was the first time that a schools failure to teach our youth would and have
resulted in mandatory sanctions regardless of onerous union contract protections,
http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibilityhttp://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
17/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 17
ineffective administrations, weak school boards, or compromised state education
agencies (SEAs). This first time ever provision of real consequences finally provides
direct incentive to teach our youth as required by numerous laws, court decisions, and
best practices teaching standards. What is available now is a real opportunity for
segments of the education community to game the system to continue business as usual
with an administration perceived as operating as business as usual (Marshall, 2011b).
History of theNo Child Left Behind Act of 2002
As noted by Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003), Davis (2011), and Johnson, Musial,
Gollnick, Hall, and Dupuis (2008), the NCLB Act of 2002 has, as its roots, legislation
stemming from President Johnsons Great Society and War on Poverty series of
social legislations. Berlak (2010) noted that in 1965 the original Elementary and
Secondary Education Act was signed into law with the promise of providing educational
services to low-income children in about 50% of the nations schools (p. 1). Different
from the Federal government over-reach today, the original thirty-five page ESEA was
focused on preserving and supporting local control and programs. The law actually had
language prohibiting any federal agency or official from exercising direction,
supervision, or control over curriculum or instruction. These same restrictions are
included within the 1994 and 2001 ESEA rewrites. The problem is that successive
Department of Education bureaucracies have, over time, increasingly encroached on the
statutes non-interference language through non-challenged regulations. ESEAs original
intent was for the states and local school boards to have the flexibility to tailor their
responses to their real life, local issues such as severely handicapped, special education
students and their ability/inability to achieve 2014 proficiency standards. This recent,
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
18/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 18
unilateral encouragement of all states to request waivers of relief from provisions of
NCLB 2002, brings with them even greater federal intervention and loss of local
autonomy with the requirement to adopt college- and career ready standards (Marshall,
2011a, p. 1). The old proverb he who pays the piper, calls the tune is now truer than ever.
The NCLB Act 2001 (ESEA reauthorization) is notionally built on four national
educational reform goals (Johnson et al., 2008) of: 1) stronger accountability, 2)
increased flexibility and local control, 3) expanded options for parents, and 4) using
teaching methods that are proven to work (Best Practices). It is certainly an oxymoron to
speak of increasing flexibility and local control coupled with parental options when
schools are not able to implement vouchers or other formats. When the local school
board/administration are unable to effect needed change with their teachers and staff,
NCLB by default provides an option of last resort: the so-calledNuclear Option. Even
with the ever increasing federal over-reach into local control, the stringent sanctions
options are the truly beneficial aspects of NCLB (Burke, 2011). With the current
administrations recent embrace of the waiver for every school, there is reason for
concern that the Chrysler/GM UAW taxpayer disaster would find its way into the local
bargaining agendas as well as encourage more federal attempted involvement in content
and curriculum.
Remembering that the goal of education is to prepare students for adulthood, the
National Commission on Excellence in Education was chartered in 1981 to survey the
many aspects of teaching with special emphasis on the educational experiences of teen-
aged youth. TheNation at Riskreport was issued in April, 1983. From the commissions
findings, Jorgensen and Hoffman (2003) explored the seven risk areas and extrapolated
http://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://www.heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-education7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
19/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 19
recommendations for four educational process areas of: (1) content; (2) expectations; (3)
time; and (4) teaching (p2). Fundamental to NCLB were the top-down changes implied,
directed, needed as decided by the Washington political class in the prior implementation
of Improving Americas Schools Act (IASA) of 1994 (reauthorization of original ESEA)
and its companion Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The drive for improvement further
embraced the need for content and performance standards, for assessments aligned to the
standards, and accountability. Even though the various acts professed increased/retained
local control, the federal over-reach has continued into the state ESAs and local education
providers domains (Education World, 2011). In defense of the increasing federal over-
reach, many schools have continued to fail their charters: their students. From these ever
increasing expectations, our political leadership became convinced that the local
providers were continuing to fail at an even greater rate and from these frustrations came
the dictates of the NCLB Act 2002 (Toppo, 2007).
