No Child Left Behind Act - Research Paper Example

No Child Left Behind Act No Child Left Behind Act Bogin & Nguven-Hoang that in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) schools receive Title 1 funding that do not meet the targets of academic performance for two years running. The property analyses is that even after controlling different traditional test score there is still a social stigma that surrounds deemed failing schools.. The former American president George W. Bush signs the NCLB act in January 2002. The act aims to increase K-12 academic standards and raise school accountability through measurable goals. The act requires all schools to satisfy a series of academic performance targets on an annual basis to achieve Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The schools deemed as requiring improvement are all schools that fail to meet AYP for two uninterrupted years amongst Title 1 funding schools. The media depicts in need of improvement schools as failing. Some of the media conglomerate that uses an alternate and unofficial designation includes Washington Post, Charlotte Observer, and New York Times. This paper will examine unintended repercussion of NCLB federal education policy. The property value impact of needing improvement designation can use the reference “failing.” The designations are distinct Title I schools. The designation is unique to Title I Schools; deleterious property value effect confined to low income neighborhoods. Several researchers investigate capitalization of school quality into house values. For instance, Krieg (2011), Winter (2012), and Aske et al. (2013) find that publicly available information on school quality that uses average test data has an influence on property values. Other different studies examine the effect on house values of categorical education ratings. No study is yet to examine the unintended effect on property values in the first year of execution of failing designation as depicted by the federal government. The author of this study uses Mecklenburg County data that will investigate the additional influence of NCLB “failing” description on the execution and evaluating the testing scores in the first year. The study employs a parameterized hedonic model that will control student performance measures, series of neighborhood- rear fixed effects, student performance measures, and constant measures of school quality. Winter (2012) finds that results of preferred specification of house prices associate with schools that receive NCLB “failing” school label experience a decrease while having property attributes as constant. Additional evaluation by the author suggests that parents and prospective homebuyer do not concern themselves with nature and specifics of “failures.” Some of the specific issues include, the causes of one school to achieve quality while another to fail by not meeting AYP requirements. The dynamic analyses of property value affect “failing” designation decreases in magnitude from the first day of its pronouncement to the rest of the year. The pronouncement remains in consistent with unthinking reaction preceded by a gradual return of intercept shift associated with property values. A consecutive year of failing triggers a muted property value response. The NCLB failing description has poor and incorrect measures in the overall school quality. That happens because of granular nature of academic performance necessary to achieve AYP. Tavakolian & Howell (2012) uses an illustration between two schools in Title I. The first school has overall test scores and one underperforming student-subgroup while the second school has uniform and mediocre test scores. At the release of NCLB description the first school receives failing while the second poor performing school receives un-besmirched. Some of the questions that arise include the reason why school failing description decreases the property values. Hanushek & Rivkin (2010) find that people’s perception on school quality will influence the test scores of school quality and the school choice. The author observes the limitation of failing description as the good measure of overall school quality. The association with a school with failing description is an embarrassment. The hypothesis of the study is that perception of poor school quality or social stigma will bring down the property values. The media portrays poor school quality in a negative way associated with NCLB failing. Negative labeling creates a social stigma to parents and the student population. According to Bogin & Nguven-Hoang (2014), a federal stigma of failing appears an intended repercussion of the education-reform ideals. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools (CMS) CMS operate in a district-wide choice plan from 2002 to 2006. The school choice plan permits the parents to submit three selected schools for their children. The analysis guarantees admission to home school for a student while access has limitations due to oversubscription. Many students attend failing schools for lack of feasible alternatives. The NCLB categorize students in a school into multiple subgroups. The description is only applicable to all schools that receive Title I funds. NCLB informs the parents of their enrollment in a failing school as well as an opportunity for an alternative attendance. A failing designation is largely due to students’ subgroups failing to meet AYP requirements. () observes disconnect between failing description and school-wide test scores. Various household types tend to experience failing description. Literature Review Different authors examine the aspects of NLCB, for instance, insufficient federal funds to meet unintended effects on overall student performance. NCLB intend to assist quality and distribution of teachers. Prior literature fails to mention unintended effect of NCLB and the potential capitalization of failing designation in the poor schools that receive Title I funds Bogin & Nguven-Hoang (2014) provides a detailed review of capitalization