In January 2002, President Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act, an attempt at standards-based education reform intended to hold states, districts, and schools accountable for the performance of students in elementary and secondary schools. Under the law, teachers and administrators at chronically failing schools can lose their jobs, and the management of schools can be taken over by private organizations or by the state. The leniency period for the policy has now ended, and consequences for failure at the school wide level are now supposed to be enforced with a heavy hand.
Areas of the country in which there are high rates of poverty and other social problems have experienced negative effects of NCLB, and significant controversy exists in some communities -- Los Angeles, CA is a prime example. You can read about what's going on in that school district by reading this article from the New York Times, published in October 2007. Schools in that district are in real danger of being shut down or taken over, but even such drastic penalties and changes would not likely bring about effective or swift positive change. Thousands of students are falling further and further behind by the year
How have the requirements of NCLB changed the face of public education in the US? What are the results of these changes for families, especially poor families? How has the quality of public education been altered? What are the strengths and weaknesses of the NCLB? How might the NCLB be altered to more effectively serve and protect all participants in the US education system? Is a federal policy an effective way to address what's going on in the widely diverse schools and school districts in the US? If you were a member of Congress, how would you work to address the problems present on this issue?
23 comments:
The NCLB act has changed public education in many ways for students, educators and parents. It sets standards for public schools and assures that schools have met these standards through testing. I think it is important to have a general guideline of how students in certain grades should be performing, however the way NCLB goes about tracking progress can be problematic. Not only are certain students simply not good test takers but teachers begin shifting their goals and focus in the classroom. By this I mean, teachers no longer have the leverage or time to really go in depth on certain topics. They have a set curriculum and have a lot of material to cover in a semester in order to prepare students for the exam. This makes teachers use more mentioning in the classroom rather than elaboration resulting in less actual information being learned and more being memorized/crammed for exams. At the end of the day NCLB almost becomes a test on how well students can take a test not necessarily how well students know the material.
Also, NCLB fails to realize that not all schools have the resources they need to teach the material. Poor school districts are obviously at a disadvantage. They do not have the funds to pay for exceptional teachers or aides. Also, basic material such as computers and library books are likely to be missing. From the brink, these schools are at a disadvantage and the standards that NCLB do not reflect that uneven start school districts have. When testing comes into play, poor school districts will suffer greatly. Not only do they not have the resources to give them a chance at meeting standards, but they also risk losing funding if they do not meet the requirements. This clearly works backwards in trying to get all schools up to par. The schools that need it the most to begin with are not provided an equal chance and end up losing even more resources.
Many argue that NCLB allows parents to choose a better school for their child and that this provides poor children an opportunity to do well in school. However, NCLB does not provide public transportation and in most cases better schools are not fairly close. These families do not have the resources to pay for transportation and so their children are stuck in the more disadvantaged school.
The NCLB could become more successful if it provided resources to schools that are already suffering. By giving those schools an equal chance with resources and exceptional teachers, their progress can actually be compared to richer schools. The federal government should also provide more funding to schools. How is it that schools have to abide by this act and change the way classes are taught when the government isn't even putting up very much money? With additional government funds, transportation could be provided to lower class families who wish to place their students in better schools. They can fill the void between lower class school districts and middle/higher class districts.
I think if anyone should be creating the standards for schools it should be the local/state government. There are so many variations in the state, city and districts that really do effect how well schools do. The federal government is not providing guidelines that can necessarily be met by all districts.
I think that NCLB has in a sense made things worse. I know that the intentions behind creating NCLB were good, however I think that the implementation of NCLB has not gone through correctly. I think originally the intention was to make sure that all children meet certain standards with regards to education to ensure that upon graduation they have received a decent education. What actually ends up happening is instead of providing better education to assist children meet these standards; the teachers and faculty are just fired if the test scores are not where they should be. The results for poor families are that their children continue to struggle with school material and they also have to deal with school closings in their area. Then the issue becomes where will the children go to school and if it will be feasible for them to go to school there. In terms of quality I think that there is a greater disparity of quality between public and private schools. Public schools are not getting all of the help they need instead they are being expected to hold up to harsher standards. Other schools that don't need the extra services as much are getting better but the issue is that they weren't the schools in desperate need of the assistance in the first place. One of the strengths of NCLB is that is holding schools accountable for the performance and the quality of the education that the students are receiving. There was a time when a lot of children were graduating with literacy problems or below average reading proficiency. All of these things are now being addressed and heavily monitored. The weaknesses of NCLB are that the minute problems that contribute to the bigger picture of why the school systems may not be performing as well are not addressed. The main thing that is looked at are the final test scores. In order to make NCLB more effective I think the test scores should be used to determine which schools need more services not which teachers should be fired. Teachers are not the cause of everything. Those other causes of poor test scores need to be addressed. A federal policy can be effective in terms of addressing what is going in the school systems. However a federal policy can not address everything; thus it should not be be the only policy regarding the school systems. It can be effective in terms of the overarching problems and how to address on a larger scale; for example funding issues. A federal policy can not accommodate all of the problems that each school is faced with and be able to help every student achieve. If I were a member of congress I would keep the policy however I would make some additions to it. I do think that schools should be held accountable for the test scores of their students. However I do not think that fireing all of the teachers is the answer to failing test scores. The additions I would make would be that the test scores would be used to determine eligibility for various schools. If a certain school or schools are consistently producing failing scores that school should automatically be placed under investigation to assess what exactly the problems are and how to address them. Overall NCLB has good intentions behind it but following through with NCLB is where the problem begins.
