Narrow the Curriculum, Widen the Gap: The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Access to Music Education
The changes in education since the implemen- tation of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in 2001 are well documented. From anecdotal accounts to longitudinal studies, educators, ad- vocacy organizations, economists, and special interest groups have examined the effects of this legislation from numerous angles. Emerg- ing from these studies is a startling theme: ef- forts to close the achievement gap in math and ELA have negatively impacted student access to non-tested subjects. In this article, I will ex- amine the ways in which the passing of NCLB has impacted schools financially and educa- tionally. I will also discuss how these changes continue to impact access to high-quality music education, both locally and nationwide.
Lack of Financial Resources It is widely accepted that NCLB is an under- funded mandate (Beveridge, 2010; Jackson & Gaudet, 2010; Pederson, 2007; Richard & Hoff, 2003; Shelly, 2011). Big Effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on Public Schools, an excerpt from the Center for Education Policy’s analysis of NCLB (2006), cites lack of funding as a major contributing factor to shifts in district level education spending (p. 4). Data collected by the Center on Education Policy for this analysis indicates that nearly “80% of school districts…had costs for NCLB that were not covered by federal funds” (p. 4). Additionally, “66 percent of districts received no increase or lost NCLB funds compared with the previous year” (p. 5).
A lack of Title I funding compounds the fi- nancial issues created by a lack of funding for NCLB. Although it falls under the NCLB um- brella, Title I has separate funding stipulations. Title I requires that the federal government pay 40 percent of the cost of special education. Unfortunately, it provides only 10-15 percent
Ashley G. Moss
of those funds, requiring states to make up the difference in order to assure full compliance (Shelly, 2011). This is particularly detrimental for schools already suffering under external economic burdens due to a change in property tax, income tax, or other state revenue sources. The results can include cuts to programming that serve smaller portions of the population, such as extracurricular groups, ensembles, and vocational programing, as well as subject mate- rial deemed less important by district adminis- trators.
Shifts in the Teaching Paradigm In a climate in which test scores determine funding, school academic rating, and even teacher salary, school administrators and other district officials find themselves having to choose between what is best for their students and what is best for their school. In many cases, this means reallocating resources away from non-tested subjects and toward areas that are tested for accountability (Beveridge, 2010). Although NCLB asserts the importance of a well-rounded curriculum that includes rich learning experiences in social and physical sci- ences, liberal arts, fine arts, and foreign lan- guage in addition to math and ELA, schools are restructuring and reallocating instructional time and resources to protect their schools (Ashford, 2004; Beveridge, 2010; CEP, 2008; Gerrity, 2009; Heilig, Cole, & Aguilar, 2010; Henley, McBride, Milligan, & Nichols, 2007; Lehman, 2012; Pederson, 2007; Shuler, 2012; Spohn, 2009; West, 2012).
In an effort to balance a lack of resources, test- ing pressures, and the requirement of providing a well-rounded education for students, some districts are opting for a more integrated ap- proach to education. Citing the approach as in- novative and collaborative, districts are asking
28
Policy / Advocacy
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40