NCLB Absolutist Requirements of 100% Proficiency by 2014
As in all good deeds, none go unpunished. As we are taught today, there are few
absolute answers to todays complicated questions. According to Toppo (2007), todays
NCLB has created an intense sense of urgency to teach the invisible or previously
statistically unseen students (Toppo, 2007, Invisible Students Get Attention section,
para. 1) . The problem of the onrush of 2014 one hundred percent proficiency standards is
the standard itself. One hundred percent, although a great and challenging goal, cannot
realistically be achieved in any dynamic student population. We even teach test takers
today that the first level of inspection for a question is to challenge out absolute multiple
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
20/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 20
choice answers. We are not talking about 2 + 2 = 4, but about questions that ask only,
always, never for thought questions. The same applies to the one hundred percent dictate
for proficiency. What happens when one state clamps down on illegal aliens? The
population, unlike state lines, is fluid and moves in response to negative stimulus
(Holden, 2010). The receiving state local school statistical cohort is now altered. The
ELL subgroup just increased significantly and will negatively impact test scores and AYP
performance (Capps et al., 2005).
The good impact of NCLB is that the school is immediately challenged to
accommodate, differentiate and teach for impact. As noted by Toppo (2007), it has
really brought the Hounds of Hell down on the schools of Prince William County
(Invisible Students Get Attention section, para. 15) to immediately assess the changing
student population, develop interventions and then execute the plan. The good news is the
razor sharp focus on the children who need the most help. Dollars, time, and instruction is
now focused on those ofneed. This is the good news; now for the law of unintended
consequences. With the ever shifting student makeup, good schools, through no fault of
their own, may be severely impacted and even sanctioned if the new students are not
immediately accommodated and even then the numbers may statistically not show the
honest effort. Even though absolutist measures have forced schools out of their
traditionally languorous approach to change, adjustments of the standards are needed to
acknowledge the realities of the changing educational marketplace. Not to ignore it, but
to further disaggregate the students to show the new arrivals as a separate group that can
not only be assessed but tracked for AYP improvements without negatively impacting the
original groups improvements. This, as in all processes, can be gamedby an
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
21/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 21
unscrupulous administration, school board, or teacher/(s). However, the four tenants of:
(1) content; (2) expectations; (3) time; and (4) teaching will ultimately differentiate the
intellectually honest Administrators/Teachers from those officials who can game the
system (GreatSchools, 2011, NCLB Prompts Protests, Revolts section, para. 6.1) .
NCLB and Continuous School Improvement
The next area of investigation involves the way forward for continuously
improving the educational cycle. Unlike manufacturing models of Just in Time, Toyota
Production System, Lean Manufacturing, Six Sigma or the many other approaches,
teaching does not offer apples to apples correlations. As noted by Hawley (2008), the
inability to create a sense of urgency for continuous improvement in schools, unlike the
private/manufacturing sector, results from several distinct differences. Education goals
are many, rapidly changing and difficult to define. Higher level thinking subjective
outcomes are harder to measure objectively. Subjective outcomes measured objectively
cannot be done; a double bind if there ever was one. Teaching, unlike building a finite
number of different automobiles down an assembly line, is intensive and constantly
changing. Sustaining continuous improvement is very difficult due to the constantly
changing inputs. Example: California Limited English Proficient (LEP) kindergarten to
5th
grade (K5) students were 14% of K5 children at the 1990 Census. By the 2000 Census
K5 LEP students had grown to 20% of all K5 students for a 44% increase census over
census (Capps, et al., 2011, p. 32). Without artful disaggregating student performance, an
otherwise higher performing school is now needs improvement due to the various
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
22/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 22
disadvantaged groups impacted by continuing arrivals. The last significant difference is
the many influences impacting the students that the school cannot control.
At the Toyota plant in Princeton, IN, all the associates are adults with adult
responsibilities, are intensely interviewed to an ideal worker template, trained in a near
boot camp atmosphere, and are free will employees and encouraged to work elsewhere if
they are not capable of fully embracing the production ethos of the Toyota system. In our
schools, the student is sometimes likened to a prisoner who is required by the state to be
in school or be deemed truant with the many negatives this implies. Automotive
production is a highly synchronized, disciplined process; school is not. Education starts
out at a distinct disadvantage from all the other student pursuits, student backgrounds,
parental support and/or student motivation.
Improvement efforts are typically unique and a reflection of a schools individual
culture and the culture of its extended community. Similar to Ventriglia (2010a), one size
instruction does not fit all students. It is the same with schools. One improvement format
will not readily fit all schools. Even in business, the toughest problem is to sustain the
culture of continuous improvement. Every implementation suffers reversals and must
recover and repair the previous improvement/(s) (Hawley, 2006). The current, evolving
educational continuous improvement approach involves developing a capacity within
schools for continuous improvement, (Hawley, 2008, p. 3).
