Argument Analysis: No Child Left Behind

After the No-Child-Left-Behind (NCLB) bill was introduced by the Bush administration in 2001, the use of standardized tests skyrocketed because all schools in the country were required to assess students using these tests to evaluate the student, teacher and school’s performance. A standardized test is any examination that is administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner (Popham 8). The use of these tests have not improved education in the United States because teachers teach to the test, which means that they only focus on what is going to be on the exam and do not spend time on other material; tests like the SAT which evaluate the student solely on the outcome of the test and upon the score the student is placed where “appropriate”; and that one assessment is not enough to evaluate students, teachers, principals

The Department of Education concludes that high-stakes testing and statewide standards puts too strain on both the teacher and student. Multiple studies show evidence of miscalculation of scores, teachers being blamed for low test score, and too much time spent on preparation for the tests. The purpose of this policy brief is to elaborate on the non-beneficial components of high-stakes testing and statewide standards. Thus, peer-reviewed research articles and evidential articles are reviewed on high-stakes testing and statewide standards. In addition, the state of Florida has shown the greatest amount of dissatisfied outcomes. The information provided in this policy brief will precisely indicate why high-stakes testing and statewide standards should be abandoned from the school system. I request the action of Congress to outlaw high-stakes testing and statewide standards for the betterment of all National citizens by passing a new law to force states away from standardized testing.

Following the signing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, it has not only sparked fear in students but teachers as well. High stakes testing has taken a toll on student creativity and achievement as well as the closing of schools and termination of teachers and administrators. In 2011 Secretary of Education Arne Duncan stated that “82 percent of schools could be failing by the end of 2012” (US News, 2013). Proponents of testing such as taxpayers and parents approve of this process as it increases accountability of the schools and teachers.

If the schools didn’t make AYP for three years in a row, they had to provide free tutoring and supplemental educational service. Everyone involved felt that the NCLB had unsolved issues. (Randolph & Wilson-Younger, 2012). There are teachers that argue that the testing is not fair with the children that are under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Children with individualized education plans are being forced to take standardized test on their grade level and the teachers argue that the tests might be way above where these children are academically. This also includes the children who have English as their second language because they are struggling when they are taking the standardized tests. Additionally, Choi, (Aug. 2012) describes how many schools struggle to meet the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) under the Act called No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Pressures on the schools to meet the AYP can affect how each school does their testing and teaching policies. While states have been silent, the question has been whether states have a responsibility to intervene.

Abernathy, Scott Franklin. No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools. U of Michigan P, 2007. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). In this eBook, Scott Franklin Abernathy, an Associate Professor of Political Science and a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Minnesota, presents a balanced critique of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Abernathy argues that all policy makers must ask themselves “Can we ever really know if a child’s education is good?”, rather than assuming any test can accurately measure the elusive thing called a good education. Along with strengths and weakness of NCLB, Abernathy also presents many new models that law makers have been seeking to replace or use

She claims that the problems that occurred with No Child Left Behind were not due to the tests themselves, but were due to “the misuse of testing for high stakes purposes, the belief that tests could identify with certainty which students should be held back, which teachers and principals should be fired or rewarded, and which schools should be closed.” (p.150). Ravitch also ventures to explain that the information acquired from national testing can be extremely valuable, but only if the tests themselves are valid and reliable. For instance, they can show students what they’ve learned, what they haven’t learned, and where they need improvement. A popular alternative to standardized testing is performance-based assessment.

The NCLB Act has obligated the government to find a way to keep track of progress, which, in their minds, is administering high-stakes tests. High-stakes testing is scrutinized all the time, since some believe it is the only indicator of tracking students and teachers. They seemed to have been ridiculed by many and favored by few; nonetheless there are significant disparities in the public’s and government’s opinion. According to Dunne (2000), “Tests aren't just tests anymore -- at least not high-stakes tests, which are being used in some states to determine which students stay back a grade, which high school seniors receive diplomas, which teachers get bonuses, and more.”