The 2002 No Child Left Behind Act attempted to reform elementary and secondary education. According to the act, some of the main goals include closing the gap between minority and nonminority children and meeting the educational needs of many underprivileged groups of children. In order to accomplish such goals, the act put a lot of responsibility on schools and teachers, offering various consequences if they were unable to meet the state’s educational standards. Such punishments include the firing of teachers and the management of schools shifting to the state or private organizations.
This act has changed the face of public education in the US. Due to the required standardized test, many teachers end up teaching and preparing students for the curriculum on that test rather than information for learning. This is related to another issue that zmedrano brought up in that teachers now tend to teach students how to take a test rather than truly learning the information. School should be about learning valuable information and understanding it so you can apply it to your life. With this act teachers are driven to teach students how to memorize rather than learn. In addition, many states differ on the standardized requirements with some easier than others. This creates an unfair system. The main issue with this act is how it affects the students. Students’ learning is based on a standardized test but tests do not always encompass the knowledge a student has learned. Thus, the quality of public education has been altered from being a source of education for all to an education that is beginning to revolve around a single test. The effects of this act tend to hit lower income families the hardest. In school districts of poverty, resources tend to be scarce. As a result, they will be at a disadvantage as blogger zmedrano suggested when it comes to meeting the standardized test’s requirements. Thus, students are more likely to be unable to satisfy these educational requirements. As the article in the New York Times mentioned, many impoverished schools are falling behind the requirements and are being threatened of various consequences. Yet, these consequences affect the children’s education even more.
Although, it has many weakness I think it also has some strengths. This law tries to ensure that all children are getting a quality education. Many students were being ignored and were going without a good education. However, due to this act this issue has risen to the surface and the creation of a solution is being attempted. I think a federal policy is an effective way to address the education system’s problems. It can more effectively look at the overall issues facing diverse schools and school districts. With this analysis it can then create a solution so that all children nationwide will be able to meet similar educational levels.
The NCLB can be altered to more effectively serve and protect all participants in the US education system by making a few adjustments. I think the standards for each states should be equalized. However, I also think the tests should not be the only qualifying factor, such things as graduation rates should also be considered when analyzing schools’ effectiveness. In addition, although it is teacher’s job to educate students all the responsibility should not be put on them. The school and child’s environment should be inspected before assuming it is solely the teacher’s fault. If I were a member of Congress, I would address the problems present on this issue by taking the above actions. I would alter the standards, emphasize the role of the environment on education and restructure the consequences of teachers. Restructuring the education system is a big task and due to the NCLB it is beginning to be addressed. However, many changes are still needed.
Of course a federal policy is not an effective way to address what’s going on in such diverse school settings across the nation. Compared to other industrialized countries and to America’s own standards, we have fairly low educational achievement which frightens many into thinking of the problem as a national one. It’s always easier to devise answers to our problems as one blanket solution rather than by examining what specific areas need attention in different parts of the country (even within different parts of the same state!) Still, NCLB has changed public education for all of the United States by requiring all children to reach a standard level of proficiency in math and reading by 2014. If schools do not meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years, students must be offered the chance to transfer to better performing schools within that district. They must also offer supplemental services like tutoring to students. NCLB also emphasizes strengthening communication between schools and parents.
