No_Child_Left_Behind

Is it really No Child Left Behind Ashlee Ann Shell Axia College of University of Phoenix COM 220 Research Writing Pamela Mccluney November 16, 2010 Is it really No Child Left Behind The purposed of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to ensure that all children are successful in the public school system. The success of public school children is guaranteed through an increased accountability of schools and is measured by standardized tests, which are administered by the schools. However, ensuring that no child is ever left behind is a utopian idea, and the NCLB has not been as successful as lawmakers had hoped when enacting the federal law. The No Child Left Behind Act has failed because statistics can be manipulated, special education students are left behind, and schools teach a narrow curriculum. The No Child Left Behind Act or NCLB is a six hundred and seventy page amendment to Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 or ESEA of 1965. Through the NCLB funding for schools are now done by a complex formula. If the state wishes to receive financial help, they must submit the proper assessments with a learning plan. With the data collected from multiple agencies and the funds from Congress the determined amount is calculated for each state. With the NCLB also comes a huge change in curriculum. “Promoting school wide reform and ensuring the access of children to effect scientifically based instructional strategies and challenging academic content.” (Congress, 2002) The achievement gap between low-income schools and high-income school is going to be eliminated and one goal is set for the American education system. The NCLB also has Four Pillars or main policies. Stronger accountability for results is to have the school districts provide proof to the public that students are performing at or above the grade level. More freedom for States and Communities allows the used of funds to be used in other grant programs or programs that need additional funding. Proven Education Methods is when a random population sample is taken and funding is granted to programs that have produced positive results in educational achievement. More Choices for Parents allows parents to move their child if the school has preformed low two years in a row, or to move if they find the school is dangerous and poses a treat to their child’s safety. (Diorio, 2008) Although the No Child Left Behind Act claims to encourage accountability, the NCLB has failed because reporting statistics can be manipulated. The act requires that one hundred percent of students be proficient by 2014. However, the proficiency scores that are used to hold teachers and schools accountable are determined and adjusted by the individual state. Proficiency standards are vastly different from one state to another with fifty different definitions of proficient. Some states have set and maintained high standards for their elementary school students. Pennsylvania is one of the states that has set and maintained a high criterion. The criteria for reading in Pennsylvania is set so high that only sixty-four percent of the fifth graders and sixty-seven percent in the eleventh grade meet that standard. The standard for mathematics is similar with only seventy four percent of fifth graders and fifty nine percent of eleventh graders meeting the state’s standard (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2010). Students and their academic scores are the primary concern with the NCLB. A One-size fit all method is now the new standard for students across the United States. There is an impossible goal to obtain one hundred percent proficiency level for every student. If a student does not pass the school is able to hold the student back until the students score can be raised and can perform with their classmates. If the student is unable to perform the way the school wishes, the students are being encouraged to leave the school or even drop out. Some states force drop-outs to register as being home-schooled in order to reduce drop-out rates while some do not even count drop-outs when calculating graduation rates (Darling-Hammond, 2007). The U.S. Department of Education had graduate rates going up, drop outs and GED tester going down in the graph below. These maneuvers hide the real graduation rates so that the states appear to be providing a better education. Another way students are being affected by the NCLB is the remedial and gifted programs are being cut to allow funds to go towards to go to the new one size fits all curriculum. (Gentry,2006) Students who need the extra help in reading or math are now being sent to the regular classes and getting left behind, while the students that excel and need the advanced classes are board and no longer pay attention or going to school. The cuts in spending on gifted programs shows that the states are more worried about getting low performing students up to a minimum level of achievement than they are about cultivating the gifts of higher performing students. The NCLB affect on schools not only the students and parents but also the teachers as well. Fifty percent of all teachers are now leaving the profession after just five years of employment. (Gentry, 2006) The NCLB has performance tests every year to ensure the Adequate Yearly Progress or AYP is maintained and the administrators are under a lot of pressure to comply. Results from this test can either make the school be passing or failing and failing schools do not receive funding. Teaching what is on the test such as critical thinking and problem solving means the students are likely to do better on the test. Teachers there for do not have the ability to teach the way they want to teach or what they want to teach but rather how they can keep the test scores passing. The NCLB is based on student achievements. In the state of Pennsylvania this year 85% of students in grade 3 reached the grade level of math compared to the 81% in 2005 and 75% grade 3 students reached the reading level compared to the 68% in 2005. (Pennsylvania Department of Education, 2010) Adequate Yearly Progress for the 5th, 8th and 11th grade are shown in the chart below. In Secondary schools low-poverty schools have about 97% of highly qualified teachers and high-poverty schools have about 90%. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) However in order to meet proficiency standards and to show that they are making adequate yearly progress, schools find creative ways to exclude certain students from their reporting statistics. As long as students of a group do not make up more than two percent of the students being tested, a subgroup can be excluded from the reporting statistics. If more subgroups are created with fewer students in each group, then those students can be excluded from the reporting. The final reason that the No Child Left Behind act has failed is that schools are teaching to a narrow curriculum. Because they are worried about test results, the schools teach to the test, spending more time on subjects that are tested by NCLB. Elementary school students spend an average of thirty-seven minutes more per day on reading and math since the introduction of NCLB. How can schools and administrators be held accountable when the reporting statistics can be manipulated' While the No Child Left Behind Act sounds good in theory, in practice the act is not only leaving behind the students it intended to help, but other students are suffering as well. The act is leaving behind the nation’s special education students and fails to offer students a broad education when schools are teaching to the test. References Darling-Hammond, L. (2007). Race, Inequality and Educational Accountability: The Irony of “No Child Left Behind.” EBCO HOST. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail'vid=16&hid=5&sid=bda2013c-2b39-45a7-803f-abb0108fd68a%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=26461084 Diorio, G. (2008). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001- - Research Starters Education. EBCO HOST. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail'vid=8&hid=5&sid=bda2013c-2b39-45a7-803f-abb0108fd68a%40sessionmgr12&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=e0h&AN=28544198 Gentry, M. (2006). No Child left Behind: Neglecting Excellence. EBCO HOST. Retrieved from http://ehis.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail'vid=3&hid=102&sid=cf86e7d5-27dc-4513-86d4-0a94b41a30b6%40sessionmgr114&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=fd9da7dd&AN= Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010). Student Achievement 2010. Retrieved from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/newsroom/7234/SA/770202 Public Law 107_110. (2002). Congress. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf U.S. Department of Education. (2010) Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/