Criterion-Referenced Competency Test

In 1965, Lyndon B Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in an attempt to achieve more equity among minority groups within the education system. Along with the numerous attempts to close the achievement gap came America’s first federally funded state assessments, created with the intention of holding the nation’s schools accountable for providing a quality education for every student. This legislation was revisited in 2001 by the Bush administration with the No Child Left Behind Act, which saw the achievement gap that still existed among ethnic minority groups, but also recognised a prominent gap within poverty- stricken communities. With this came state tests that were more difficult and more frequent in an attempt to further

The author's main point in this article was focusing on the problems of standardized testing in the school system. Ronald Roach states how in the past decade since the no child left behind program was established that there was no sufficient gains in the overall student math and reading scores. The author then goes on to explain how the Obama administration has been criticized over the issues of no child left behind program and how they are not effectively improving the program.

“Unintended Educational and Social Consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act” Journal of Gender, Race and Justice, no. 2, Winter 2009, pp. 311. EBSCOhost. In this peer-reviewed academic journal article, Liz Hollingworth, an associate professor in the College of Education at the University of Iowa, explores the history of school reform in the United States, and the unintended consequences of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Hollingworth states that the great promise of NCLB is that schools will focus on the education of low-achieving students, reducing the gap in student academic achievement between White students and African-American, Hispanic, and Native American student populations. Hollingworth states that an unintended consequence of NCLB was that teachers and school administrators had to shift curriculum focus in an effort to raise test scores, but in some cases, they had to also abandoned thoughtful, research-based classroom practices in exchange for test preparation. NCLB also affected teachers, highly qualified teachers left high-poverty schools, with low performance rates especially those schools where teacher salaries are tied to student academic performance. Hollingworth concludes her article by stating “we need to be wary of policy innovations that amount to simply rearranging the deck chairs on the

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 NCLB Act has become the largest intervention by the federal government. This act promises to improve student learning and to close the achievement gap between the white students and students of color. The law is aimed at having standardized test to measure student performance and quality of teacher. The Standardized exams are fully focused on reading and mathematics. This law characterizes an unequalled extension of the federal role into the realm of local educational accountability. High school graduation rates are also a requirement as an indicator of performance at secondary level. In low performing schools they get punished by receiving less funds and students have the choice to move to high performing school. The quality of our

The No Child Left Behind act emerged as a result of a massive increase in the costs of schools, while failing to show an improvement in their students performances. (Paterson 32) Since these standardized test have been in effect teachers have been judged off them. The problem is that

Unfortunately, these mandates did not produce the type of results supporters of the law had hope for. “Rather, they taught educators to see accountability as unserious and political” (Bell and Hess). The law produced false positives, resulting in mediocre to poor performances on standardized tests, more public school takeovers and/or overhauling of school districts, controversial teacher reforms, dependence on standardized test preparation rather than classroom-content instruction, and increased academic wrongdoings (e.g., changing of student grades and test-taking fraud).

The heightened focus on education equity and adequacy has garnered substantial attention from both policy makers and media outlets. As a result of the spotlight, school finance litigation has forced states to not only change the way they fund schools but to improve and update their states’ assessment and accountability systems. (Griffith, 2005).

Summary: The 1983 report, A Nation at Risk, issued by the National Commission on Excellence in Education and the Goals 2000 report of 1991 by the National Governors Association created calls for education reform in the United States. They resulted in stricter standards for teaching certification, changes in standardized testing, and a raise in teachers salaries especially in the South. President Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002 to also try to boost education performance especially for racial minorities and urban centers. NCLB required schools to give mandatory tests to determine student aptitude in core subject courses. Schools are rated according to the Adequate Yearly Progress scale which determines how much a school's testing

Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC) (2015) states that all nurses should be competent at carrying out an accurate assessment on patients of all ages safely using invasive and non-invasive procedures. Benner (1982) formed the stages of competency: Novice; this is where I started in year one, I had never done a manual blood pressure before and lacked confidence. Advanced beginner; this is where I feel I am at present, I can take a manual blood pressure with occasional supportive cues, I am more confident than the first time and my knowledge is improving. Competent; this is the stage I expect to be at when I qualify, I would like to feel confident and I intend to know exactly what I am doing and why. Proficient; this is where I expect to be

NCLB, the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, was preceded by the Improving America’s Schools Act. Under that law, high-quality teaching and learning were not prevalent in all schools, and achievement gaps persisted, leading to agreement that a greater federal role for accountability was necessary—from which NCLB was born. NCLB authorized 45 programs in 10 different areas, but public debate tended to focus on the law’s testing, accountability, and teacher-quality requirements. NCLB required that students be tested in the subjects of English language arts (ELA) and math in grades three through eight and once in high school, and for states to use the results to assess how well schools were meeting “adequate yearly progress” goals for student proficiency in these subjects. Schools that consistently did not meet these goals overall, or for subgroups of students, were targeted for interventions, and eventually for sanctions.

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

While the enactment of the NCLB of 2001 attempts to “ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education." The consequences of the statute may instead deny access to adequate education for a large portion of the population. Its implementation, primarily through its system of rewards and punishments, may actually inhibit educational opportunities for the very population it was designed to serve the “low income students.” If its provisions are enforced, the statute could practically force low-income students to remain in poor-performing public schools while failing to address their real educational needs, thus decreasing the chances of them ever attaining academic proficiency.

For example, a provision in the No Child Left Behind Act based district funding on overall test scores (No Child Left Behind..). While this act was intended to encourage schools to produce higher test scores, it has resulted in an imbalance in funding, depriving poorer school districts of the funds they so desperately need to improve their schools. Education provides impoverished students with the tools needed to climb out of poverty; however, this provision makes it difficult for these students to receive a good education. In a desperate attend to gain funds, a small amount of principals and teachers have been caught changing the answers on their student’s exams in order to receive higher scores. (Osunsami, 2011) The fact that school administrations feel the need to cheat test scores in order to receive adequate funding is a symptom of a far more serious problem. Our current school system is based upon the foundation of standardized testing, which has proven insufficient and even detrimental to our educational system as a

Dorn, S. (1998, January 2). The Political Legacy of School Accountability Systems. Education Policy Analysis Archives, pp. 1-36.