Adquate Yearly Progress

In exchange, states had to agree to set standards aimed at preparing students for higher education and the workforce. Waiver states could either choose the Common Core State Standards, or get their higher education institutions to certify that their standards are rigorous enough.” (Klein). If a school misses AYP for three years in a row, it must offer free tutoring, but due to these waivers, this is no longer required, unfortunately. “By 2010, it was clear that many schools were not going to meet NCLB’s achievement targets. As of that year, 38 percent of schools were failing to make adequate yearly progress, up from 29 percent in 2006.” (Klein).

The overarching difference between No Child Left Behind and the Every Student Succeeds Act is the shift of control to the states (Edutopia, 2016). While many of the accountability provisions may appear somewhat similar in regards to essential standards, proficiency assessments and improvements for failing schools, the autonomy has been granted to the states to determine exactly how those provisions should be carried out. Each state is responsible to create the best educational climate based on the demographics of their population and is responsible to hold their schools accountable for student performance. In other words, although there continues to be a federal framework, the states have

When President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) into law in 2002, the legislation had one goal-- to improve educational equity for all students in the United States by implementing standards for student achievement and school district and teacher performance. Before the No Child Left Behind Act, the program of study for most schools was developed and implemented by individual states and local communities’ school boards. Proponents of the NCLB believed that lax oversight and lack of measurable standards by state and local communities was leading to the failure of the education system and required federal government intervention to correct. At the time, the Act seemed to be what the American educational system

NCLB is a federal law that mandates a number of programs aimed at improving U.S. education in elementary, middle and high schools by increasing accountability standards. In 2002 there was a revision that, states must test more often to close the gap between minority students and those with disabilities.

"Making Sure That Schools Measure Up." Education Week, vol. 36, no. 16, 4 Jan. 2017, pp. 18-20. EBSCOhost. PDF. In this periodical article, Alyson Klein, reporter for Education Week, reflects on Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), an update to the K-12 education law, in the one year since it was passed in 2016. Klein discusses how the ESSA was designed to improve shortcomings of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), the previous version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Klein also examines concerns over greater flexibility given to states and districts regarding issues such as standardized test, school choice, marginalized students. The Obama administration wrote how the accountability portion of the law would work, allowing states to pick their own goals, both a long term goal and short term goals. These goals must address students’ proficiency on tests, English-language proficiency, and graduation

Bush’s No Child Left Behind (NCLB) federal policy. Both Clinton and Bush administrations regulated freedom of choice within their educational policies. Clinton’s Goals 2000 increased standards for student scores within core subjects. Legislation targeting Title I, required States and school districts to “turn-around” low-performing schools, and in 1993, public charter schools increased to over 2, 000 (www.clinton5.nara.gov). Bush’s No Child Left Behind’s structure demanded high-stakes testing and created provision for privatization of public education, as well as “school choice .” No Child Left Behind not only increased the Clinton’s strong accountability disposition, but it also superimposed a new set of accountability rules that would adversely affect public schools (Porter, Linn, & Trimble, 2005). One significant requirement of NCLB is that each state must adopt challenging academic content standards and challenging student achievement standards. Additionally, states must establish Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals for each year from 2002 to 2014—that would culminate in the 2014 goal that all American students would be at or above the proficient student academic achievement standard (P.L. 107–110, 2001). When local educational agencies (LEA) failed to meet their state’s AYP goals, in addition to other criteria, they [LEA] faced the inevitability of losing their accredited status and eventually face school

The law was meant to increase student achievement and to hold states, schools, teachers and students more accountable. How exactly is NCLB changing schools? In, 2005-2006, states were required to test grades 3-8 in reading and math. Shortly after, they added in an annual science test in K-12. A lot of tedious testing grew in schools and is still continuing to grow today. Along with tests came certain standards for each state, as well as consequences for those who failed to meet them. Report Cards were being sent home with the school’s data along with the students’ performance. Teachers were even given higher standards to meet. There was a change in

While NCLB appears great in principle, it is failing in actuality. The main purpose of the Act was to close the achievement gap between White and minority students, especially Black and Latino students, by increasing educational equality. The differences in the achievement gap is to be measured yearly through the use of standardized testing. As each student is unique, the use of standardized tests to measure whether students reach 100% proficiency is unrealistic. Teachers, principals, and school boards are so worried about being “proficient” that teachers are now teaching for the test, not teaching a rounded curriculum. With schools afraid that they may possibly receive sanctions, schools are now cheating the system by finding ways to bolster their scores to improve state AYP rates. Paul D. Houston explains in his article “The 7 Deadly Sins of NCLB,” that the Act relies on fear and coercion (2007). Teachers, school boards, and states are so afraid of receiving a failing grade that they are willing to skew results in their favour. Not to mention that states are allowed to choose their own statistical method to analyze their scores. Due to many unforeseen variables, these differences make it almost impossible to imply causation that students are reaching proficiency due to the NCLB Act.