The greatest difficulty with this continuous improvement process/concept for
schools rests in NCLBs lack of a set of common measurement standards. If a school is
graded on a content area/(s) (example: reading and mathematics), then naturally, the
focus is on teaching to the assessment standard. This becomes the greatest opportunity for
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
23/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 23
the extended educational community to comply with NCLB Act 2002s focus on fixed
accountability assessments aligned tightly with the enumerated content standards (James-
Ward, 2009). Teachers should not teach the test, but should teach the states developed
standards which the accountability assessment in turn validates learning received.
Movement to a continuous school improvement methodology begs for inclusion in the
next rewrite of ESEA (NCLB) that is long overdue. What should our federal Department
of Education be doing/have been doing for the last three years? A good start would have
been facilitating the rewrite of NCLB to mitigate the unforeseen problems that have
surfaced, otherwise defined as lessons learned, and to help develop the educational
community consensus of where we go next; continuous improvement or some other Best
Practices direction. Becoming the great waiver facilitator and blaming a dysfunctional
Congress as the cause is far below the value imputed in the Department of Education
(Burke, 2011).
Summary
Chapter Two was an intensive review of the ample literature and innumerable
findings regarding the impacts on student achievement wrought by the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act (NCLB) of 2002. Even though this act was borne of a near
single minded effort of the Washington political class (significant support of all
stakeholders), many unforeseen problems have cropped up over the years of
implementation. This literature review has developed the insight that these problems have
primarily provided numerous opportunities to improve and serve our invisible
community (Toppo, 2007, Invisible Students Get Attention section). In balance, the act
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
24/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 24
achieved its primary objectives of forcing academe to acknowledge its responsibilities to
teach all students; especially, the invisible students compromised of ELLs, LEPs,
socio-economic disadvantaged, and special needs students. Even though an extremely
painful process, schools are today laser focused and nimbly serving our disadvantaged
communities. Their opportunity now is to collectively move this body of knowledge into
the next iteration of ESEA to overcome the previously surfaced problems and to review
the possibility of embracing a continuous school improvement (CSI) philosophy as the
cornerstone of the next NCLB reauthorization.
In Chapter Three, a recommendation will be proposed to Murrieta Valley Unified
School District stakeholders on how to proceed with the Department of Educations
potentially misguided embrace of the waiver process rather than following a path of
nonpartisan development of the next ESEA (NCLB).
CHAPTER THREE: IMPLEMENTATION
Introduction
The purpose of this white paper is to provide a review of the causes and effects of
the latest Federal government (Department of Education, 2011a) over-reach into the local
school boards and state educational authoritys (SEA-California Department of
Education) areas of responsibility as provided for in the original ESEA, 1965, and every
re-authorization (including NCLB, 2002) since then. The Obama Administrations
September 23, 2011 grand plan for reauthorizing the Elementary Education and
Secondary Education Act (ESEA) invites every state to request flexibility (otherwise
stated as a Waiver) for relief from the provisions of NCLB, 2002 (Department of
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
25/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 25
Education, 2011b) by advance acceptance of new Federal requirements not negotiated
with SEAs, local school boards, parents, and community stakeholders. Additionally, this
white paper will propose a possible or recommended course of action for the Murrieta
Valley Unified School District (MVUSD) community and school board and potentially
for other local school authorities throughout California and the United States.
PROPOSED SOLUTION
From the initial development of the background and purpose of this white paper,
it was repeatedly established that NCLB, 2002 was yet again another massive federal
government over-reach into the States responsibilities and purview in exercising
direction, supervision, and control over curriculum, instruction, administration, and
personnel in public educational institutions and schools (Berlak, 2010). Even though
every ESEA reauthorization specifically included language limiting federal authority in
the areas of curriculum, program of instruction, direction or supervision of personnel,
administration, the Department of Educations implementing regulations invariably
strayed over these boundaries. Of necessity, the states needs for proffered federal funds
resulted in a de facto acceptance of repeated and expanded federal intrusions.
The recent executive action inviting the waiver requests from every state
(Department of Education, 2011b, p. 1; Marshall, 2011b) focused on the requirement of
states to adopt college- and career-ready (p. 1) standards language as contained in the
Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI) that attempts to establish voluntary
national standards for every school. Required to adopt versus voluntary adoption is the
key concern from the state and local educational community. This Executive Office
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
26/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 26
work-around, of the needed Congressional consensus, attempts to quickly bypass the
eight plus year deliberative, development process that preceded NCLB, 2002 (Marshal,
2011a). The numerous positive and negative benefits of NCLB are beyond the scope of
this paper and are only described in the context of the recommendations that follow.
