The no child left behind act of 2001 has had various challenges to the system of education. Below are some of the five issues raised and the solutions thereof.
Exerting unnecessary pressure on younger children
The no child left behind policy requires that children know how to speak and communicate fluently by the time they are graduating from their third grade. This implies that necessary materials and pressure has to exert on them to ensure that they have mastered the art of spoken language. A third grader is still a young child who is setting foundations on many other aspects of her life. Even though language is necessary at this age, there are other emphasize such as mastering people around them, colors and even the environment (Apple 115). The act tends to ignore other aspects of child development that happens at this stage by emphasizing that children should fluently master language. This will hence only favor children with supportive and stable families with a higher IQ and leaving behind the rest.
Solution: the solution to this problem would be to put a limit on what they consider to be fluency in language (Sunderman 33). The different environments through which children have been brought up will not make them master the language at the same rate. Children with lighter tongues will master language proficiency even before they reach their third grade; however, there are those with heaver tongues who will take quite some time before mastering other complicated words. This should therefore not be used as a determining factor of a child’s capability (Paige 470). Factors such the environment of growth and parental influence should be used to grade children in language proficiency.
Discriminative on children with learning disabilities
There are some children who are born with various learning disabilities and hence require a great deal of patience. Unless such children are closely monitored, it may not be easy to determine where their learning weakness is (Hayes 184). The age limit and the standards used to test the learning capability of children ignore this aspect and hence discriminating such children. Some children are slow learners and therefore require much more attention to grasp knowledge (Nash 239). Others may have psychological issues that are likely to minimize their level of concentration. The no child left behind system puts so much pressure on both teachers and students and therefore leaving them with no time to discover some of the learning inabilities of pupils.
Solution: setting specific standards for children is good as it creates a sense of hard work among the children. In as much as it should be allowed to continue, the government should not remain insensitive to the different learning of students (Hursh 499). Considerations should however be put on the efforts that are invested by the children to achieve the required standards. This therefore implies that as long as a child has put in as much effort as the rest to master language or to succeed in various subject but is not as competent as the rest; limitations should not be put on them. This should be considered as the best they could do and be given a chance to precede with the others (Guisbond &Monty 14). If the process appears to still be slow, then such students to be given more specialized attention that making them rewind their previous classes and lessons.
Putting unnecessary pressure on teachers and school heads
The no child left behind act has set specific qualities that should be set by the administration on teachers and school heads. This stipulates certain qualities that the teachers should posses in order to teach pupils (Jennings & Diane 110). The government hence invested a lot in training and qualifying teachers to ensure the meet the requirements of handling the students. Again, this form of qualification is discriminative. Teachers have to vetted and examined using specific standards. This implies that the teachers that will not meet such qualifications will subsequently loose their teaching jobs. When it comes to learning and grasping new techniques, the system does not discriminate on age. This means that a slow learner will remain to be so irrespective of their age. Teachers who are presumed to be good teachers yet do not sail through the tests loose their jobs, which is not a good sign.
Solution: the no child left behind should not be a self centered policy that favors only the elite and discriminates on the slow learners. The system has completely ignored the diversity that is found in the society by setting similar standards for both children and teachers. It will never be possible that a group of people will deliver similar academic qualities considering their different gifting (Abedi 12). Just because a teacher is not fluent in speaking, a language does not reduce their ability to impart such skills on students. There is much more to having the capacity to deliver certain services and affecting the same. Having such, an understanding will minimize on the frustrations that the teachers have to go through especially loosing the jobs they qualified for simply because they could not pass an academic test.
Burdening the tax payer
One of the ignored aspects of the no child left behind is the extra burden it has caused on the child payer. The government has set certain requirements for students and teachers, which require a lot of funding. This includes some of the test materials that are supplied to schools on a regular basis and the training that teacher have to go through (Gerston 61). Apart from the mandatory contributions they have to make through taxes, there is also that extra burden on the parents and teachers who have to invest more to raise the standards of their children. Parents are forced to buy more studying materials and even hirer tutors for their children just to ensure they meet the required academic standards (Dee & Brian 239). Teachers on the other hand have to work harder and invest more of their money in training as they risk loosing their jobs if they do not meet the standards. Even with all this efforts, they are still not guaranteed that their children will qualify through the tests.
