Best interests of students left behind?. Exploring the ethical and legal dimensions of United States Federal involvement in public school improvement
| Date | 01 April 2004 |
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/09578230410525630 |
| Published date | 01 April 2004 |
| Pages | 249-269 |
| Author | Mario S. Torres |
| Subject Matter | Education |
Best interests of
students left behind?
Exploring the ethical and legal
dimensions of United States Federal
involvement in public school
improvement
Mario S. Torres
Texas A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Keywords Ethics, Children (age groups), Education Human rights (law), Leadership,
United States of America
Abstract Analyzes the impact of recent policy developments in the USA associated with school
accountability according to the best interests of the student. With the mandated implementation of
the US federal law entitled the No Child Left Behind Act approaching, minimal attention has been
afforded to the complex ethical dimensions associated with policies intended to improve the quality
of education on a broad scale. When the meaning of “fairness” and “equity” are not negotiated in
advance by groups either supporting or rejecting the need for federal intervention, doubts are
raised about the fundamental purpose of the initiative. Argues that social conflict arises when the
ideological framing of the purposes of the No Child Left Behind Act fails to incorporate the moral
responsibility of policymaking and professional practice and attribute the purpose of reform as
ensuring students’ best interests. Argues for a greater awareness of the tacit ethical assumptions
politicians and policymakers embrace as policy is developed and implemented, and suggests
strategies for identifying an ideological common ground.
At the high school level and below, policy should not be determined solely by either “public
school people” or state officials, but wise decisions cannot be made if either is excluded
(Conant, 1964, p. 109).
A recent and intensified surge in federal government oversight over the
practice and operation of public schools has occurred in the USA. This
constitutes a dramatic departure from the longstanding tradition of state and
local control. Perhaps the best example of this trend is the No Child Left Behind
Act. In pursuit of greater accountability, the federal government has in effect
created a system that rewards with financial support minimum levels of
productivity in schools. Moreover, the federal government has failed to
mitigate a number of ethical ambiguities relating to the intent and goals of the
reform. This article explores the ethical implications of what some may
consider this turning point in US educational history. The No Child Left Behind
legislation is assessed from alternate ethical postures, and a pragmatic
framework for ensuring ethical leaders hip practices is proposed. Due
The Emerald Research Register for this journal is available at The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available at
www.emeraldinsight.com/researchregister www.emeraldinsight.com/0957-8234.htm
Best interests of
students left
behind?
249
Journal of Educational
Administration
Vol. 42 No. 2, 2004
pp. 249-269
qEmerald Group Publishing Limited
0957-8234
DOI 10.1108/09578230410525630
consideration is also given to the effects of political, social, and demographic
forces on the prospect of the legislation’s success, measured in terms of the
extent to which it contributes to the best interests of students.
In January 2002, US President George W. Bush signed into law the
reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act entitled “No
Child Left Behind.” Not since the inception of the monumental civil rights
legislation of the 1960s has the USA federal government undertaken such bold
efforts to alter the local delivery of public education. Core to the act are
provisions requiring local education authorities to ensure that all students,
particularly those from disadvantaged backgrounds and minority populations,
are performing proficiently in reading, mathematics, and science assessments.
The Act also requires that a data monitoring system be established to gauge
state, district, campus, and student performance as well as disseminate
performance results to the general public[1].
On the surface alone, the arrival of this mandate symbolizes a concerted
effort by the United States Federal Government to hold school systems
accountable for student results. It attempts to address several perennial
educational issues including:
.gaps in test performance between Whites and those of color;
.incoherent and redundant curricula; and
.systemic complacency.
The presumption is that by implementing a comprehensive data monitoring
system, discrepancies and shortcomings in performance will be exposed,
thereby compelling schools and school systems to address problems
intelligently, directly, and publicly. The threat of sanctions, which is
undoubtedly the hallmark of accountability, is believed to create the
conditions for improving student performance and teacher quality.
Policymakers and politicians alike, who are generally far removed from
what is for them the puzzling professional world of public schools, view
accountability as the least complex way to ensure quality learning in schools.
Accountability offers a way to say “we mean business” (Baker, 1989) and
implies that if directives and expectations of management are not met,
penalties will be levied (Hess and Brigham, 2000). Conventional thinking
suggests that accountability motivates teachers and students to perform to
specified levels. Test results are assumed to encourage schools to make
constructive use of feedback and make whatever changes are necessary to
bring forth improvement. Educators and students are assumed to respond in
earnest to external pressures to improve skill and knowledge performance.
Yet as Elmore and McLaughlin (1988) and others[2] have aptly noted, laws
and policies operate at a very high level of abstraction until socially processed.
As states adopt assessment instruments, identify benchmarks, and embrace
strategies to ensure proper compliance by educational professional in schools,
JEA
42,2
250
To continue reading
Request your trial