NCLBs positive benefits worthy of retention with improvements/modifications in
the next ESEA reauthorization include:
Stronger Accountability (Davis, 2011, Features section) through standardizedperformance assessments and disaggregated scoring to force school resources to be
immediately focused on disadvantaged or Invisible students (Toppo, 2007,
Invisible students get attention section, para. 15).
More choices for parents. As a final sanction value, NCLB provides parents withthe choice of moving their children when the school fails to meet AYP. This choice
brings with it the requirement for the school to advise parents and provide necessary
transportation to a school that is meeting AYP (even if out of district).
Additions needed for the reauthorization of NCLB should include the long range
view of From School Reform to Continuous School Improvement (Hawley, 2006, Part
1 section) rather than the various time worn Band-Aids applied throughout the
overlapping 150-plus federal education programs and Department of Education K-12
guidance issued over 100 occasions since NCLB enactment in 2002 (Marshall, 2011a).
According to Hawley (2006), this continuous improvement view should include:
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
27/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 27
Shift from a focus on reform or change to the importance of developing acapacity within schools for continuous improvement (p. 3).
High accountability systems need to be accompanied by high support (p. 5). changing the mindset and behavior of people while creating conditions for
collaborative problem solving or the use of professional expertise (p. 8).
Focus on sustaining improvement. Implement processes or partnerships with parents and community to lesson or
mitigate the non-school influences on students.
Develop multiple measures for assessing complex learning goals and learningtraits desired by employers and college admissions: work habits, oral and writing
skills, ability to collaborate, critical thinking, and Deweys (1916) authentic
learning.
Additional actions of parents and local school boards suggested/recommended to
move the focus back to the original intent of President Johnsons 1965 ESEA
legislations 35 pages versus NCLBs intrusive six hundred pages plus over one hundred
rulings or guidance from the Department of Education bureaucracy. By retaining the
several positive features (with modifications) of NCLB, the states and local school boards
would be prepared to assert their originally intended local role in the educational
process. The immense diversity of the American experience mitigates the central
planning focus of the ever, over-reaching federal bureaucracy (Marshall, 2011a).
Engage our Congressional representatives in reducing the severe impact and costof federal intervention on local schools.
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
28/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 28
Advocate for states to be allowed to opt out of federal K-12 programs and allowstates to prioritize funding based on local needs; not current one size fits all
approach.
Empower individual states to take over from the failed federal top-downapproaches. Eliminate and/or consolidate the one hundred fifty plus overlapping
programs and return wasted funds to the states/local level. 1998 estimate has 65
cents to 70 cents of every dollar makes its way to the classroom (Marshall,
2011a, Diminished funds section).
Request Title1 funds become student centric and portable to strengthen parentalchoice provisions
The reauthorization of NCLB must start from Congress rather than from a sleight of
hand move by the Executive Branch. NCLB, 2002 resulted from eight years of work of
the Clinton Administration (D) capped by (realistically) six months of work by the Bush
Administration (R). Public education affects virtually every person in America either
directly through our children and indirectly by the multitude of providers of services to
the educational community and users of the end product at exit from the K-12 public
school system.
RATIONALE//BENEFITS OF PROPOSED SOLUTION
The overarching significance of our current NCLB 2002 legislation is in the
school accountability sanctions required when school/(s) consistently miss achieving
required annual yearly progress (AYP). This accountability requirement provides school
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
29/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 29
administrators/school boards with the only true leverage against the bargaining power of
the various unions within the educational constituency (Hess & Petrilli, 2004). Yes, the
2014 requirement for one hundred percent achievement of reading and mathematics
proficiency is not valid and was never intended to survive past the next reauthorization of
2008 or 2009. The best intentions of the eight years of the Clinton (D) Administrations
efforts and the six months of the Bush (R) Administration were to finally provide
significant sanctions for failing schools and in the process guarantee the Invisible
students an appropriate and effective education. The results have been dramatic for these
targeted students of our big cities. In Philadelphia, the public schools CEO released 750
teachers who didnt meet minimum standards (Toppo, 2007, Invisible student gets
attention section, p. 6).
