How High School Gets Brought Up?

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

One reason for the creation of the NCLB Act was that the American education system was not internationally competitive. The United States wasn’t producing as well educated students as other countries. When the NCLB Act was signed into law in 2002, the United States was ranked 20th in the world for math on the newest (from 2000) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results. In the newest results (from 2015), the U.S. was ranked 40th. Similarly, the U.S fell from 15th to 24th in science, and from 16th to 24th in reading, all over the same fifteen-year period (2000-2015). Some of the higher rated schools, such as Finland, have very few or no standardized tests. Creating more standardized tests doesn’t create a better education system.

Following the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002, US students have slipped from being ranked 18th in math in 2000 to 27th in 2012, with a similar decline in science and no change in reading. Standardized tests are unfair and discriminatory against non-English speakers and students with special needs [E. (2011, January 01)]. A 2007 national study conducted by the Center for Education policy revealed that since 2001, 44% of school districts had reduced the time spent on science, social studies and the arts by an estimate of 145 minutes per week in order to focus on reading and math while neglecting the other areas of study.

George Bush 's "No Child Left Behind Act," which passed in 2002, mandated annual standardized testing in math and reading. If schools received insufficient scores, they were punished or shut down. This fueled the construed concept that a school is only doing well if the students have adequate test scores.

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

On the other hand, there is an argument that the education system provides positive qualities. Some students are actually improving in the classroom and on standardized tests. In her book, Christina Fisanick found that “In Wisconsin, 87 percent of third-graders were reading at grade-level or above. This number was an all-time high, and a 13 percent increase over 2002 scores” (Fisanick, 17). Success for all is one of many purposes that come from the educational system. An education reform named No Child Left Behind signed in January of 2002 was to make sure all students were given the chance to improve. In other words, this act made educators work even harder to make sure all students were moving on and that no child was being left

Although the statistics are more than 10 years out of date, the reality of America school segregation has not changed. The barely functional buildings, lack of up to date text books (or in many cases any text books), overcrowded classes, non-existent lab and computer equipment, and low paid teachers create a situation of despair that leads to a drop out rate of more than 50% in many districts. And even those who graduate are

Education systems all across America deal with major issues. George W. Bush created the law, No Child Left Behind. The law didn’t go well when it was created. The were no proper funding and not enough teachers

“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

As we go on in life we face many challenges and new situations that we deal with. A new situation that most people deal with is college and all the changes that come along with it. What many people don't realize is that high school, in many ways, is similar and differrent from college. Not only are people changing but the surroundings and work change as well. There are some things that seem to never change such as some work and people.

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.

Throughout the entirety of NCLB, the federal government has been judging schools in an obscene manner: how many students are proficient in a given year. Even though proficiency is defined differently in every state, and has changed over time (“A Failing Grade for No Child”). NCLB focusing solely on test scores to measure proficiency leaves behind real student growth. There is no praise for raising students from below-basic to basic or from proficient to advance. Meaning that schools are ignoring students at both end of the spectrum (“A Failing Grade for No Child”). NCLB does not care about student growth and education, all that matters is if they meet the required test

Children are falling behind in schools. Students are failing their Standardized and messing up their education. Well unfortunately, “ Under No Child Left Behind, a significant number of schools did not see their test scores increase, the Federal Government

“ Historically, low-income students as a group have performed less well than high-income students on most measures of academic success” (Reardon, 2013). Typically low-income families come from low-income parts of the state making a school that does not have as much funding as a higher economic schools does lack in resources for their students. The school then has lower paid teachers and administrators, with lower quality supplies. This results in a school which typically has faculty who do not perform as well as the well-funded schools. “The law fails to address the pressing problems of unequal educational resources across schools serving wealthy and poor children” (Hammond, 2007). Students from low and high income families will not be able to achieve the same education because their education simply is not the same.