No_Child_Left_Behind_2001

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, in January 2002 President Bush signed a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 the Ninth revision that was deemed as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The reauthorization came about due in part to massive criticism of the effectiveness of public schools and the quality of education our youth were receiving. The Act increased federal pressure on all states to search for a base standard and to restructure the academic agenda. This means that the academic standards must be raised for all students to a competitive level. To reach this goal support will be provided to help students and schools meet those standards. Local schools will have increased flexibility and greater accountability of the results of their student’s performance on standardized tests. President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965. The ESEA was the first attempt of the federal government to legislate education law. The Act provides sizeable budgetary funds for kindergarten through twelfth grade education. The Act called for educator's professional development and instructional materials as well as resources to support educational programs, and promotes parental involvement. According to the National Education Association Website, "the ESEA is [the] government's single largest investment in elementary and secondary education". The act was originally authorized through 1970; however the government has reauthorized the ESEA every five years since its enactments. As a result of the reauthorizations, the act has undergone numerous name changes and presidencies. However, the basic premise of the law still stands today; it "provides targeted resources to help ensure that disadvantaged students have access to a quality public education" (NEA, 2002). Commissioner of Education, Francis Keppel, an Educator, first constructed and planned the ESEA Legislation and introduced the Act to Congress in January of 1965. President Johnson’s efforts and his Commissioner of Education were able to get the Act to pass though Congress in an astounding three months, on April 9, 1965. The Act was one of President Johnson's components to what he called his "War on Poverty" though special funding called Title I. According to Daniel Schugurensky, Associate Professor of Department of Adult Education and Counseling Psychology of The Ontario Institute for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, states the Act "was developed under the principle of redress, which established that children from low-income homes required more educational services" (Schugurensky, 2002). There were a number of significant events that led to the passage of the law such as the Civil Rights movement and the historical judicial decision of Brown v. Board of Education as well as congressional pressure. According to President Johnson, "Congress had been trying to pass a school bill for all America's children since 1870 and had finally taken the most significant step of this century to provide help to all schoolchildren" According to President George W. Bush, Americans in the 21st Century are full of hope and promise and too many of our children struggle to get their education and are being left behind academically. Today, almost 70 percent of inner city fourth graders are unable to read at a basic level according to national reading tests. High school seniors are behind students in Cyprus and South Africa on international math tests and nearly a third of our college freshmen have to take remedial courses before they are able to even begin regular college level courses. (The White House 2003) The federal government in 1965 began its first major elementary to secondary education initiative and since then about every five years the government reauthorized the ESEA and has strongly influenced America's school policies. Congress in an effort to improve educational policies has created hundreds of programs with the anticipation to fix problems but they never measure up the results of the legislation and or do they know how their decision impacted the educational system. This "program for every problem" solution has begun to add up and the problem is that there is hundreds of education programs spread across 39 federal agencies at a cost of $120 billion a year. Billions of dollars spent on education has not helped up meet our goals for educational excellence. The distance of academic achievement between rich and poor kids and Anglo and minority is large and in some cases is growing larger. (The White House 2003) There are four priorities set forth in this act; to increase accountability for student performance such as the states, districts and schools that improve achievement will be rewarded. Failure will be sanctioned. Parents will know how well their child is learning, and that schools are held accountable for their effectiveness with annual state reading and math assessments in grades 3-8. There will be focus on what works, money will be spent on effective research based programs and practices and moneywill go to improve schools and to get highly qualified teacher. Bureaucracy will be decrease while flexibility will be increased, this will encourage more local level spending on the things they need. Parents will have more information about the quality of their kid’s education and school. Parents with children in schools that perform poorly continuously will be given choices. A set of priorities has been set and for a general vision of reforming the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) and placing federal dollars to specific performance goals to ensure improved results. The priorities outlined consist of seven performance titles. Title