NCLBs parental choice in remedying a failing or unsafe school environment has
proven elusive as schools have disguised the opportunity through numerous means often
described as Students Caught in the School Squeeze (Holden, 2010, p. 1). Holden
describes the conundrum depicted in the documentary film Waiting for Superman
when failing schools in Washington, D.C., by default, are no better than any other
reasonably available school. What choice does a parent really have? For this sanction to
offer true relief, the dysfunctional nature of the Washington, D.C. school system will
probably require court intervention to order the placement of children in totally different
school districts with available room and boarding. Boo (2001) explains in her article,
After Welfare, that Elizabeth petitioned school authorities to get her daughter reassigned
from the infamous Shrimp Boatmiddle school, Evans, to a place where Drenika had a
better chance of getting an education (p. 4). A much better choice was a Capitol Hill
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
30/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 30
public school; however, it had seven outside applicants for every available school seat.
Elizabeths default choice for Drenika was another middle school with higher AYP and
standardized test scores. Inevitably, Elizabeth found that even though this other school
produced higher scores, it was as dysfunctional as Shrimp Boat - Evans Middle School.
This real life tragedy translated into the bad urban school Catch 22 of choice. What if
all your choices are bad ones? (p. 5). Even though Elizabeths choices were bleak to
non-existent, no choice is an even greater travesty for her daughter and the scores of other
students around the nation.
Refocusing on a Continuous School Improvement paradigm from a sanctions
based distrust of the continued resistance of the education system (Hess & Petrilli, 2004)
would be a significant change for the educational community and would complement the
retained and NCLB modified strengths of accountability and parental choice. Embracing
Continuous School Improvement (CSI) would be a great start in moving to a positive
educational outlook as the states and Congress move to redevelop ESEA incorporating
the lessons learned over the last decade. CSIs implementation would require a rewrite of
the classic Continuous Improvement model embraced by the business community
(Hawley, 2006). The educational establishment will need to redefine CSI in educational
terms and develop new views to its use and success measurements. The new aspects of
CSI will foster a positive outlook on the move away from simplistic measurements to
embrace the multiple measurements needed to assess the complex requirements of
Californias higher level thinking content standards and in turn assist our students in the
development of traits and skills desired in the college and business worlds.
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
31/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 31
The final benefit of this white papers recommendation for a turn away from the
burgeoning Educational-Government Complex to a state and local educator/parent
focus would be in the opportunity to once again focus on the most important aspect of
teaching: teachers are the greatest resource available to students today (Ventriglia,
2010, p. V). Nationally, at K-12 local public schools, enrollments have increased about
seven percent since 1970 at the same time administrative staffs increased up to eighty-
three present. Teachers have decreased from seventy percent of total school staffs in the
1950s to fifty-one percent in 2006 (Marshall, 2011a). Marshall (2011a) further explained
that this same overhead creep has defined state and federal government where their
bureaucracies siphon off up to thirty-five percent of the estimated $55.6 billion
annually (p. 1) spent by the 151 K-12 and early childhood education programs housed
in 20 federal agencies (p. 1). None of this estimated $19.5 billion is spent on one teacher
in a classroom. It is retained or set-aside for administrative expenses for research and
enforcement of the various aspects of state/federal education staffs. Our teachers are
quick to express their concerns on compensation; how much could our teachers be paid if
most of the $19.5 billion were spent on local education rather than state and federal
bureaucracy?
LIMITATIONS
The most significant limitation will be the political will (or lack) of the Democrat
and Republican congressional representatives to recover their prerogative to
rewrite/reauthorize NCLB incorporating the numerous lessons learned. The Obama
Administrations power grab inviting all states to request NCLB waivers at the expense
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
32/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 32
of adopting national standards bypasses the statutory obligation of Congress to set our
educational agenda (Hoffman & Jorgensen, 2003).
The next limitation is defined by the ability of our state and local educational
community to adequately define the positive measures necessary to implement a
Continuous School Improvement methodology taking our schools away from the
heavy-handed legislative distrusts of NCLB (Hess & Petrilli, 2004) and moving to a
Continuous School Improvement format Hawley, 2006).
Finally, do we have the collective will to demand an end to the exponential
increases in State and Federal educational bureaucracies that now consume over $19.5
billion of the $55.6 billion federal funds spent annually on public K-12 education? Do we
truly believe the teacher is the key determinant in the success of our students learning?
