Child Left Behind Flaws

Teachers have to focus mainly on the basic meaning of what the students need to learn instead of teaching the deeper and worldly application of the material being taught. In addition, every year each grade is required to make higher scores on the standardized tests than the year before. There is also the fact that the NCLB program holds children back. Those who are gifted or high performing students are not given the attention that they need, because all of the funding that the schools are given from the program is being used on programs to get all of the students to the minimum skill requirement, which is set by the NCLB. Also NCLB only focuses on math skills, English language skills, and eventually a science skill. This only elevates the scores for two fundamental skills that students need in today’s world. In focusing only on these few skills students lose the benefits of a broader education. Some schools in times of budget cuts have had to cut some of their classes so that they can focus on the subject areas dictated by the NCLB. Plus, some schools have done surveys and found out that high school students are lacking knowledge in the subjects of history, civics, and literature. Another point that people disagree with is the fact that the Act is requiring 100% of students, including disadvantaged and those with special needs, within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and math by

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

Opponents of NCLB, which includes all major teachers' unions, allege that the act hasn't been effective in improving education in public education, especially high schools, as evidenced by mixed results in standardized tests. Opponents also claim that standardized testing, which is the heart of NCLB accountability, is deeply flawed and biased for many reasons. That stricter teacher qualifications have exacerbated the nationwide teacher shortage, not provided a stronger teaching force. The NCLB law has set a 2014 deadline for states to make public school students proficient in math and reading, but each state decides how to meet that goal. are from achieving proficiency.

No child left behind does nothing but dishearten the students who are proving to be ahead of the average student from wanting to improve. While the struggling students are simply carried from one grade to the next. The No Child Left Behind Act is great in theory but is too heavily reliant on standardized tests and percentages and not enough about what the students actually learn. Being a survivor of NCLB I have had firsthand experience with this topic and from an above average students point of view it really deterred me from wanting to push myself further and eventually lead to me falling into the average category as my high school career came to an end. Teachers and students treat education with the idea of “just

In the article "3 Big Ways No Child Left Behind Failed" it gives 3 reasons why the NCLB act has not worked. The NCLB act has not worked because of the high stakes testing, adequate yearly progress (AYP), and every student proficient by 2014. High-stake testing is because of the NCLB act, making students from third to eighth grade having to take a test every year in math, reading, and writing. The NCLB act was to be taking seriously otherwise, the schools would be punished. If the schools did not do well on this exam, known as keystones they would get less funding, or would have to close their schools. This not only affects the teachers but the students as well. The students with learning disabilities will have a harder time taking the exam and if they could not score proficient on the keystones they would end of in special classes and would not be

This article in the Times newspaper, points out problems and flaws with the 2002 U.S. No Child Left Behind educational legislation, which was designed to improve education in the U.S. Topics that are discussed include, teachers complaints that No Child Left Behind policy sets impossible standards and forces teachers to teach based on the test material, and how the bill originally came to life by the proposal of former U.S. president George W. Bush. The other topic

The No Child Left Behind Act is a present day example of the ideology that is used in “Harrison Bergeron” because it slows down the children that are more advanced than others when it comes to academic curriculum.

Many educators have seen The No Child Left Behind Act as both a success and an inadequacy. Introduced in 2001, the Act’s intention was to reform education at that time. It was a step in the right direction, however, like most things, it didn’t solve the problem.  The Act pushed education to seek standardized testing as the only mean to evaluate a school’s quality of education. In fact, Robert Rothman, Scott F. Marion, and Helen Ladd believe that education needs reform. They confront their different positions on the issue in two articles. Ladd’s article is more admirable than Rothman’s and Marion’s. Ladd fulfills her purpose for writing the article in a better manner than Rothman and Marion because she communicates the issue in a formal, but

“The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 wasn’t signed into law by President Bush until Jan. 8, 2002, was reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education” (No Child 1). Since 1965, the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was established and made the ‘Title I’ programs in schools to aid students who needed extra help on a day to day basis. When the act needed to be reauthorized for 2001, they changed the name of the act to “No Child Left Behind” or NCLB (No Child 1-2). Annual testing shows the federal governments if every student in every public school nation wide are meeting their state’s standards in mathematics and reading.

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).

How could the idea of No Child Left Behind Act and standardized testing become such a terrible problem, that it has led to a generation of students that are not properly educated and prepared for college and the “Real World”? My Working thesis is that standardized testing should be removed from the school system because it is not testing what children know but teaching them how to test.

The "No Child Left Behind Act" (Public Law 107-110, 115), is a Congressional Act signed into law by George W. Bush in January 2002. The Bill was a bi-partisan initiative, supported by Senator Edward Kennedy, and authorized a number of federal programs designed to improve standards for educational accountability across all States, districts, and increase the focus on reading. Much of the NCLB focus is based on the view that American students are falling behind in educational basis when scored are compared globally. The Act does not establish a national achievement standard; each State must confirm its own set of standards, but in order to receive funding, the States must meet a basic criterion of performance (Abernathy, 2007).

On January 8, 2002, George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into law (also known as the NCLB). The No Child Left Behind Act was the latest reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a federal education bill addressing the nation’s schools. At his signing ceremony, Bush stated, “There’s no greater challenge than to make sure that every child—and all of us on this stage mean every child, not just a few children—every single child, regardless of where they live, how they’re raised, the income level of their family, every child receive a first-class education in America.” Although his pledge became the hope for improved education reform, effects have only been negative and contradictory to what they have promised.

The "No Child Left Behind" Act affected “virtually every person employed in the public school system,” as well as those not

One consequence is the increased focus on standardized testing. The increased focus for students to perform well in tests creates an environment that does not promote creative solutions or problem solving. Rather it places the focus on answering as many multiple choices as you can correctly. Not all students process or think the same way; however, this policy uses a “one size fits all” approach to improve the academic performances of students attending public schools. Furthermore, this takes away from the schools and teachers who have to focus their lesson plans and curricula to meet the needs of the state and federal standards. This creates less opportunity to focus on art, music, foreign languages and a greater emphasis on reading and math. Another consequence is the standards for teachers. Low performing schools under the NCLB must restructure their system if they do not want to shut down the school. This usually results in change in staff, faculty, and budget restrictions (Sanders, 2008). Highly qualified teachers have more job opportunities in high performing and/or non-Title I schools and typically those teachers choose the higher paying job than the one in an underfunded- low performing school. As a result, there is an unequal balance in qualified teachers among