As with anything, there are strengths and weaknesses of NCLB. If 100% proficiency was not the goal, for instance, students left behind would most likely be poor and minority students. Like zmedrano said, not all schools have the resources they need, namely the poorer districts. They also do not have funds to pay for better trained teachers. Under NCLB, these lower performing schools would receive a cut in funding for not doing well when they would benefit greatly from an increase in funding. However, 100% proficiency is also very unrealistic for many schools and states. Further, if state curriculums are aligned with state standards, then those tests will be an accurate representation of what children have actually learned. Teachers become more likely, though, to “teach to the test” and spend a disproportionate amount of time on specific test taking skills. Lastly, as stated above, failing schools must allow students the chance to attend more high-performing schools in the district. This part of legislation will fail in some cases as districts surely will not make it exceptionally easy to transfer and those districts with many low-performing schools will have little to no options for their students to choose from. These examples illustrate but some of strengths and weaknesses resulting from NCLB.
NCLB can be modified to more effectively serve the entire educational system; the act needs to change its focus to no schools left behind. If the government allowed schools to do their own work under this premise, no children would be left behind as a result. Fair support, not standardized support, is necessary. As a member of Congress, I would push for a halt on any more federalized standardized testing. The current pressure placed on these tests is already hindering good teaching (as mentioned before, teachers are simply “teaching to the test”). I would also add increased compensation for equally increased teacher preparation, as many teachers cannot afford to live in the very districts they teach.
I believe that as blogger zmedrano has said NCLB has brought a lot of change to public education for students, educators and parents, but it flawed in the way that it regulates and enforces the progress that schools make. I also feel that NCLB has good intentions, but are not implementing the correct resources to truly helps students. As zmedrano has said the schools are now focusing their teaching material on things that they foresee will be on the tests, they are no longer trying to “ignite a passion in the children” something that a parent had said in the “Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standard” article. To add, I believe that the NCLB has brought fear over the educators, making them feel as if their jobs are on the line, which cause some to become more selfish. In the sense that they themselves also lose their passion to teach children and solely focus on ways to keep out of the fire that will result if their students fail to pass the examinations. Another flaw that was mentioned in the article was that even if the failing schools were to be “shut down” and was given to the private organizations or the state to take care of, there is no saying that they wont fail as well. As the article has mentioned, schools need to be given more options to helping their schools instead of feeling like they’re in an all or nothing type of situation. Another thing that I wanted to note was that as the NCLB has been in play, the schools systems have been moving in a constant downward spiral, shouldn’t this be a sign that a better solution is needed?
I agree with the other bloggers that the main strength NLCB provided is to make sure teachers and administrators are held to a higher standard so that they make sure all students have the opportunity ultimately graduate from high school. I think was a noble act but consequences weren’t considered enough. What happens when a teacher provides all of the resources (such as after school help, and extra assignments) but a student doesn’t apply him or herself? What about when a school may not be able to provide the resources other schools can due to financial reasons? With either situation, we can relate it the structural or cultural theory of poverty. But in this case it would be the structural or cultural theory of education. If a school can’t provide all of the resources necessary because of insufficient funds, teachers should not be held responsible. In fact it should be the county directors who can take the issue up the chain. If a student is not interested in learning (provided there could be issues going on at home) then ultimately the teachers should not be held responsible. That’s not to say that teachers should not be held responsible for their students, but it should be to a certain point. What needs to be taken into consideration is the fact that poverty could be the problem to all of these issues. Schools dealing with insufficient funds, students who are the most troubled or do poorly are usually the ones who come from families that are financially struggling. I know that poverty within certain areas can’t be changed over night, but nonetheless it needs to be considered as a measurement to the NCLB act. Once all students are provided with EQUAL opportunities then and only then can teachers be held responsible for ALL of their pupils. Until then, certain students will fall through the cracks, and certain teachers will be fired unnecessarily.
The NCLB act is enacted in attempts to increase the quality of public education in the US. This law focuses on narrowing the achievement gap in reading and math between the minority and white students .Consequences of the schools that cannot meet the standards are that teachers get fired and schools gets taken over by the private organization. Even there have been improvements in students’ math and writing skills among minority students, both teachers and students are under pressure to meet the standards. Teachers don’t get to teach the material in depth, but pour all the information that students need to know for the standardized test another negative effect of this law is that this law is penalizing schools as well as teachers and students for not being able to meet the standards that this law requires.
This law had negative impact especially on poor families. In the regions where poor families live, the quality of public services is not that good. The public school education in the poor neighborhood tends to lack sources that are necessary for education. The public schools often are unable to provide new books, and good teachers. Consequently, school will close and students in poor area will be forced to move to other school and the teachers will lose jobs. Moving to other school is often an issue for children in poor families because the families may be unable to provide transportation and this could also mean that these poor families need to spend extra money that they did not plan to spend on transportation.
