The NCLB assessment practice has brought about some unforeseen consequences in the public education system — increased school dropout rates; student being give answered by teacher so a school can retain or expand their funding; and a big number of educators quitting the profession because schools are linking assessment scores to teacher evaluations (Amrein & Berliner, 2002, p. 2). Moreover, the NCLB concentrates solely on testing measures and as a result, schools are putting more weight on the state-funded instruction framework to expand student accomplishment for all students. Forcing teachers to focus solely on student's learning activities that prepare students for statewide examination, the impact of this has been many educators reporting
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
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,
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 reduces effective instruction as well as student learning by causing states to lower achievement goals and teacher motivation. Assertively, I support my argument that students who are disadvantaged or disabled do not reach the same proficiency as other students due to the simple fact that everyone learns differently, has different areas of strengths and weaknesses, and are essentially learning curriculum for a mandated state test that solely measures how well subgroups of children test on generic material based on each
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.
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
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.
“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
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
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.
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.
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.
In Shakespearian times the woman had no powerful roles, they did not write or act in plays. The roles were strictly played by men. Only men could have a high positioned job, and could hunt and other masculine things. This was true, however, in Macbeth written by William Shakespeare he portrays that both the men and the women in the play craved and have powerful roles, and desire ambition. Additionally, he shows how the roles of gender are flipped between Macbeth and Lady Macbeth, and displays that Lady Macbeth wants control over Macbeth. In the play Lady Macbeth stands in for Macbeth’s manliness throughout the text, and she was the brain of all his decisions. She desired to manipulate his decisions so it would work out in her favor, so she could have a higher position as queen. Although “A Strange Infirmary” authored by Jenijoy La belle asserts that the actions of a women in that time period were not looked at as manly actions, and women were incapable to have such manly cravings due to their physical setbacks characteristics, and in “The Five Tragedies in Macbeth ” written by Miguel Bernad, he states that the roles of gender flip and the characteristics of each gender can be in either characters, and he shows the intense grip of Lady Macbeth’s power over her husband. With these sources you can see, manly qualities and strive for power is not something that is held only within a physical man. Sex does not play a role for hunger for ambition. However, in these times women
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.
Dean Kamen is the entrepreneur innovator of the slingshot technologies. Slingshot is a water purification device invented by Mr. Kamen that is able to purify up to 97% of dirty water that is literally unusable in the world today. This invention runs on very affordable means of energy; uses combustible cow dung to operate and purify the water with immensely high accuracy levels. Through this, Dean is able to clean dirty water with the inner drive of making the world a better place for millions of people who lack clean water around several parts of the world, especially in the developing countries.