No Child Left Behind Act
The NCLB Act is legislation in USA aimed for public schools with the intention of advocating for offering standard based education, and at the same time improving pupils education through setting high standards and goals (Olivert, 2007). The Act was proposed by George W. Bush in 2002 and passed after getting cross-party support in congress. The Act proposes that States should receive federal funding to come up with strategies of assess learners. Furthermore, students have to take regular tests yearly in similar conditions to decide if the education is sufficient.
After analyzing the results and it is recorded that certain schools scored poorly in the tests, then four steps are to be implemented to make sure there is an improvement. The four steps are (Olivert, 2007): (1) schools missing the Adequate Yearly Progress for two years in a row need improvement through producing a two year improvement plan and promising pupils to be provided with an opportunity to transfer to better schools in the same district; (2) Missing of AYP scores in the third year forces schools to offer supplementary and tutoring services for free to students struggling; (3) Missing AYP scores for four consecutive years signify that an institution requires corrective actions like extensive staff replacement, extending teaching time, and overhaul of curriculum; (4) schools failing for the fifth consecutive year would be restructured through closure, turning into a charter school, or hiring a private company to run the school. Therefore, the strategies resulted in many impacts—both positive and negative—which would be highlighted in this paper.
Impacts of NCLB Act on Education
The Act resulted in impacts on: teachers, schools, and school districts; curriculum and standards; racial and ethnic minority students; and low performing and disabled students.
Impact on teachers, schools, and school districts
Supporters of NCLB highlight that the legislation supports accountability in leaning institutions. The requirement that schools are to pass yearly tests is a benchmark that makes sure that schools perform at certain levels. Schools that do not improve after poor results will have reduced funds and other punishments all of which increase accountability. There has however been, critics who argue that penalties only hurt schools and would not improve school education (Hulgin & Drake, 2011).
The legislation also maintains liability in; linking student results with the academic content of each State; determining performance of a child through using standardized tests; requiring the usage of detailed report cards to provide performance information to parents; and requires the usage of assessment data to make decisions on curriculum change, business involvement, and teaching practices. In addition, some states have proposed teacher salaries to be pegged on students’ performance; State of Pennsylvania (Hulgin & Drake, 2011). This strategy has come under analysis with many arguing that it demotivates educators and will take away crucial funding from schools to perform better the following year.
Students also have an advantage of choosing schools when they fail to meet AYP scores. This is advantageous for also schools as they have a chance to progress academically. Improvement is through free tutoring, after school programs, and extra attention. Furthermore, school districts have a chance of exhibiting proficiency even for school groups that do not meet the set achievement standards.
Impact on curriculum and standards
There are instances that the law may decrease education levels of certain schools and their curriculum. This is a likely scenario when each state produces easier sub-standard tests for more of their student to pass. An example is seen when the State of Missouri in 2007 openly admitted to lowering test standards so that learners could pass (Daly et al., 2006). It is argued that local governments had failed students forcing the federal government to intervene to correct problems like educators instructing outside their expertise areas, and complacency in institutions that repeatedly failed. Other local governments like in New York advocated for NCLB because criteria at local level did not provide proper inclusion of special education, and that the Act would also provide for longitudinal data that could be used to monitor AYP scores.
The quality of education is another area that NCLB has improved. This is through insisting that schools improve their performance; insisting schools to implement scientifically-based research, parent-student programs, and professional development for college; anchoring early literacy through the initiative of early reading; and placing math, reading, science, and language as core subjects (Daly et. al, 2006). In focusing on the four main subjects, the intention is to provide a base for economic success, especially in the light of 2008 recession. This has been proven when 71% of schools increased teaching time for English and Math and reduced the others (Daly et. al, 2006).
PE (Physical Education) as a subject is not factored in the NCLB Act. The two reasons for this are that there is an increasing rate of obesity due to inactivity, and because of scientific proof connecting physical aptness with academic achievement.
Impact on Racial and Ethnic minority learners
The Act has been very beneficial in bridging the gap between performances in schools amongst races. This is done through leveling expectations and requiring schools and districts to focus their attention on historically maligned groups such as disabled students, low-income, and racial groups like Latinas or African American (Olivert, 2007). Each State has a task of identifying major racial and ethnic groups and account their performance. This makes it possible to for schools to be assessed highly and so bridge the gap between well-to-do and disabled students.
However, there is increased discrimination in public schools where researchers have shown that African Americans scored the lowest in academic indices compared to Caucasians (Olivert, 2007). The assessment scores also highlight the disparities where percentage of African Americans passing exams in reading and math are less than 25% of White (NEA).
Impact on low-performing learners and disabled learners
The NCLB act entails rewards and proposals which in the real sense act against low-performing learners. This is so because measures imposed when schools fail are castigatory and aimed at making lower expectations as opposed to higher ones (NEA). Furthermore, the incentive systems highly motivate schools, districts, and States to manipulate results. Critics also argue that NCLB’s success are inflated and are only seen in States with high minority populations.
Contrastingly, the NCLB Act has been beneficial to disabled learners as the incentives provide rewards for schools that contained disabled students and passed the AYP tests. Furthermore, there is reduction of drop-out rates, more graduates, and better transition from high school to college life. However, there are critics arguing that disabled learners should be removed from participating in AYP tests claiming that they contained too much variation (Hulgin & Drake, 2011). Schools majorly find themselves without the ability to meet AYP scores, but by eliminating personal attention to students in approval of assembling students by ability (Hulgin & Drake, 2011).
Conclusion
The NCLB Act has been very instrumental in increasing the effectiveness of teaching students. It has shifted education from being solely dependent on being results oriented to making sure that no student is left behind despite their misgivings. It has allowed many students to get a second chance even when they performed poorly in AYP scores. However, there have been many critics against the Act saying that it underfunded schools that failed hence making them perform even poorer, demotivated educators when they were denied salaries in case their students failed, and reduced the education standard of certain States. There have been reviews on the Act to reduce the flaws since 2002 on a yearly basis and so it is hoped that the future of the Act will be beneficial to all learners.
References
Daly, B. P., Burke, R., Hare, I., Mills, C., Owens, C., Moore, E., & Weist, M. D. (2006). Enhancing No Child Left Behind–School Mental Health Connections. Journal Of School Health, 76(9), 446-451. doi:10.1111/j.1746-1561.2006.00142.x
Hulgin, K., & Drake, B. M. (2011). Inclusive education and the No Child Left Behind Act: resisting entrenchment. International Journal Of Inclusive Education, 15(4), 389-404. doi:10.1080/13603110903030105
Olivert, D.P. (2007). No Child Left Behind Act: Text, Interpretations and Changes. New York: Nova Publishers, Inc. Pp. 3+
National Education Association Website. Available at:
http://www.nea.org/home/NoChildLeftBehindAct.html
