No_Child_Left_Behind_Act_of_2001

Running Head: No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind. Susan Oppliger Columbia College Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act, (NCLB) is one of the most important federal education laws in our nation's history. It is designed to raise the achievement levels of all students, and to close the achievement gaps among students from different races and classes. “No Child Left Behind” is the first re-authorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act since 1994 (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). This act focuses on teaching, testing and accountability. NCLB requires that all public schools give yearly standardized test. Schools that receive Title I funding must show Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) results from the test. If a school receiving federal funds fails to make AYP, then it can be subject to options ranging from developing improvement plans to the closing of the school. Current Legislation No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 --110. H.R.1 Became law on January 8, 2002. This Act is aimed at closing the achievement gap experienced by different classes, and races. This Federal level act requires states to develop assessment tests in basic skills and for those results to achieve the standards set my each state to receive federal funding. Education has been an important value in the development of America, and this act is a member of well established educational polices that display the values set by the people. Since the passing of the first education laws by the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the early sixteen hundreds, the American government has continued to improve education practices. Being the first to invent free and universal public education it is no surprise for it to continue to need improvements. (Barusch, 2009, p.354) The value of an education is implied in this act, and the right to an equal opportunity to succeed is its purpose. Funding for education is a state responsibility that is backed up by federal funds. Most education cost are funded through property taxes, however when a school does not receive enough funds through these taxes it applies to the federal government for additional moneys, such as grants and Title I benefits. “President Bush and the Congress delivered on the promise of new investment in education, as funding for NCLB programs rose from $17.4 billion in fiscal year 2001 to $24.4 billion in fiscal year 2008, an increase of $7 billion or 40 percent.” (U.S. Department of Education.2009a) It is this money supplied by the federal government that makes it possible for NCLB, and the federal government, to have a decision in the education process that is a state responsibility. The Federal contribution to elementary and secondary education is a little under 8 percent, which includes funds not only from the Department of Education (ED) but also from other Federal agencies, such as the Department of Health and Human Services' Head Start program and the Department of Agriculture's School Lunch program. (U.S. Department of Education.2009b) This small eight percent can have a large impact on each school. Proposal Effects: This act is aimed at effecting schools, their students, teachers and administrators. Groups of students are identified as, Asian/Pacific Isl., Black, Hispanic, American Indian, White, Other/Non-Response, F/R Lunch(free lunch), IEP(individual education plan), and LEP (limited English proficiency). These groups are singled out and compared in the final scores of the standardized test results. The primary purpose of the redefined federal role, as explained by the current Secretary of Education, is to employ federal education funds to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers, raising all students to a proficient level. (U.S. Department of Education, 2003) However if these federal funds are not adequate in achieving higher AYP, then funds from county and state may be needed to ensure that the school meets federal guidelines and is not forced to close. The ability to affect every citizen is also an option in the form of higher taxes. Social Conditions that influenced this proposal. Achievement gaps between races and classes have long been an issue for the public school systems. It was believed, for a period in our history, that white northern Europeans were superior to all other races, and this was the reason for education gaps. This thought fostered the gap acceptance believing that other races were by nature lower achieving. Most now believe that it is lower opportunity that fosters lower achievement. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, (ESEA) of 1965 was aimed at providing Title I funds to allow for more opportunity by those races and classes that scored poorly on standard test to come into line with those that scored well. The use of federal funds to close this achievement gap showed that the social belief on the causes of poor scores and the gap was changing. Historical links NCLB is the current reformation of the intentions of Pres. Lyndon Johnson's War on Poverty. Beginning with the ESEA of 1965, which created the Title I federal aid program aimed at reducing achievement gaps between rich and poor and among the races. (National Education Association, 2009) It has long been a public concern to ensure that each child is able to achieve a standard education. We have moved from the era that publicly allows for discrimination and prejudice against people based on their race or class. Two Players who supported this proposal The sponsor of this Act is House Republican Leader John Boehner. He is a national leader in the fight for a smaller, but more accountable government. He has worked to end political practices that take advantage of, and waste the American tax payer’s money. His strong convictions have helped him clean up congress, and announced the first ever “clean” audit of the house. He is an advocate for education reform, and accountability. In 1994 he worked with Rep. Armey to allow schools to use there Title I funds to choose public school programs. He was later chairman of the house on the committee for Education and the Workforce. He was again joined by Rep. Armey to bring greater accountability of the schools, and the government, in the No Child Left Behind Act. (John Boehner Biography) Rep. Richard Armey also believes that big government fails, and believes that citizens should have more choices in their education. He worked in the House of Representatives for eighteen years with the goals of lowering taxes, less government, and more freedom. His famous quote, "The American people didn't give us power, they gave us responsibility." displays his understanding of the political process.