No Child Left Behind

The "No Child Left Behind" act is the latest revision of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act and was signed into law by the Bush administration at the beginning of 2002. According to the Illinois State Board of Education website, the law requires that:

-All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014.
-By 2013-2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the third grade.
-All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English.
-By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.
-All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug free and conducive to learning.
-All students will graduate from high school.

In order for school districts to meet these goals, they must fulfill certain requirements:

-Annual testing of all students against state standards in reading and mathematics in grades 3-8 and in science at three times in a student’s school career (including once in high school).
-“Verification” of each state’s assessment system via required participation (every other year) by selected districts in the NAEP test.
-Aggregate and disaggregate analysis and reporting of student achievement results.
-A state definition and timeline for determining whether a school, district and the state are making “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) toward the goal of 100 percent of students meeting state standards by the 2013-2014 school year.
-Technical assistance and then sanctions for schools, districts and the state for failure to make AYP.
-Highly qualified teachers in core academic subjects by 2005-2006.
-Highly qualified aides or paraprofessionals.
-Support for students not meeting standards and/or for those who have special needs (e.g., homeless, limited-English-proficiency).
-The use of “scientifically-based” programs and strategies.

The growing use of standards-based reformed and test-driven accountability, culminating in NCLB, has had an obvious effect on general education. Jennings and Stark Rentner (2006) cite ten big effects of the NCLB act on public schools:

1. State and district officials report that student achievement on state tests is rising, which is a cause for optimism.
2. Schools are spending more time on reading and math, sometimes at the expense of subjects not tested.
3. Schools are paying much more attention to the alignment of curriculum and instruction and are analyzing test score data much more closely.
4. Low-performing schools are undergoing make overs rather than the most radical kinds of restructuring.
5. Schools and teachers have made considerable progress in demonstrating that teachers meet the law's academic qualifications — but many educators are skeptical this will really improve the quality of teaching.
6. Students are taking a lot more tests.
7. Schools are paying much more attention to achievement gaps and the learning needs of particular groups of students.
8. The percentage of schools on state "needs improvement" lists has been steady but is not growing.
9. The federal government is playing a bigger role in education.
10. NCLB requirements have meant that state governments and school districts also have expanded roles in school operations, but often without adequate federal funds to carry out their duties.

Of greatest concern to music educators is point number two. In Gerrity's 2007 study on the impact of No Child Left Behind on music education in the state of Ohio, "Significant differences between the attitudes [toward music education] of principals serving in 'excellent' or 'effective' schools and the principals of 'academic watch' or 'academic emergency' schools were revealed," and "When considering the expectation of principals that music teachers devote some of their instructional time to other subjects, 43% of Ohio's music programs record a weaker status since the passage of No Child Left Behind." Additionally, Heffner's 2007 study surveying district and arts supervisors indicated that "since 2001, high-stakes testing has negatively impacted the number and variety of music classes, funding for music programs, the amount or [sic] instructional time allotted for music programs, and the number of students participating in music classes." Further studies and anecdotal stories yield the same conclusions.

In counteracting the negative effects of NCLB on arts education, educators should be aware that NCLB mandates the arts and music as a core subject. The problem, then, seems to be with state and district misinterpretation of the law and possibly not the law itself. The designation of arts as a core subject means that the arts can qualify for federal funding just as much as other core subjects (Morrison 2006).

Currently, the National Association for Music Education (MENC) is circulating a Petition for Equal Access to Music Education. MENC's goal is to gather one million signatures on paper petitions to deliver to the new Secretary of Education on June 18, 2009. The petition states, "Be it therefore resolved that the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as No Child Left Behind, not only identify music as a core subject, but also recognize music education as a mandatory component of every public education curriculum in the United States of America." The petition may be accessed here.


Gerrity, K. W. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Determining the impact of policy on music education. Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, United States -- Ohio. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3262133).

Heffner, C. J. (2007). The impact of high-stakes testing on curriculum, funding, instructional time, and student participation in music programs. Ph.D. dissertation, University of Florida, United States -- Florida. Abstract retrieved March 15, 2009, from Dissertations & Theses: A&I database. (Publication No. AAT 3281531).

Illinois State Board of Education. No Child Left Behind (NCLB): Overview and Highlights. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.isbe.net/nclb/htmls/highlights.htm

Jennings, J. & Stark Rentner, D. (2006). Ten Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on the Public Schools. Center on Education Policy: Washington DC. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.readingrockets.org/article/12843

MENC: The National Association for Music Education (2008). 3 Ways to Change Music Education: Petition Drive. Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.menc.org/resources/view/3-ways-to-change-music-education-petition-drive

Morrison, B. (2006). A Music Parents Guide to "No Child Left Behind." Retrieved March 15, 2009 from http://www.oldmedia.com/ELMSbands/Newsletters/ParentTips.html