of school quality into house values. Aske et al. (2013) and Tavakolian & Howell (2012) examine the effect of federal school-level category ratings on house values. Hanushek & Rivkin (2010) examines the effect of school-level grade of A to F on property values. Bogin & Nguven-Hoang (2014) grade bases on school test performance on national normed assessments. A move down ranking will increase a house time on the market while it does not have an effect on the selling price. The study offers valuable insights into household demand for school level categorical rankings. Substantial literature in the capitalization of school quality into house values will examine all the Title I schools by the federal government that have failing description. Consequently, the possibility of having another factor to associate with the designations will reduce the negative perceptions of overall school quality. Empirical Strategy and Data The consensus model of bidding and sorting apply location-specific amenities. The households that have steeper bid functions are willing to pay for an increment in amenity quality to win a bidding competition with high-quality amenities. The high quality schools can receive a failing description since one student subgroup is unable to achieve AYP for two successive years. The discontinuous change associate the designation that expects a downward intercept shift in bid function to lead to decrease in house values linked to the schools. Bogin & Nguven-Hoang (2014) argues that a full sample is not appropriate since only Title I schools can receive NCLB failing description and that only house sales compare with the schools chosen another sample contains of house sales associated with Title I schools. The author observes that failing is consistent and noteworthy effect on house prices even after conditioning different test scores measures. The results suggest that failing description will have unsettling effect on the parents and prospective buyers on signals channeled through standard objective of school quality measures. An unsettling comes from strong negative perceptions of overall school quality that can devalue property values. The author of this study performs extensive analyses to evaluate additional evidence that will support hypotheses that failing descriptions has negative perceptions on the overall school quality. Title I schools satisfy academic performance targeting across wide array of student subgroups to achieve AYP to avoid a failing designation after an initial failure. The mechanism suggests that impact of failing designations varies in type and size of the student subgroup associated with failure. A Title I school has to meet AYP requirements for two consecutive years that precede a failing description to return to non-failing status. The schools receive a failing description in the two consecutive years even when they meet all AYP requirements. The effect of failing designation on house prices associate with schools with small house prices linked with ones that continue failing to meet AYP in the second post failing year. Falsification and Robustness tests The author conducts series of falsification tests using placebo regressions. NCLB failing school description is valid and not a function of differential trends in pre-failing property value growth in houses associated with failing and non-failing schools. Aske et al. (2013) demonstrates that given positive serial correlation in the residuals has noteworthy standard errors. The preferred specification includes several housing structural features Discussion Some believe that NCLB sets its bar too high for schools to meet an increasing demand to raise their schools state assessment scores for academic performance to a proficient level for all students. The policy scrutinizes the schools thoroughly and holds them responsible based on academic performance using high stake measurements. The NCLB expects the schools to increase performance for all students in an annual basis. The objective is to ensure that all schools score within the proficient level or continue to progress until they attain the proficient level. The pressure to raise the percentage of every student to attain proficiency level enables schools to work less hard to maintain low scoring students in their programs. Conclusion NCLB is a major federal education policy implemented to assist children living in poor rural areas competes with their peers high-income suburbs. The policy serves as an accountability tool since it requires the low-income schools that receive Title I funding will achieve adequate progress annually to reach AYP in the performance targets. A Tile I school that fails to meet AYP for two successful years deems as need for improvement school. The paper has examined the negative consequence of schools labeled as failing to compare low-income schools that the law intends to channel assistance. The authors have used a hedonic model to observe key test score measures and tax rates. In retro respect, failing description depends on media publicization, neighborhood socioeconomics, and the extent of school choice. References Aske, D. R., Connolly, L. S., & Corman, R. R. (2013). Accessibility Or Accountability? The Rhetoric And Reality Of No Child Left Behind. Journal Of Economics & Economic Education Research, 14(3), 107-118. Bogin, A., & Nguyen-Hoang, P. (2014). Property Left Behind: An Unintended Consequence Of A No Child Left Behind Failing School Designation. Journal Of Regional Science, 54(5), 788-805. Hanushek, E. A., & Rivkin, S. G. (2010). The Quality and Distribution of Teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act. Journal Of Economic Perspectives, 24(3), 133-150. Krieg, J. M. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act. Economics Of Education Review, 30(4), 654-664. Tavakolian, H., & Howell, N. (2012). The Impact of No Child Left Behind Act. Franklin Business & Law Journal, (1), 70-77. Winter, C. (2012). Leaving Behind No Child Left Behind. Businessweek.Com, 27. Read More