As with all big measures, it is hard to qualify NCLB as a huge success or monumental failure; instead, it lies somewhere in between. Based on the statistics over the past decade, the experts nearly all agree that NCLB played a role in increasing the mathematics scores of younger grades, with a pronounced effect on areas with a large, concentrated population of African-Americans. NCLB also forever changed the face of education by making testing an integral part of school; while there are many critics there is no question that this shift will be felt for a long time. However the language of the bill that allowed each state to set their own benchmarks meant that the Annual Yearly Progress (AYP) in math and reading that NCLB warranted was in many instances gamed and back loaded. Also teachers, in an effort to meet these standards, began “teaching for the test” instead of say reading novels or creative exercises as in the past. It’s largely for these reasons that Congress failed to renew NCLB and President Obama waived many of the bill’s central provisions. In my opinion, NCLB had good intent in trying to improve accountability of failing schools systems, providing more info for parents and better allocating money. However, I would not have tried the one-size-fits-all approach of sanctioning schools; instead, I would have really focused on

This created difficulty for rural areas, multi-subject teachers and science teachers causing the Department of Education to offer flexibility in these three areas. NCLB also allows states to determine their definition of highly qualified. The rationale behind teachers being highly qualified was to ensure students were receiving the best instruction by qualified individuals. However, being qualified is just not about certificates and degrees. Teachers must also know how to engage students in learning and know how to provide innovative instruction so that learning takes place.

The NCLB Act of 2001 required schools to develop reform efforts so that all children would meet state academic content and achievement standards (NCLB, 2002). The federally mandated reforms that were included in NCLB forced all school districts to continually evaluate current educational programs and determine how to meet the federal guidelines, most notably the elimination of the achievement gap between all student subgroups. However, there are multiple factors that can contribute to the achievement gap among student groups, including student mobility which is not measured through standardized tests.

Although its intentions were good, its results were not quite the same. At first the idea of holding all students to the same standards may sound like a good idea, but without taking into consideration other factors this could cause problems in schools. All students under the Act are held to the same achievement standards which are set by the state and when the state decides these standards they don’t observe each individual child’s ability level, socioeconomic status, or native language (Pros). Most public schools throughout the nation will have a variety of different types of students. If you hold all students to the same standards you are restricting the “more advanced” students from furthering their learning by holding them to the standards of their less intelligent peers. The only students who are not held to the same standards as the rest are those with severe physical or mental

NCLB (what is it/)requires states to break out test scores according to student poverty status, language and disability status. Identifying true achievement gap schools will allow for the following has the school undertaken whole school, subject matter, reforms? Curriculum change to incorporate content/materials for boosting achievements. Changes instructional practices. Gap-closing school graduating students in higher proportions. Moving larger proportions of graduates in postsecondary schools. Within the subgroups the achievement gap diminished by more than half for the African-American subgroup between 1970 and 1988, which came to an abrupt stop in the 1990s. All the while, the Hispanic subgroup continued to make great progress until 1992

The role of the federal government in setting education policy increased significantly with the passage by Congress of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, a sweeping education reform law that revised the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. "Federal policy has played a major role in supporting standards-based reform since the passage of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA) of 1994. That law required states to establish challenging content and performance standards, implement assessments…hold school systems accountable…" (Goertz, 2005, pg. 73)

Lastly, by trying to emphasize reading, the Act creates less rounded individuals because fewer subjects are being stressed, and some are taken out of schools all together. If schools do not make adequate yearly progress (AYP) the government will intervene, hiring new teachers and administrators, and restructuring the curriculum in attempt to increase performance levels. If schools exceed objectives, they will be eligible for achievement awards (Bennett). This Act has failed in regards to properly measuring the achievement levels of schools and students and not providing for the financial needs of schools in America.