The 2001 No Child Left Behind Act is the most recent revision of federal efforts to focus resources and attention on improving public education, especially in the most disadvantaged communities. The initial law, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), sought to equalize opportunities for children in low-wealth districts. Each reauthorization has used lessons learned about change to enhance or alter priorities. The 1994 revision required all children to be subject to the same set of educational standards, and states began work on accountability systems that set higher standards and applied them to all students. Few states acted forcefully enough, however. The academic disparities among students on the basis of race/ethnicity and income, which had narrowed in the 1970s and 1980s, actually grew larger. Moreover, at least half of the states had not complied with the 1994 accountability and testing provisions of the law by the time it came up for reauthorization again in 2000.

The message Congress and President Bush conveyed to the
public education system through
No Child Left Behind was
unequivocally clear: establish comprehensive reforms that all schools must act on; use certain interventions such as transfer
options, supplemental services,
and eventual takeovers for schools
that do not meet accountability goals over time; and assure a level of proficiency of all students in
reading, math, and science by 2014.
In some states, the new federal law interrupted carefully crafted accountability and reform plans.
In others, it forced attention to
major issues addressed in the
law, mainly test-based
accountability, teacher quality, and transparent reporting of progress to
the public. For the whole country, it meant a rearranging of our
federalist system, granting more authority to the federal level than at
any time in the history of education policymaking.

By the spring of 2004, after two
years of experience in implementing the law, schools, districts, and
states were getting a firmer grip on understanding its strengths and weaknesses. Opposition developed, but many groups and associations also weighed in with their recommendations for changes.
None, however, reflected the feelings and views of the constituencies most affected by the law—students, their families, and their communities.

With foundation support, Public Education Network set up hearings to listen to the public and to gather information useful for policymakers as they consider refinements in the law. Local PEN members or other advocacy groups co-sponsored each of the nine hearings (held in eight states, with two hearings in one state). These were formal occasions, not impromptu informational meetings, with a panel of hearing officers listening and asking questions. Those testifying were kept to a strict time schedule. Even so, as many as 100-200 people attended the hearings in some places to be part of a public accounting by panels of their students and fellow citizens who had volunteered to testify.

Most of the lead partners already were
active in organizing and disseminating information on NCLB. The Pennsylvania
Public Education Partnership, for example,
held seven forums around the state on
NCLB, leading up to the PEN hearing in Harrisburg. More than 700 people came to
the forums. In the spring of 2004, Ohio Fair Schools Campaign drew hundreds of citizens to meetings on school finance, which often covered NCLB as well. It also issued a report on interviews with school officials about the impact of NCLB on Ohio. Memphis, Tennessee’s Partners in Public Education gathered the opinions of parents and community leaders through a series of focus group discussions on NCLB and people’s aspirations for
their schools.

PEN has prepared individual state reports that summarize the testimony and basic state
demographic and performance data. Before the hearing project began, PEN had selected three provisions of NCLB to focus its work on—accountability and testing, teacher quality, and
building committed communities. The testimony was not always organized around these three themes, but they ultimately proved to be the central issues raised by the panelists.