I think this law did not alter the quality of education much. Even though the achievement gap between the minority students and white students narrowed and improvement has been shown on test scores, there are far more weakness than the strength that the effectiveness of this law should be readdressed. Teachers are encouraged to “teach to the test” and students as well are encouraged to become good test takers instead of becoming a real “learner” and absorb the material covered in the class. Also, since the states can produce its own standards, the states will tend to make their official standardized test easier so more students will pass the test and the test result may not necessarily reflect the quality of the education. Lastly, this law tends to favor only the high performing students and provide more incentives while penalizing students who are performing badly on the tests. In fact, students with poor performance on the standardized are the students who actually need better teachers and more assistance and sources to improve their mathematic and writing skills.
In order to protect all participants in the US education system and to increase the effectiveness of NCLB, instead of penalizing schools that are not meeting the requirements, more funds can be provided to create an environment that would help the schools to improve. If more funds are given to these schools, these schools would actually be able to hire experienced and good quality teachers and buy more books and run after school programs that provide free tutors.
I don’t think federal policy is an effective way to address what's going on in the widely diverse schools and school districts in the US. Since the quality of education and teachers vary as well as the funds that are being used on public school education systems, I don’t think the federal policy can handle this issue effectively and improve the quality of the education well.
If I were a member of congress, I would make some modification on this law. I would change the law in a way that encourages teachers to get educated on how to teach students more effectively so that students would improve in their basic math and writing skills. Furthermore, I would let schools that need the most help get more assistance and funds so that schools can buy more book supplies and hire good qualifying teachers to improve the education system
I agree with many other bloggers that the NCLB act is not necessarily helping schools to improve the quality of education in the US, and I think the effectiveness of this law should be addressed again to make some changes. Also, I don’t think the standardized test score is a good way of measuring how well the students are doing academically. The format of the test tends to favor those students are good test takers and the test score does not necessarily reflects the performance of the students. Thus, creating other format of test that accurately measures the students’ performance should be created. I also think that schools that are in the poor district should be able to receive an equal quality of education. In order to do that, more sources and funds need to be provided to improve the quality of education.
I agree with many other bloggers that the NCLB act is not necessarily helping schools to improve the quality of education in the US, and I think the effectiveness of this law should be addressed again to make some changes. Also, I don’t think the standardized test score is a good way of measuring how well the students are doing academically. The format of the test tends to favor those students are good test takers and the test score does not necessarily reflects the performance of the students. Thus, creating other format of test that accurately measures the students’ performance should be created. I also think that schools that are in the poor district should be able to receive an equal quality of education. In order to do that, more sources and funds need to be provided to improve the quality of education.
PART ONE:
The requirements of NCLB have changed the face of public education, especially for schools in lower income neighborhoods. States are now made accountable for the quality and proficiency of the education provided to children from third grade to high school. Teachers and administrators are made aware that their continuation in their school depends on their performance. In theory, this sounded like a good idea, especially since so many Americans like to have a national standard by which to measure. However, as most laws, NCLB has its major flaws.
The results of these changes affect families like the Sanchez’s everyday. Martha Sanchez believed that the system gave up on her children once they were older. Since school funding is directly tied to local property taxes, families living in lower income neighborhoods are stuck in underperforming schools that now face the issue of being sanctioned or closed. Poor families also have to deal with their children attending overcrowded schools, and ones that are on staggered schedules. This article found that “students lose momentum, forget lessons, and come out with 17 fewer days of instruction a year” (Schemo, 2007). Inevitably, these students will not gain high testing scores nor will they see positive changes to their education formation.
The quality of public education has been altered as schools are solely focused on the testing success of their students. I agree with Blogger 348, in that schools are only preparing their students for a test, and not on the grounds of enhancing their learning. For teachers to keep their jobs, they need to make sure their students will do well on the tests. Thus, their teaching efforts are to make sure their students understand how to take the test. There is a loss of creativity, as teachers are forced to teach to the book. Martha Sanchez said “teachers are focusing almost solely on material likely to appear on state exams. Forget about igniting a passion in children…maybe the system is not designed for people like us” (Schemo, 2007). Without engaging students, they lose the thrill and desire to explore learning, and thus become even more unmotivated to do well in school. By teaching in this manner, we are negatively changing the quality of public education.
The strengths of NCLB are that we have a way to nationally assess public schools in the country. The hope is that all schools perform at grade level in the most fundamental subjects of reading and math. Educators are held liable for the performance of their students, and school overall. Essentially, this was made to motivate teachers and find professors that were qualified to properly teach students. The weaknesses of NCLB are found in its tight regulations. Recently in the news, we heard of one high school in Rhode Island that fired all of its teachers because students were underperforming. NCLB ties performance of students past teachers to the evaluation of the students current teachers. Can we blame a high school teacher for their student not understanding division, when it is an area that should have been mastered in elementary school?
