Nicole Marie Sartin
Ashford University
EDU 623: Introduction to Teaching and Learning
July 17, 2013
In January 2001, President George W. Bush proposed legislation for the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). (2007) The act was intended as a measure to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility and choice, so that no child is left behind. This paper will discuss whether or not the NCLB law was an effective measure to address low student performance or simply a set of high expectations unachievable goals destined to falsely raise the hopes and desires of Americans.
NCLB was designed to improve the academic performance of children in America's elementary and secondary schools and to ensure that no child is trapped in a failing school. Basically, the NCLB Act reauthorizes the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA, 1965) and incorporates the principles and strategies proposed by President Bush. (2007)
Provisions of the NCLB requires all public schools receiving federal funding to administer a state-wide standardized test annually to all students. This means that all students must take the same test under the same conditions.
Additionally, schools which receive funding must make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in test scores. If the school's results are repeatedly poor, then steps are taken to improve the school. Furthermore, States must create AYP objectives consistent with requirements of the law which include measurable objectives for improved achievement by all students and for specific groups: economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. (2007)
Finally, the act requires states to provide "highly qualified" teachers to all students. Each state sets its own standards for what counts as "highly qualified". Similarly, the act requires states to set "one high, challenging standard" for its students. Each state decides for itself what counts as "one high, challenging standard," but the curriculum standards must be applied to all students, rather than having different standards for students in different cities or other parts of the state. (2007)
Early critics of the proposed legislation centered around the naming of the law, sufficient funding (or lack thereof), definitions of proficiency, ethical issues and oversight, assessment criteria, testing cost and accountability, curricula issues, teacher tenure and flight, limitations of scientifically based research standards and leadership.
Many felt that the act was too ambitious and thought it would fail due to ambiguity. Representative Robert Etheridge of Rocky Mount, North Carolina was famously remembered for his comment about the potential of the act: "No Child Left Behind is expected to be reauthorized in September or October, but unless it includes components like a growth model, it won't pass." (2003)
Despite its controversy, the bill passed in the U.S. Congress with bipartisan support and was officially signed into law by President Bush in 2002.
U.S. Education Secretary, Dr. Roderick Paige publicly responded to critics of the No Child Left Behind Act with a memorable report calling the act a "revolution" that would do much to reverse a sub-par U.S. educational system that he compared to apartheid. (2003)
Paige pointed out that recent SAT scores showed that African American scores remained flat, and Hispanic scores went down over the last several years. By 12th grade, he said, just one in six African Americans and one in five Hispanics can read proficiently. Just 3 percent of African Americans and 4 percent of Hispanics are testing at the proficient level in math. He tied the academic performance of K-12 students to the country's future security. Paige referenced a report finding American students read, write and do math at worse rates than students in Asia and Europe. "Our students are falling behind, and there is every indication that, if we allow the guardians of the educational status quo to have their way, . . . our nation will be left behind," said Paige. "If current educational attainments are allowed to continue, underachievement will be a disaster, not only for our students, but our nation as well. Educational disparities threaten the country itself, our very way of life. We are facing an unrecognized educational crisis in this country. Our wide and sometimes growing achievement gap confirms that there is a two-tiered educational system," Paige said. "The vast majority of students left behind are disadvantaged or low income. Effectively, the education circumstances for these students are not unlike that of a de facto system of apartheid." (2003)
Nonetheless, critics argued that the focus on standardized testing encourages a narrow subset of skills in order to increase test performance, rather than developing a deeper understanding of the overall concepts of the curriculum. This is colloquially referred to as "teaching to the test."
However, supporters of the NCLB contend that the act was a legitimate response to the need for accountability in public schools. Proponents also agreed that NCLB provisions set a framework to improve the proficiency for all students and help close the achievement gap between White and non-White students.
Today, almost a decade since its inception, the NCBL act is still one of controversy. In fact, critics now site failed promises and disappointing test results with no evidence found to reflect improvement in closing the achievement gap between White and non-White students. Current opponents of the NCLB allege that the Act has not been effective in improving education as evidenced by mixed results in standardized tests in US schools. Additionally, teacher's unions, scholars and researchers have have expressed strong concerns regarding inequitable divisions of resources, minimal curriculm, high stakes testing versus multiple assessments and the failure of policy makers to include input from teachers.
As a student and teacher, I am grateful for the NCLB act. It gives me confidence and great pride to know that our schools must follow this legislation in an effort to produce smart, educated young people.
According to a report published by the Journal of Economic Perspectives concerning NCLB legislation, many teachers support the general principles underlying the No Child Left Behind legislation, especially the importance of improving the achievement of all children, including those from groups that have historically been neglected in many schools. They also applaud the principle that strong action should be taken to improve the performance of failing schools.
At the same time, teachers are still concerned that the incentives created by some provisions of the law have elicited unintended responses that have reduce the quality of education provided to at least some children. More importantly, many teachers feel see NCLB as dramatically damaging the quality of education provided to children, especially those attending schools under pressure to meet Adequate Yearly Progress.
While the NCLB is not perfect, it does provide a strong framework for accountability and academic achievement in public schools. It is my belief that our leadership should work together to modify and revise the original NCLB act in order to further define measures to raise academic achievement which included input from teachers as well as students. It is also important that our modifications are specific to the small learning communities serving specific students within specific states. If modifications are set forth by professional organizations, prominent researchers, and practitioners with input from teachers and students and tailored to specific small learning communities, then the potential for accomplishing the goal of high-performing students in all of the nation's schools is possible.
References:
Hammer, Ben. (2003) Black Issues in Higher Education; Vol.20 Issue 18; pg.6; Cox, Matthews & Associates, Inc.
Harrison-Jones, Lois (2007).Education No Child Left Behind and Implications for Black Students; The Journal of Negro Education, Vol. 76, No. 3, Celebrating the Legacy of “TheJournal”: 75 Years of Facilitating Excellence in Black Education (Summer, 2007), pp. 346-356
Murnane, Richard J. and Papay, John P. (2010)Teacher's Views on No Child Left Behind: Support for the Principles, Concerns about the Practices; Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 24, Number 3; Pages 151–166
Paley, A. (2007). "No Child" Commission presents ambitious plan. The Washington Post, A3. Retrieved from http://www.washingtonpost.com/archives
White, D. (2007) Pros & cons of No Child Left Behind. About Liberal Politics: U.S. Retrieved February 25, 2007, from http://usliberals.aboaut.eom/od/education/i/NCLBProsCons
Wikipedia. (2007). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 14, 2013, from http://campaigns.wikia.com/wiki/ NoChildLeftBehind