IMPLEMENTATION
To this point, this white paper has laid out the details and historical aspects of
NCLB as the vehicle of understanding for all federal, state, and local stakeholders. It
dares to propose new ways of doing business and challenges our belief system in the
importance of the teacher in the educational process. The administrative apparatchiks
empowered and emboldened by the imperial federal governments over-reach into the
local/state stakeholders traditional areas of responsibility have nearly strangled the life
out of schools and teachers.
Following fellow teacher peer review and continuous improvement of this white
paper product, it will be presented informally to two members of the MVUSD School
Board for suggestions and recommendations for appropriate improvements. After
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
33/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 33
resolving additional issues and suggestions, this white paper will be provided to MVUSD
Administrators and school board members for review prior to formal submission for
future planning consideration. This MVUSD school board is the first step in the process
of recovery of lost local autonomy and pursuit of the unique needs of its students,
parents, and community.
SUMMARY
In Chapter Three, a recommendation or way forward was proposed that advocates
avoidance of a waiver request for relief of the current NCLB one hundred percent 2014
proficiency in reading and mathematics requirement. This proposal recommends
retention, with modifications, of the NCLB embrace of strict accountability through
standardized testing and AYP achievement and parental choice as the best way to ensure
continued focus on the education of every student, especially the Invisible (Toppo,
2007) students of our community. Additionally, Continuous School Improvement is
proposed as a best practice way to move away from the negative aspects of NCLB and
focus on the adoption of industry leading continuous improvement (CI) methods for
application to the educational process. Finally, this white paper recommends that the
MVUSD school board avoid requesting a waiver of the NCLB accountability mandates
while it pressures our Congressional delegation to engage their counterparts in good faith
for a legislative solution rather than additional Executive Branch encroachment on the
prerogatives of Californias educational obligations and responsibilities.
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
34/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 34
REFLECTIVE ESSAY
My quest for a single subject teaching credential in Mathematics and Science has
refreshed and expanded my original engineering education skills of research, observation,
hypothesis, synthesis, and honed new skills of summarization, analysis, and best
educational practices. This capstone final paper allowed me to reflect back over the
previous courses and derive a composite teacher image as I prepare for California TPAs 1
& 2, TPEs 3 & 4 and my student teaching Trial by Student in 2012. Knowing that
knowledge and understanding is a continuous learning process, I see this paper not as a
concluding effort but as another step in my life of learning and service as I remember my
high school teachers service in 1968.
When starting this extended program of instruction, I had just been laid off the
second time in a year during the ongoing and interminable recession of 2009/2010/
2011/2012/+. Following careers in the Marines, automobile manufacturing, and
government contracting, I was now able to pursue my life-long desire to teach and inspire
as I was inspired by the teachers of my youth. As a semi-retiree, I was confident that I
would be able to commit the time and energy needed to master the art of teaching: always
changing, yet always the same.
As a prior National University MBA graduate (1985), I knew this Masters of
Education/credentialing program would be ably represented by instructors with real life
teaching experience in our California public schools. In this belief I was not disappointed.
Every instructor has been a current teacher or recently retired teacher/administrator with
tremendous insight, tips, recommendations and shared practical experiences in todays
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
35/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 35
challenging classrooms. They have inspired as they conspired to right-size my view of
todays student.
This white paper has allowed me to give flight to the many memories (good and
bad) of my high school, U.S. Naval Academy, military schools, National University
graduate business school and this education program. I will be able to use this lifetime of
accumulated successes as well as failures to guide my understanding of my students
when they timidly stick their heads into my classroom on the first day. As a teacher new
to teaching, I will rely heavily on challenging my students to teach themselves. From
experience, as a battalion commander of over 1500 Marines and Sailors in combat, I
know that I must build teams, develop team leaders, inspire individual effort, expect the
highest standards, and leave no student behind.
My success as a teacher will be built around this papers recommended ESEA
principles of accountability, parental choice, continuous school improvement (CSI), and
local control through committed parents, visionary school boards, determined teachers
and inspired students. Will there be setbacks, student failures, my teacher mistakes? Yes!
Will my students and I reflect, learn, and redo the learning? Yes, for it is through failing
forward (Maxwell, 2000) that we learn and through learning we succeed.
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
36/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 36
REFERENCES
Alliance for Excellent Education, (2010). Don't Leave Accountability Behind A Call for
ESEA Reauthorization.Alliance for Excellent Education, Commission on No
Child Left Behind, 1~9.