NCLB could be altered so that reading and math are not the only subjects tested. This would encourage students to still find passion for social studies and/or science. My friend is spending this year student teaching for an elementary school, and she found it surprising that an hour everyday is dedicated to reading and math, since these are the tested subjects, but social studies and science are only taught every other day and only for 45 minutes. This clearly does not offer students an even exposure to all subjects. Every class should be valued in a similar manner.
PART TWO:
Although, federal policy has the correct motive to address education in all schools it is naturally easier and more efficient for states to be responsible for schools. This is because the public school system differs vastly from state to state. At the same time, we have already seen how some states have made their exams easier, and thus passing more children as reaching math reading grade levels. If states remain in control we face the issue of different exams, and no nationwide measure to analyze the quality of education. It is also important to understand that education implemented by federal policy is more likely to guarantee that every child in America receives the same educational opportunities.
If I were a member of Congress I would like to hear from my constituents about their own experiences or issues regarding the education system. I would work with teachers, administrators, and parents to understand all points of view.
No Child Left Behind is a law passed by the Bush Administration which administers test to children in public school across every state that wants federal government aid in education. NCLB sets a national standard on children education on reading and math. Schools must have a majority of students pass these examination and if not these schools are deemed failures and if that is the case they must provide tutoring and other support systems to raise the test scores. Schools that are considered failing for 5 years, teachers and principals will be fired, some schools will be shut down and turned over to private firms or the state. The schools can either be shut down or they would have to transfer some students out and cut down the size of the school. The problem is that NCLB hits poor communities the hardest because in communities will high poverty schools are less funded. The reason being school funding come from property taxes and in communities with high poverty, the cost of property is low which affects school funding. If schools have low funding there are fewer resources for learning such as books, school equipment, and after school activities. Lots of teachers and staff are concerned with their jobs, because if the children do not perform well they could lose their jobs. Therefore lots of teachers only teach what is needed for the students to pass the assessments. Some advantages to NCLB is an increase in federal funding for schools, there is national standard for education, with the systematic testing it provides data on which schools are not teaching basic skills, in a way it keeps schools accountable. Some disadvantages of NCLB are that it reduces effective instruction and student learning because it lowers achievement goals and motivate teachers to teach only what is needed for the test. The federal policy may not be the most effective way to address what’s going on in the widely diverse schools in the United States. The reason being that within states the public school systems differ from one another; within each state they have different challenges in their public education. The problem with letting the states control education assessment is that states can make their assessments easier. The positive side to federal policy is that there can be a national standard to education standard. If I were a member of Congress, I would talk to principles, teachers, and parents about how they feel about the NCLB policy and what they would recommend. I would also change the fact that teacher and principles if the school is considered failing.
The requirements f the NCLB have put stress on teachers and principals to get the statistical percentages up in their favor in order for them to keep their job. They are using these frightening statistics as an excuse and defense towards their poor teaching. These statistics have put teachers' curriculum and practice in the spotlight to be examined which has taken away from the students lessons.
Poorer families who cannot afford tutoring or private schooling are having their children fall behind and have to repeat grades. As mentioned in the article, once the student repeats several times and reaches a certain age, the school and faculty gives up on their potential and the student is forgotten about.
The strengths are that the government provides free tutoring. The weakness is that it offers students the decision to transfer, but if so many of the schools are shutting down, it will be difficult for students to have the option to transfer to schools near their home. It is also a weakness because the law should not have to offer free tutoring. That draws away from motivating teachers to focus on each student's individual needs, even if it is a larger class, because then attending class would be a waste of time.
The NCLB should be altered per school state, even more specifically per school district in larger states. The federal policy of this law is a good broad idea but it needs to be altered per district situation. The faculty, teaching staff, and even school district advisers need to get on the same page of the situation of each school and class level. There is no reason why this many students should be doing so poorly. It cannot only be the students' faults. If I were a member of Congress, I would declare an immediate audit of each school district by the state educational board. That would be my first step.