I is the improving of academic performance of disadvantaged students by spending money effectively in Title I Programs and to create greater accountability for the state, districts and schools. This means that the states, school districts and schools receiving Title I funds must make sure that all student groups meet high standards and must have clear, measurable goals focused on basic skills and essential knowledge. They must also have annual state assessments in math and reading in grades 3-8 that the goals are being met for every child unconditionally every year. Annual testing in every grade provides the information for teachers, parents and policymakers that the children are reaching their goals and will reach academic success. High Standards will need to be set and reviewed occasionally for effectiveness. There will be annual assessments for every child in Grades 3-8. There is a required Progress Reports on all student groups and made to the parents and a general report made to the public disaggregated by race, gender, English language proficiency, disability, and socio-economic status. Disadvantage students will have yearly progress reports; each Title I school should be making adequate yearly progress based on whether its students are meeting state content and performance standards. States will have help with the Technical Assistance Funds to help turn around low-performing schools. Federal money will be available to augment school’s efforts to provide capacity building and technical assistance to schools identified as needing improvement. School’s flexibility will increase by lowering the school wide poverty threshold from 50 percent to 40 percent, so that more schools can combine their federal dollars to improve the quality of the school. There is corrective action for low-performing schools and districts that do not make adequate progress. If a school is identified as a school that has not met adequate progress after two years, the district must implement corrective action and offer to all students in the failing school a choice. If after three years, disadvantaged students within the school may use Title I funds to transfer to a higher performing public or private school and may continue to attend the school of choice for the duration of the time their school is failing. Schools that narrow the achievement gap will be rewarded by “No Child left Behind" school bonus fund and an "Achievement in Education" state bonus fund. Part B: of this title is the Reading First initiative which gives states both the funds and the tools they need to eliminate the reading deficit. For example effective reading instruction includes teaching children to break apart and manipulate the sounds in words (phonemic awareness), teaching them that these sounds are represented by letters of the alphabet which can then be blended together to form words (phonics), having them practice what they have learned by reading aloud with guidance and feedback (guided oral reading), and applying reading comprehension strategies to guide and improve reading comprehension." (The White House 2003) Improving Teacher Quality, Title II, Part A, Grants for Improving Teacher Quality; the training and recruiting of qualified teachers is based upon the basic principle that teacher excellence is vital to achieving improvement in student achievement. A total of 87 programs support teacher training, administered by 13 different agencies. This proposal combines the funding of Federal education programs, including the Class Size Reduction program and the Eisenhower Professional Development program, into performance-based grants to states and localities. Title III is moving limited English proficient students to English fluency. There are more than 3 million Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in America, this means learning English in school. Unfortunately, there are indications that LEP students are not receiving the education needed to make this transition. For example the English language student will tend to receive lower grades and score below the average compared to their English speaking counterparts. This is partly due to federal funding for bilingual education did not have performance measures attached to it but now funds will be available to help LEP students gain English fluency and improve their achievements. Title IV is to promote parental choice and to increase the amount of flexible funds available to states and school districts for innovative education programs. Systems are often resistant to change no matter how good the intentions of those who lead them. Competition can be the stimulus use to achieve change. Parents will be provided with the achievements of the school and bad performance will meet with parental choice. Title V, Safe Schools for the 21st Century, Part A: Supporting Drug and Violence Prevention and Education for Students and Communities. The purpose of Title V is to help children meet challenging academic standards by empowering school authorities to provide a high-quality education that is also safe and drug free. It will streamlines the Safe and Drug Free Schools program and the 21st Century Learning Centers program into a performance-based grant for before and after-school learning opportunities, as well as for violence and drug prevention activities. Part B: Grants for Education Technology, streamlining duplicative technology programs into a performance-based technology grant program. A single program will facilitate comprehensive and integrated education technology strategies that target the specific needs of individual schools. Schools do not have to submit several grant applications and incur the administrative burdens of obtaining education technology funding. Title VI, Impact