The article discusses how teachers are discovering that the No Child Left Behind idea is flawed, developmentally unfitting, lacking funding, and leaving more students, educators, and schools behind before the bill was passed. Later the article presents a short history about educational testing, investigates the argument of teaching to the test, and focuses on subgroups of school populations that are negatively affected by No Child Left Behind bill, distinctively students from low socioeconomic backgrounds, minorities, second-language learners, and students with special needs.

According to the Nation’s Report Card, only forty percent of 4th graders and thirty-three percent of 8th graders are performing at or above levels of proficiency on the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) mathematics test in 2015. These numbers are unchanged from 2013, showing that no progress is being made. The United States education system needs to drastically be reformed so that our test scores and work output is comparable to that of higher-achieving nations such as China and Japan. One policy currently in place that is making it difficult for teachers to teach the way they would like is the No Child Left behind Act. The act was originally made so that schools are held accountable for their students’ progress, parents get more choices of which school their children will attend and so that there is more flexibility for how funds can be distributed by the schools. The No Child Left Behind Act needs to be reformed because it encourages teachers to teach to the tests, gives money to schools already succeeding, and forces teachers to focus mainly on students struggling rather than average or excelling students.

The No Child Left Behind Act was the biggest educational step taken by president Bush and his administration. Its main goal included the increase of achievement in education and completely eliminate the gap between different racial and ethnic groups. Its strategies had a major focus on uplifting test scores in schools, hiring “highly qualified teachers” and deliver choices in education. Unluckily, the excessive demands of the law have not succeeded in achieving the goals that were set, and have caused multiple opposing consequences. These unintended consequences affect students negatively which are who the law is most intended in helping. These consequences include a high focus on the low‐level skills which are reflected on high stakes tests; bad assessment of students who have English as a second language and students with special needs; and compelling incentives to eliminate students who score very low from school, so the test scores are achieved to their full potential and their goal (Darling‐Hammond, 2007).

* Teacher Qualifications: By the end of the 2005-06 school year, every teacher in core content areas working in a public school had to be "highly qualified" in each subject he or she taught. Under the law, "highly qualified" generally meant that a teacher was certified and demonstrably proficient in his or her subject matter. Beginning with the 2002-03 school year, all new teachers hired with federal Title I money had to be "highly qualified." By the end of the 2005-06 school year, all school paraprofessionals hired with Title I money must have completed

The No Child Left Behind act promises many great things for education. It is an effort to “close the achievement gap” for students falling behind in public school systems. (The No Child, 2002) This act also promises and gives parents more of a choice about their child’s education. For example, if the parent feels that their child is in a school that is failing they are able to have their child transferred to another school. Idealistically these goals are wonderful for our educational system, and this gives the tax payers the reassurance that they are getting their money’s worth from education, but what are the consequences in forcing our students to take “high-stakes tests.”

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)

The No Child Left Behind Act should tremendously be re-examined and amended because the focus on the standardized tests decrease the quality of other subjects not on the tests, the tests are not an efficient tool to make certain that a student is receiving an excellent education and the tests create unnecessary stress for the students, teachers and administrators. The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to provide every student with the opportunity to receive a top-grade education. This is a great proposal to strive towards but, legislation plans on achieving this proposal by making schools responsible for their students’ proficiency and to measure their proficiency with the use of standardized tests. After the students take the

The No Child Left Behind Act. At first glance, this act sounds like all it can do for the educational system is improve it. If no student is left behind then everyone can have equal opportunities right? But if teachers are constantly testing in order to measure progress, then students can be held back. No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) requires testing in schools in order to help regulate education and to measure how qualified teachers are. Some argue that the NCLB act adds many positive aspects to the educational system. However, the negatives outweigh the positives. The act enforces testing thus limiting the teacher's freedom causing him or her to teach to the test. This form of teaching, in turn, inhibits the student’s creativity.