The requirements of NCLB have changed the face of public education because it’s causing a lot of schools to shut down if they do not meet the requirements of this law. It puts pressures on administration figures and teachers to make sure the students perform at their proper grade level, if not the staff can be fired and the school could be shut down. As it stated in the article, a result for families who are affected by the NCLB law is that, “In poor neighborhoods, students are on staggered schedules, starting school in different months and scattering what was once summer vacation into smaller breaks” (Schemo 1). The quality of public schools is getting worse because schools in low-income areas are pressured to pass these tests that are unrealistic to pass. On the other hand it is a good thing because it’s forcing schools to meet these requirements to make sure that every child is getting a proper education. I think that the requirements should be lowered for schools that serve low-income or mainly foreign students who do not speak English. I think it’s unfair to fire teachers due to their students’ academic performances. It is important that teachers teach the material to the best of their ability but there can be many factors into why a child did not perform well on a standardized test. A federal policy is not an effective way to address what’s going on in the widely diverse schools and school districts in the U.S. If I was a member of the Congress I would adjust the educational standards to fit each school district across the U.S. I will have a State representative report each school’s academic results and set requirements according to the results. Doing it by the state level will ensure that students from lower-income or foreign speaking families will not be penalized because of the academic requirements that are unrealistic to reach.
The requirements of the NCLB have changed the way public schools function. Teachers are forced to teach to the test instead of feeding their student’s creativity and allowing them to develop their own ideas about things. The worst part about it is that it takes funding away from low performing schools. This does not fix anything. Schools already don’t have enough resources and now they have to perform higher with even less resources. That is really backwards and unattainable. If anything happens, schools should not lose funding rather, they should receive more support somehow. Some sort of academic programs should be put in place for teachers and students that targets the real issues causing schools to perform poorly.
One of the alleged strengths of the NCLB is that if a school is closed down then students get to choose another school to attend. That sounds reasonable but what about poor families? Would transportation be provided? I doubt it. One of the weaknesses of the NCLB is that all the testing is stressful for the teachers and students. How can someone expect anyone to teach effectively or learn in those conditions? The tension during testing time could be cut with a knife, college isn’t even that bad.
Thus, I agree with the other bloggers in saying that the NCLB needs to be revised severely.
First off I would like to comment on zmedrano post, they mentioned how some students aren't good test takers which I strongly agree with considering I myself have had trouble with tests even with hours of teachings and studying. I also think that mentioning the teachers don't go in depth on certain topics is right on cue considering some students may understand the topic but what about the other one or two students who might have difficulties with that particular topic, they basically get left behind and sometimes children don't speak up enough about what they need help on. I also agree with the statement about parents being able to choose the school they want their child to go to. Usually the schools that aren't so good are in neighborhoods that are cheap to live in which most likely means the families around are lacking money so transportation would be an issue because better schools could be 20 miles away and with no transportation provided how does this help parents choosing a better education for their children.
I can say that the NCLB act is trying to make things better for parents and children. They have recently increased the amount of money put into the program so maybe they will start to look at the downsides of the act to make the weaknesses better.
Now even though some students don't test well, they are showing that test scores have increased. Now the downside to that is they compared it with the year 2000 test scores when NCLB didn't even exist. I think they really need to focus on year to year change of the program itself.
I believe the act is helpful in its own ways with focusing on helping children out but there are too many kinks still and there are more downsides then not. But we also have to realize that without the program where would we be? Back to the statistics of 2000? So it has helped but it also has to become more in depth with figuring out what can be improved to help to children that are still being left behind with having difficulty testing.
If I were in congress I would try to focus on the students that are still struggling. I would try to find a way to include things other then tests to figure out if the students are learning the information they need. I would also try to find a way to get programs started for raising money and helping the schools that lack money.
I agree with the other bloggers. NCLB has raised anxiety in schools specifically due to standardized tests. Standardized testing is no longer a legitimate way of testing the students’ knowledge of learned information. There has been such pressure to perform well on standardized assessments that students are now studying and hiring tutors just to improve their scores on a test that they should be ready for based on their class curriculum. Teachers are even teaching to the test to improve scores as well. These assessments should measure the students’ basic knowledge on basic or specific subjects, the school’s curriculum should include the topics covered on the assessment but do not need to be the main focus therefore any information on the assessment should have been covered in class regardless. These tests are meant to assess, basically survey the students on their knowledge not grade them on it. As soon as you place a grade value on any work that requires a student to use learned information and apply it, a whole set of conditions apply. Students tend to freeze and perform under test anxiety, which then produces skewed results on the assessment. A student may very well have a complete understand on the material tested, however the circumstance causes the student to focus more on the grade received than on the material itself now cancelling out the whole purpose of the assessment.
Standardized assessments are necessary however, to gauge the students’, teachers’ and school curriculums’ proficiency on basic subjects, required to function in society. It is the circumstances under which the assessments are given that need to change. If the information on the standardized tests could be tested informally, the result would be more accurate as the students would not know they were being tested. For example, instead of
giving the student a prompt and having them write a written response in an allotted time frame; the teacher could ask the prompt as an oral question and based on the students' oral responses, in form of a discussion, the teacher could measure the students’ proficiency in the topic. This in turn would allow the students to perform to their full potential as they are focused on the question at hand and not on the grade determined by their response. This method, in addition to other informal methods of testing, would evidently serve as a more efficient means to measure the students’ knowledge in turn provide the state with more accurate data only serving to benefit both the state and society.
