NCLB Assessment Practice Paper

     Many educators find the purpose of the NCLB Act to be very confusing and disingenuous. According to Monty Neill, who works for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, an organization which evaluates tests and exams for their impartiality, “NCLB is a fundamentally punitive law that uses flawed standardized tests to label schools as failures and punish them with counterproductive sanctions” (Neill, 1). Teachers will be of no use to educate their students according to the curriculum, if the only focus that both the teachers and students have is only to pass the imperative standardized test, just so their school district can acquire more

The American public educational system is filled with an assortment of problems. Most students are graduating with less knowledge and capability than similar students in other industrialized countries. Classroom disruptions are surprisingly common, and in some classrooms, nearly continuous. The public education system is having difficulty adjusting to the no child left behind act. The No Child Left Behind(NCLB) is a landmark in education reform designed to improve student achievement and change the culture of American’s schools.

“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

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

However, even if the federal government met the financial obligations to fully fund NCLB, and remove harsh sanctions for schools which do not meet AYP standards, it still would not fix the problem of NCLB focusing solely on teaching to the test. Under the NCLB Act teaching has gone from learning about a wide array to subjects to a “drill and kill” system (Smyth 134). A drill and kill system is when teachers solely focus on teaching to the test by giving assessment after assessment. When teachers teach to the test and require students to only regurgitate information, the students are not using higher level thinking skills. The students are only learning how to take test,

Schools have become more driven by data and numerical results than by holistic student outcomes. To meet standards, students are trucked along grade after grade only learning what is absolutely necessary to pass their tests. Few if any resources are put toward supplementary programs or emotional or social supports for students. What results are schools needing to hire more teachers but for less pay and with less incentives to stay in challenging school environments. NCLB promises children the education they deserve by licensed teachers; however, when faced with multiple challenges for funding, the schools may find it easier to hire new teachers with little to no experience so that their pay can be less and funds can be allocated elsewhere.

Only recently with the addition of the Common Core Standardized Tests, students are being faced with more tests than ever. A typical student takes 112 mandated standardized tests between pre-kindergarten and 12th grade (Study says standardized...). In my opinion, the complexities of these tests are inclining to a degree where they are unreachable to the average student. These tests are an unreliable measure of performance with unfair instruction time. Student anxiety and stress has become so awful that the Standford-9 exam comes with instructions on what to do in case a student vomits on the test. While the tests are there for students skill-measurement scores, they aren’t the only one’s who need to prepare for the exam. Teachers are equally pressured by their overhead figures to insure student’s score well. Just like the students, standardized tests are an imprecise measure of teacher performance, yet they are used to reward and punish teachers. Teachers are being required to a more progressive teaching style with emphasize on reflective learning. The effects of this are being nicknamed “drill and kill” test prep. Developing a corresponding curriculum prior to these assessments can be tricky because of the ambiguous content the Common Core requires. A considerable majority of these tests are given to students online. These already pricey tests come at an expensive cost for schools. An underlining problem people are concerned about is declining student scores being used as an excuse to close public schools that already can’t afford for the computers to take the test, and open more voucher

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.

NCLB was a one-size-fits-all despite its attempt to provide low-incomes student aid and to close achievement. Regardless of “race, income, zip code, disability, home language, and background,” N.D), NCLB was not working to meet every students and school achievement rates because of its excessive testing. This put a toll on both the schools and the students because if the school did not improve the performance of the students, the school is held accountable. Since NCLB is a categorical aid, it has a major impact on local school systems (Spring, 2012). This mean that the school that did poor on the test will not get the aid that they need properly.

No Child Left Behind (hereafter NCLB) was one of the largest and most comprehensive reauthorizations of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, created to “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education.” That this legislation was monumentally important for the American education system, few researchers would dare to disagree — but this is where most agreement ends. Over 70,000 articles have been written on this legislation and it is easy to drown in the myriad of researched opinions on its successes and failures; there are almost as many opinions as there are articles on this topic.

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.”

Welner (2014) states that “standardized assessments are linked to curriculum standards and performance standards and tied to specified consequences” (p. 39). Welner discuses that the standard-based testing in American schools are a mess and need to be untangled because of the consequences of underperformance. Schools are defunded, teachers and principals are laid off, and schools are marked as ‘failing’. There needs to be a reform in schools that need academic improvement and the way to figure out which schools need development is by testing the students. Jones & King and McLaughlin & Overturf provide different feedback on standard-based testing. According to McLaughlin & Overturf (2012), “Using formative assessments is not only an effective way to monitor student progress, but also a viable way to glean information for planning future instructions” (p.157). In order for teachers to know if their lessons are effective or not, teachers give standard-based tests and assessments to their students. Without tests, student progress cannot be tracked in a concise manner. Jones & King (2012) agree that by building new assessments and curricula, American schools are redefining success (p.37). That success can also come at a price when dealing with more rigorous standards that are new to the

I agree with many of the concerns Diane Ravitch have about NCLB. The emphasis on test scores leading school districts to cheat caught my attention. I read an article in the New Yorker written by Rachel Aviv. The article was titled “Wrong Answer- In an era of high-stakes testing, a struggling school made a shocking choice. It talked about how a “star group of teachers” resorted to cheating in an effort to help their students be successful in a school that was in its 6th year of being a school in need of improvement. These are hardworking teachers who have taught all of the concepts well . It talked about how the teachers conspired to changed answers leading to higher test scores.

NCLB has received many criticisms since its implementation. Despite its goal of improving student performance by holding schools to high standards, NCLB fails to define what those standards are. It sets its goal as 100% proficiency, but mandates that each state develop its own achievement standards for students to meet. As a result, states developed unique assessments with notably different performance standards. They also changed their assessments over time, which makes trends unreliable . Though NCLB used standardized tests to measure overall school improvements, modern standardized testing systems are not designed to measure educator performance. They are designed to produce reliable measures of individual student achievements in a low stakes

In what follows I first provide a history and explanation of the NCLB act. As well as the thinking behind this piece of legislation. Then, I show how the NCLB’s rules and standardized testing are destructive to teaching. Finally, I argue how the act is leading to the overall downfall of our educational system.