Berlak, H (2010). Prelude to 'Race to the Top': a Short History. Retrieved October 31,
2011, from
http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/NCLB_history.htm
Boo, K (2001). After Welfare. The New Yorker, Section: A Reporter at Large (Pg. 93),
1~12.
Burke, L (September 23, 2011). Obama's Ill Advised NCLB Waiver. Retrieved October
31, 2011, fromhttp://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184
Capps, R, Fix, ME, Murray, J, Ost, J, Passel, JS, & Hernandez, SH (2005). The New
Demography of America's Schools Immigration and the No Child Left Behind
Act. Retrieved November 4, 2011, from
http://www.urban.org/url.cfm?ID=311230
Cohen, DK, & Moffitt, SL (2009). The Ordeal of Quality: Did Federal Regulation Fixthe Schools. United States of America: Harvard University Press.
Davis, S (2011). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved October 28,
2011, from http://www.ehow.com/print/about_5085381_history-child-left-behin...
Department of Education, US (2011a). ESEA Flexibility. Retrieved October 31, 2011,
from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml
Department of Education, US (September 23, 2011b). Obama Administration Sets High
Bar for Flexibility from No Child Left Behind in Order to Advance Equity and
Support Reform. Retrieved November 1, 2011, from
http://www.ed.gov/news/press-releases/obama-administration-sets-high-bar-
flexibility-no-child-left-behind-order-advanc
http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/278184http://www.nationalreview.com/blogs/print/2781847/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
37/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 37
Dewey, J (1916). Democracy and Education. United States: Macmillan and Company.
Education World, Staff (2011). No Child Left Behind: What it Means to You. Retrieved
October 28, 2011, from http://www.educationworld.com/a_issues273.shtml
Great Schools Staff, (2011). What the No Child Left Behind law means to Your Child.
Retrieved November 4, 2011, from
http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/quality-teaching/61-no-child...
Hawley, WD (2006). The Keys to Effective Schools: Educational Reform as Continuous
Improvement. United States of America: Corwin Press.
Hess, FM, & Petrilli, MJ (2004). The Politics of No Child Left Behind.American
Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, 1~6.
Holden, S (September 23, 2010). Students Caught in the School Squeeze. Retrieved
October 31, 2011, from
http://movies.nytimes.com/2010/09/24/movies/24waiting.html?pag...
James-Ward, C (2011). What Every Educator Should Know About No Child Left
Behind and the D. Retrieved October 31, 2011, from
http://cnx.org/content/m19509/latest/
Johnson, JA, Musial, D, Hall, GE, Gollnick, DM, & Dupuis, VL (2008). Foundations of
American Education: Perspectives on Education in a Changing World. United
States of America: Pearson Education, Inc..
Jorgensen, MA, & Hoffman, J (2003). History of the No Child Left Behind Act od
2001. Pearson Education, Inc., Assessment Report, 1~8.
Manna, P (2011). Collision Course: Federal Education Policy Meets State and Local
Realities. United States of America: CQ Press.
Marshall, JA (April 6, 2011a). Freeing Schools from Washington's Education Overreach.
WebMemo: Heritage Foundation, 3214, 1~5.
Marshall, JA (September 23, 2011b). NCLB Waivers with Strings Another Federal
Overreach into Education. Retrieved November 3, 2011, from
7/29/2019 NCLB White Paper Nov2011
38/38
Running head: NCLB WAIVER RECOMMENDATION 38
http://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-
federal-overreach-into-education
Maxwell, JC (2000). Failing Forward: Turning Mistakes into Stepping Stones for
Success. United States of America: Thomas Nelson.
Merriam-Webster, M-W (2011). Examples of CONUNDRUM. Retrieved November 8,
2011, from http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conundrum
Toppo, G (2007). How Bush Education Law has Changed Our Schools. Retrieved
October 28, 2011, from http://www.usatoday.com/news/education/2007-01-07-
no-child_x.htm
Ventriglia, LD (2010a). Best Practices Differentiated Instruction The Rule of Foot.
Mexico: Litografica Ingramex, S.A. de C.V. Centeno.
Ventriglia, LD (2010b). Best Practices Motivation & Student Engagement Creating
Power Learners . Mexico: Litografica Ingramex, S.A. de C.V. Centeno.
http://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationhttp://heritage.org/research/factsheets/2011/09/nclb-waivers-with-strings-another-federal-overreach-into-educationTop Related