The No Child Left Behind Act was made into a law with the intention of helping schools have minimum requirements for standardized testing scores. However, though NCLB had good intentions, I do not think it was carried out appropriately. Many teachers, and schools as a whole, are under extreme pressure to meet the federal guidelines for standardized testing. Because of the pressure and stress, teachers have been forced to cram more information into a year than the students can handle. However, because of the federal standards, those teachers cannot slow down; they are required to teach the information that will be on the test. Consequently, “teachable moments” (or spontaneous events that have opportunities to learn or emphasize information to students) to help students learn are not used. The quality of education has declined because of the extreme pressure teachers are put under to keep their students’ grades at the appropriate level.
NCLB has negatively affected families of the schools under pressure, especially poor families. Schools which have low-income and poorer families attending, known as Title 1 Schools, are under the most pressure from NCLB because they do not have as many resources to use in order to teach their students the required material. Low-income schools are not supplied with, and do not have the funds to buy, materials that supplement learning, such as books, computers, and subject materials (microscopes, cubes, globes). Without these materials, students are disadvantaged in learning, as well as on the standardized tests. If schools do not successfully meet the federal standards, rather than helped with their lack of resources, funding is taken away. With the little funding Title 1 schools have, cutting back their funding even more will not help their test scores.
Though NCLB has an honorable initiative, there are weaknesses to the law. It was meant to be used to help students throughout the United States. Having a minimum standardized test score requirement allows schools to be compared to each other. Seeing which areas have lower test scores can help the government find where more resources must be allocated. Though NCLB has a respectful mission, there are weaknesses to the law. Children who attend low-income schools are in environments that lack the appropriate resources to enhance learning. Moreover, there are many minority students who go to underprivileged, Title 1 schools. Some of the students are English as a Second Language (ESL) learners. Testing ESL learners with standardized testing is unfair to them. Though the students may know the answer, they may not understand the question. However, if it was asked in their native language, they would answer correctly. In order to accurately score students, schools should not be judged solely on standardized test scores. Overall, I feel the weakness outweigh the strengths of NCLB.
In order to change the most compelling weakness, federal policy must be changed. Due to the large number of diverse communities throughout the United States, each community should have its own standard. Rather than cutting back on funding if those standards are not met, schools in need should be provided with more resources. As zmedrano stated, “By giving those schools an equal chance with resources and exceptional teachers, their progress can actually be compared to richer schools.” America is the most diverse country in the world. If the federal government sets standards for schools on a national level, we are not taking our diversity into account in our educational system.
If I were a member of Congress, I would be sure to be inclusive in my testing of students. Though it would take more time and money, students would be testing in various ways (socially, emotionally, cognitively, linguistically, etc). Students who do not know English very well would all be provided with translators so we could accurately score them. My proposal, if ever elected to Congress, would be to emphasize inclusive testing throughout the nation.
Although I can see why President Bush implemented the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 in order to challenge our young American students, the results seem to be more negative than positive since the new law. More pressure is being put onto these young children in order to succeed in our prestigious education system in the United States. This added pressure is making these students crack rather than succeed. The teachers are also feeling the demands of the new law and are at a higher risk for anxiety along with their students. According to the New York Times article, “Failing Schools Strain to Meet U.S. Standards” by Diana Schemo, not even a full ten percent by some schools in Los Angeles are meeting the new requirements which then leads to teachers and principles being fired and schools closing down. This is not our solution. It is a shame to hear how very qualified teachers are being fired from their love of teaching just because some students may need more time to learn certain material or because the teacher isn’t teaching their students how to ace the standardized tests. These students should be focusing on learning the standard material and enjoying the process, not worrying about what score they received on their standardized test sent by the state. There are more weaknesses and negative affects than positive outcomes when it comes to NCLB standards. Instead of testing students on certain material, maybe we should come up with a new monthly program to see how students are progressing in their individual learning path. This may be a more difficult task but it is well worth the time and effort by our government. Schemo’s article also points out that the students need more individual attention like after school tutoring or building more schools to create a denser learning environment which could be very beneficial to No Child Left Behind. I agree with blogger .348, students should be absorbing information and tools they will use in their everyday life, not learning how to memorize certain vocabulary for a standardized test. School is the biggest sculpting tool for our young future of America; if we don’t teach these children the right way or the necessary information they need in order to grow and succeed, then we will all fail.