(Freedomworks.org) He is now retired from political office and is the chairman of a grass roots organization called Freedom Works. Two Players who oppose this proposal Monty Neil is the executive director of the National Center for Fair & Open Testing, and he feels that the schools are required to use flawed standardized test. He believes that the legislation should be reconsidered and rewritten, especially in the areas of assessment and accountability. “We need to sharpen and popularize our critique of the law's faults, develop a clear model for a new law, and build a powerful grassroots campaign that will persuade Congress to overhaul ESEA.” Mr. Neil does agree that there is a need for the schools to be held accountable, especially for those schools that serve communities of color and economic hardships. (Neil, 2003) Kavan Peterson, a Staff Writer at Stateline.org feels that the conflict over NCLB is about federalism as well as funding. “States have long considered education policy to be their exclusive province, especially because the federal government pays less than 8 percent of the states’ education costs. Their challenges against NCLB increasingly are focused on one paragraph in the 1,100-page act -- Section 9527A -- which prohibits the federal government from requiring states to pay any costs incurred by complying with the law.” (Peterson, 2005) This issue is still in debate, and improvements to the act are continually being investigated. Hopefully we will see improvements made to this act in the same way that we see it as an improvement to the last act. The goal is to continue advancing toward a fair and equal education opportunity for all. Social Justice The quality of the education one receives will have an impact on the quality of life one is able to achieve. Having the ability to advance in society is a social justice issue. It is society that sets the playing field, and so it should be society that insures that all are prepared equally to play. Barusch uses this definition of social justice, “Justice is fair allocation of the cost and rewards of group membership.”(p.6) Being born in the United States, or achieving citizenship by other means, imposes group membership and the requirement to adhere to group standards. Each student pays the cost of membership for education is in the form of obeying school social standards, and the requirement to learn the provided material. They are each enduring the cost, and should have the reward of an equal education. Further Thought The No Child Left Behind Act is a continuation of setting the standards in public education that we believe to be fair. The name implies that not even one child will be left behind. This might have been the original idea, but it has played out differently. The actual required reporting is 95%, this unreported 5% are the students that the school has determined as having special education needs, and those who are severely disabled do not need to be included at all. (Whitney, S. 2002) It all comes down to the numbers, and seems to have educators figuring out how to improve the numbers, more then improve the children. If a school has met the standards set, passing the test for the last two years, then the act is being adhered to and parents do not have any opportunity to use the options such as tutoring or moving schools that the act provides. This act does not look at students’ scores in any other area then reported test results. A child could be failing all classes year after year, and this act would not be effective in supporting that child’s needs. As long as the child has passed the standardized test the school will receive their federal benefits. The importance of these test results push the teachers to make sure each child passes the test, not that they understand or know the material, but that they are able to receive a passing number for the required results. I have seen the importance placed on these test results in my own home. There are many letters sent home on attendance, and that children are well rested and have had breakfast during the period of time that testing will take place. These practices could be indorsed for the entire school year, but is only seen during testing periods. I also hear from my children how struggling students will be helped by teacher aids. I know that my oldest daughter who struggles and receives below average scores her school report card, always receives average scores on these tests. I am in support of anything that is aimed at improving the education system. This act was proposed, and indorsed to do just that. It now needs to be evaluated, and improved to insure that the original purpose is being carried out. I originally looked to the act to see it could provide benefits to my daughter. The school she attends has passed the standardized test and achieved adequate yearly progress, so the individual benefits can not be used. I have however pressed the school to provide some education alternatives in her case, and she is now receiving some additional support. It is not the best alternatives, but it is a step in the right direction. My experience with the school is similar to the No Child Left Behind Act. We both want the best education for our children, we see that there are things that need to be improved, and although we have not achieved the high expectations we aimed for, we are both taking steps in the right direction. Resources: Barusch, A.S. (2009). Hums 365/soci 365 American social policy: Columbia college edition. Mason, Ohio: Cengage Learning. Freedomworks.org, About FreedomWorks: Chairman Dick Armey FreedomWorks Chairman and Former U.S. House Majority Leader Dick Armey Retrieved on November 19, 2009 from http://www.freedomworks.org/about/chairman-dick-armey John Boehner Biography, U.S. Representative John Boehner (OH-8). Retrieved on November 19, 2009 from http://johnboehner.house.gov/Biography/ National Education Association (2009) No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)/ESEA Retrived on December 2, 2009 from http://www.nea.org/esea/. Neal, M. (2003). Don't Mourn, Organize!, Making lemonade from NCLB lemons. Retrieved on November 19, 2009 from http://www.rethinkingschools.org/special_reports/bushplan/nclb181.shtml Peterson, K. (2005). Stateline.org, No letup in unrest over Bush school law. Retrieved on November 18, 2009. from http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action'siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=41610 U.S. Department of Education (2002) The “No Child Left Behind Act of 2001,” Executive Summary (Updated). Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2002-4/120202a.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009a) Fiscal Year 2009 Budget Summary, February 4, 2008. Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/budget/budget09/summary/edlite-section1.html U.S. Department of Education. (2009b) The Federal Role in Education, Ma y6, 2009. Retrieved on December 2, 2009 from http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html U.S. Department of Education (2003) Comments by Secretary Paige to the Commonwealth Club of California. Retrieved on November 29, 2009 from www.ed.gov/02-2003 /03122003a.html Whitney,S. (2002) Doing Your Homework: NCLB, School Choice and Tutoring. Retrived on December, 8, 2009 from http://www.wrightslaw.com/heath/nclb.prepare.choice.ses.htm