Aid, Rebuilding Schools for Native Americans and Children from Military Families. This title increases the amount of money spent construction in the Impact Aid Program and the Bureau of Indian Affairs. Approximately 700,000 dependents of military personnel are educated in public schools with 600 schools located near military installations. Schools educating military dependents at public schools will receive money from the Impact Aid Program and military facilities with schools will generally receive federal school construction funding from the Department of Defenses Education Activity program for DODEA. More than 50,000 Native American children attended 185 Native American schools in 23 states. The majority of these schools managed by the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) are concentrated in Arizona, New Mexico, North Dakota, South Dakota, and Washington State. Enrollment in BIA schools is growing and the physical environments in these schools are among the worst in the nation. The “Tribal Capital Improvement Fund” will help replace schools and eliminate the backlog of school repairs in Bureau of Indian Affairs schools Title VII, Freedom and Accountability, The purpose of Title VII is to establish a system for how states and school districts will be held accountable for improving student achievement. States and school districts will have the flexibility of how federal education funds can be spent. In return school will be accountable for student results. States must submit plans that meet accountability requirements. The Secretary of Education will be authorized to withhold administrative funds from states that fail to make adequate progress. Sanctions and rewards will be based on state assessment results as confirmed by the results of an annual sample of students in each state on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) 4th and 8th grade assessment in reading and math. o In summary the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 placed an importance on proven teaching methods and shows a bipartisan partnership on how to improve the performance of America's elementary and secondary schools in teaching our children and making sure that no child is stuck in a failing school. There are four key principles; 1) Stronger accountability, 2) Expanded flexibility under local control, 3) More options for parents and 4) an emphasis on teaching methods that are proven to work. The Reading First program has tripled its budget and provides six-year grants to states. The states are to allocate competitive grants for scientifically based reading instruction and to improve professional development for teachers and to identify children in Grades K-3 who are at risk of reading failure with diagnostic assessments. Every state must place some sort of accountability system for public schools and to task them in annual testing for all students in Grades 3-8 and to publishes the results showing whether or not they met the objectives. The results will also reflect a break down of poverty level, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to make sure that no group is left behind. Districts and schools that fail to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) toward proficiency goals for two consecutive years are subject to corrective action which can include replacing school staff, comprehensive implementation of a new curriculum, and reorganizing the school internally. Continued failure will result in restructuring, such as complete turnover of school staff, reopening the school as a charter school hiring a private management firm with proven results. On the other hand, schools that meet or exceed AYP are eligible for State Academic Achievement Awards. Parents with children in failing schools may transfer them to a better-performing public or charter school immediately after the school is identified as failing. States and school districts have more flexibility to use federal funds for example; school districts can transfer up to 50 percent of the funding they receive under four major state grant programs (Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools) to any one program or to Title 1. States are expected to have a highly qualified teacher in every public school classroom by 2005. Local schools can use up to 50 percent of non-Title 1 federal funds to hire new teachers, increase teacher pay and improve teacher training. The new federal Teacher Quality program focuses on using practices grounded in scientifically based research to prepare, train, and recruit high-quality teachers. The federal bilingual and immigrant education programs were consolidated to focus on enabling all limited English proficient (LEP) students to learn English quickly through scientifically based teaching methods. LEP students will be tested for reading and language arts in English after they have attended a U.S. school for three consecutive years. Students who attend a persistently dangerous school or who are victims of a violent crime at school may transfer to a safe school. States must report school safety statistics on a school-by-school basis. (U.S. DE 2002) Pros for No Child Left Behind Act are; The States, School Districts and scholls are held accountable for its standards and measured annually by each state to encourage educational growth and achievement. The results are reported annually to parents. Teacher qualifications and standards are set at a high level of qualification. NCLB links state academic content with student educational outcomes, and requires school improvement be implemented using "scientific-based research" methods in the classroom, parent programs, and teacher development courses. NCLB emphasizes reading, writing and math (Title I). NCLB monitors