About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline

39 Rutgers L. Rec. 1 (2011-2012)

handle is hein.journals/rutglr39 and id is 1 raw text is: 


Rutgers Law Record


                          RUTGERS LAW RECORD
                        The Internet ournal of Rutgers School of Law | Newark
                                      www.lawrecord.com

Volume   39                                                                           2011-2012

    GETTING   TO  THE  CORE:  REWRITING   THE  No  CHILD  LEFT  BEHIND   ACT  FOR  THE  21ST
                                           CENTURY


                                    Diana Pullin, J.D., Ph.D.'


       Any  consideration of the next generation of law-based education reform must address the
dual goals of insuring public accountability for all schools to educate all students, as well as insuring
every child's individual opportunity to learn meaningful content. The impending re-authorizations of
the Elementary and Secondary  Education Act (ESEA)2  and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act  (IDEA)' present the opportunity to reassess the role of these laws in the
improvement   of meaningful opportunity to learn for all students. The current version of the ESEA,
as revised by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB),4 has had considerable impact in improving the
education of many students, yet it has also raised many concerns and much controversy about both
educational and assessment practices; as well as the proper role of federal laws.5 A major benefit of
NCLB   has been the attention focused on improving the performance of at-risk subgroups of
students.' On the other hand, it has caused controversy within the civil rights community'as well as
widespread scholarly debate within both the legal and social science communities.The education
and assessment of students with disabilities (SWD) and other special subgroups of students,


1 Professor of Education Law and Public Policy, Lynch School of Education and School of Law, Boston College.
Author contact: diana.pullin@bc.edu. This paper is drawn from aJanuary, 2010 presentation to Senior Congressional
Education Staff at The Aspen Institute in Washington, D.C.
2 Pub. L. No. 89-10, 79 Stat. 27 (1965).
3 Pub. L. No. 101-476, 104 Stat, 1142 (2004).
4 Pub. L. No. 107-110 (2002).
5 See Michael Heise, The Unintended Legal and Polkg Consequences of the No Child Left BehindAct, 86 NEB. L. REV. 119 (2007).
6 See RICHARD ROTHSTEIN, CLASS AND SCHOOLS: USING SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND EDUCATIONAL REFORM TO CLOSE
THE BLACK-WHITE  ACHIEVEMENT  GAP (2004).
7 Karla Scoon Reid, CivilRzghts Groups Spit Over NCLB, EDUC. WK., Aug. 31, 2005, at 1, available at
http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2005/08/31/01civil.h25.html.
8 See, e.g., James E. Ryan, The Perverse Incentives of the No Child Left Behind Act, 79 N.Y.U. L. REV. 932 (2004); Linda Darling-
Hammond,  Evaluating 'No Child Left Behind, THE NATION, May 2, 2007, available athttp://www.thenation.com/
print/article/evaluating-no-child-left-behind.


1


Volume 39


2011-2012

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

profiles profiles most