No Child Left Behind is an act that was passed by George Bush and it states that all children have the right to education but will be tested on that in order to improve scores throughout the country. There are many flaws in the law, because it is causing teachers to mainly focus on just the test scores and less on teaching students what is important. It is very strong, however, because it is promoting how we are striving to be better, as a country, and it was implemented to try to benefit our future leaders. It is a law that needs to be amended because it is not perfect. Less emphasis should be put on test scores and more emphasis should be put on classroom teachings, lessons, and methods of teaching. Teacher should be able to teach the students without having to structure their class to fit the needs of a state test, but to the needs of the students. NCLB is not perfect, but the main idea needs to stay the same--no child should be left behind when striving for academic excellence in schools. While we all have different positions on various aspects of the law, based on concerns raised during the implementation of NCLB, we believe the following significant, constructive corrections are among those necessary to make the Act fair and effective. Among these concerns are: over-emphasizing standardized testing, narrowing curriculum and instruction to focus on test preparation rather than richer academic learning; over-identifying schools in need of improvement; using sanctions that do not help improve schools; inappropriately excluding low-scoring children in order to boost test results; and inadequate funding. Overall, the law's emphasis needs to shift from applying sanctions for failing to raise test scores to holding states and localities accountable for making the systemic changes that improve student achievement.
Last semester, I participated in a program on campus last semester called America Reads America Counts. It involved Maryland students going into local public schools in PG County and working with kids on their reading and writing skills. When I started doing this I saw the change in curriculum from when I was a student. Everything now is focused on these standardized tests that these students have to take, and nothing revolves around thinking. Students in different places counties have different funding, yet are all being held up to the same standards, which does not help anyone in the end. The over all idea of NCLB is working towards a great goal of better education, but it is unacceptable to hold everyone to the same standards, because the quality of education if varied throughout the states. I think different goals need to be set depending on the level the students are at currently. Education for me is a right and if one student has access to a resource that means all students should have the same access. I agree with the person above me .265, who says that more focus should be on student improvement. Each child learns different ways so teachers should cater to how they learn. This law cannot say that all kids not to be at certain proficiency level because this discourages students. If they see that the goal they have to achieve is so high, then they might not want to work so hard.
As far as public eduction goes, with NCLB all the teachers are now more likely to teach to state tests. This way the state sees that they are progressing in the amount of students passing the exams, yet they don't know that they lack skills in many of the academic areas. This to me is the major downfall of NCLB because it does have many benefits. It is good for motivated children to work hard and be transferred out and for those concerned about their grades to go to the private tutoring. However, contradictory to the "no child left behind" we do see many kids fall through the cracks because of discouraging teachers and the closing of schools. Also the article mentioned that they now have weird schedules as far as breaks go and it is harder for students to get back in their study mindset when they have these long breaks instead of summer breaks. We should be focusing more on what the teachers are doing and try to help them improve their lesson plans instead of getting rid of them to bring in more "accomplished" teachers. It is just a very impersonal approach to a very localized issue. Even though it seems like tailoring each situation in each school personally, we need to find a balance. The balance being making it personal yet effective so that we can motivate teachers and students alike to make progress in academic areas. This would make self actualization peak in areas that need it most and provide hope for our future generations.
I agree with the previous bloggers about the NCLB being used to promote graduation and nationally education, but I feel that it fails to do so. As previous bloggers have stated, the NCLB makes the rates, test scores, and other numbers look good on paper, but I believe that the reality is not so clean cut. The requirements of NCLB have changed the face of public education in the U.S. by creating nationalized standard testing. This put schools all over the country on a similar playing field. However, we do not live in a uniform nation. The diversity of the nation is what is causing the disparity in the testing of children from poor families. NCLB expects a child from rural Virginia to be the same as a child from downtown Chicago, and that just is not the case. Some strengths of the NCLB are that there is standardized testing and that it exposes low-performing schools. Weaknesses of NCLB are that some teachers may “teach to the test”, not allowing kids a complete understanding of the subject, and it may leave the brighter students unchallenged because they are tested the same as lesser peers. The NCLB should give more federal government funding to allow the teachers to obtain the resources and training that they need. I do not believe that NCLB is a proper way to address the nation’s education system. Our nation is too diverse to have one system. If I were a congresswoman, then the schools would teach a similar curriculum that is adapted to the local environment for each school, and within the curriculum, there would be three levels to allow different challenging stages. This would ensure growth and progression, instead of allowing children to “skate” through some units as the NCLB does.
Post a Comment