the educational status and growth by ethnicity and helps to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. NCLB requires schools to concentrate on giving quality education to students with disabilities and from low-income families and/or from non-English speakers families. Cons for No Child Left Behind Act vast, such as Federal Under funding, The federal government has under funded NCLB at the state level but still requires the states to comply with all provisions of NCLB or risk losing their federal funds. As a result budget cuts have been made in non-tested school subjects such as science, foreign languages, social studies and arts programs, and for books, field trips and school supplies. Teaching to the Test, both teachers and parent’s feels that NCLB encourages and rewards teachers to teach the test to the kids so they will do well on the test. The desire goal of teaching to learn has gone to the wayside and as a result, teachers have began to teach a narrow set of test-taking skills and test a limited range of knowledge. NCLB ignores many vital subjects, including science, history and foreign languages therefore less time is spent on these subjects in order to improve test scores in Reading and Math. Problems with NCLB Standardized Tests, states create their own standards and write their own standardized NCLB tests so the states can counteract poor student performance by making low standards and making the tests easy. Some opponents think that the testing requirements for disabled and limited-English proficient students are unfair and unworkable and allege that standardized tests contain cultural biases and that educational quality can't necessarily be tested objectively. Teacher Qualification Standards has forced some teachers to obtain new college degrees in specific subjects and to pass a battery of proficiency test. These new requirements have caused a major teacher shortage and has exasperated the situation where there are not enough qualified teachers to fill all of the positions available. Teachers object to a proposal to allow districts to circumvent teacher contracts to transfer them to failing and poor performing schools. NCLB faults schools and curriculum for student failure but there are other factors are also to blame, such as class size, old and damaged school buildings, hunger and homelessness, and lack of health care. (White,2007) In conclusion, is NCLB working' This question is not as obvious has I had hope to find. The research I have completed makes me lean towards a “yes” answer; however, there are huge disparaging arguments that leave enough doubt in my mind on whether or not it is working. I decided to take my research a step further and I talked with a dozen teachers. The teachers I interviewed did not like NCLB Act and thinks it limited students educational experience by increasing tested subjects time frames and minimizing the time frames for not tested subjects such as art or social studies. The teachers were skeptical about the standards set from the state and that adequate yearly progress could be manipulated to show what the school districts wants them to show. They also felt that it could be used to black ball teachers that are close to retirement and forced to retire early. The teachers did not see much problem with parents wanting to move students from their school. They felt that most parents are not too concerned where their children attend school as long as they can ride the bus. The teachers were also concerned with the increase qualifications to teach K-12. At on time it was acceptable to have a Bachelors Degree in Education to teach and this year they have raised it to a Masters Degree in Education to teach. The teachers overall feeling was that NCLB Act of 2001 is working to a degree but there is room for major improvements and they hope that the Reauthorization of ESEA in 2007 will include some much needed changes. NCLB is up for reauthorization this year, and NEA is asking Congress to make three fundamental changes in the law so that it works for children. 1) Use more than test scores to measure student learning and school performance. 2) Reduce class size to help students learn. 3) Increase the number of highly qualified teachers in our schools. (NEA, 2007) There's little doubt that the No Child Left Behind Act will be reauthorized by Congress in 2007, the questions is will it be improved enough to be effective' References Edsource Online. (2004). The impact of the federal nclb act so far. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from. http://www.edsource.org/pdf/NCLB_1-04.pdf National Education Association. (2007) No child left behind/ease: its time for change. Retrieved April 17, 2007. from. http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/index.html National Education Association. (2002). ESEA of 1965. Retrieved April 17, 2007. from.http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/index.html Schugurensky, D. (2002) Elementary and secondary education act the “war on poverty” and title I., Retrieved April 17, 2007 from:.http://fcis.oise.utoronto.ca/~daniel_schugurensky/assignment1/1965elemsec.html Schugurensky, D. (2003) The elementary and secondary education act of 1965. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://si.unm.edu/si2002/SUSAN_A/TIMELINE/TIM_0015.HTM White, D. (2007).About Liberal Politics: U.S. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://usliberals.about.com/od/education/i/'once=true& The White House. (2003). President Bush education reform. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/reports/no-child-left-behind.html U.S. Department of Education (ND). Nclb policy. Retrieved April 17, 2007, from www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/index.html