Solution: every parent is concerned about the academic prosperity of their children and will hence be willing to invest their all. However, with the high living standards and the fact that their income does not increase, it becomes a burden for them to find all this activities. The government does not adequately take care of the learning materials of the students and hence burdening the parents who have to supplement for them (Ashby 39). It would be beneficial if the government provided adequate learning materials according to the needs of different children. Extra lessons should also be provided for students who are slow learners so that the learning burden is minimized on the children. If the government cannot provide such materials and equipments them they have to be lenient o n the qualifications set on children with learning needs.
Ignoring other non-academic capabilities of students
The no child left behind is a system of education that only values the academic capabilities of students and ignoring other non-academic qualities (Beveridge 5). The policy emphasize on the need of academic excellence of pupils and teachers and ignoring other extra curricula activities. Child growth revolves on different aspects, which all contribute to the child’s intellectual wellbeing. The systems makes it impossible for children who are talented in other aspects to be considered dump as they are not able to achieve the academic standards required by the new education system (Nufeld 3). The age at which children are expected to display academic excellence is too young for them to discover their other non-academic expertise. This hence affects their self-esteem as they feel they lack the capacity to compete with fellow students.
Solution: in a society where success is not just measured by academic prowess, it will be unfair to imply to children that they are failures if they do not meet certain academic standards. It is unfortunate that the system dos not put in measures where other non-academic qualities of students should be monitored and mentored (Peterson 153). The government should be sensitive especially to students who do not appear to achieve much in their academic and find out if they have other gifts and talents that they can major. It should be realized that great talents such as singing, sports, athletics and the likes are gaining a lot of popularity in the world. Having children master if they have such talents and majoring on them will save them a lot as they begin investing in them. This should act as an assurance with children who may not have the academic prowess that they have other unique talents than will help them succeed in life.
Works cited
Abedi, Jamal. "The no child left behind act and English language learners: Assessment and accountability issues." Educational Researcher 33.1 (2004): 4-14.
Apple, Michael W. "Ideological success, educational failure? On the politics of No Child Left Behind." Journal of Teacher Education 58.2 (2007): 108-116.
Ashby, Cornelia. No Child Left Behind Act: Enhancements in the Department of Education's Review Process Could Improve State Academic Assessments. London: DIANE Publishing, 2010.
Beveridge, Tina. "No Child Left Behind and fine arts classes." Arts Education Policy Review 111.1 (2009): 4-7.
Dee, Thomas S., and Brian Jacob. "The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement." Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 30.3 (2011): 418-446.
Gerston, Larry. Public Policy Making: Process and Principles. California: M.E. Sharpe, 1997.
Guisbond, Lisa, and Monty Neill. "Failing our children: No Child Left Behind undermines quality and equity in education." The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues and Ideas 78.1 (2004): 12-16.
Hayes, William. No Child Left Behind: Past, Present, and Future. New York: R&L Education, 2008.
Hursh, David. "Assessing No Child Left Behind and the rise of neoliberal education policies." American Educational Research Journal 44.3 (2007): 493-518.
Jennings, Jack, and Diane Stark Rentner. "Ten big effects of the No Child Left Behind Act on public schools." Phi Delta Kappan 88.2 (2006): 110.
Nash, David. "Improving No Child Left Behind: Achieving excellence and equity in partnership with the states." Rutgers L. Rev. 55 (2002): 239.
Nufeld, Jean. No Child Left Behind and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts: Their Effects on the Academic Success of Minority Learning Disabled Students in Arizona. Arizona: ProQuest, 2009
Paige, Rod. "No Child Left Behind: The ongoing movement for public education reform." Harvard Educational Review 76.4 (2006): 461-473.
Peterson, Paul No Child Left Behind ?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability. New Jersey: Brookings Institution Press, 2003.
Sunderman, Gail L., et al. Listening to teachers: Classroom realities and no child left behind. Civil Rights Project, Harvard University, 2004.
