NCLB Case Study Summary

“Ornstein and Levine (2008) expressed their concern with NCLB and its effect on public education.

In 2001, NCLB established legislation in a sweeping overhaul of federal effort to support elementary and secondary education. The legislation (Section 11: Title III) holds school districts accountable for English proficiency and is based upon improved student achievement and accountability for results with an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). With NCLB accountability, districts much describe how they will hold elementary and secondary schools accountable for meeting the goals and objectives for increasing the English proficiency of current ELL’s (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). Districts must also hold elementary and secondary schools accountable for meeting the goals and objectives for increasing academic achievement for all current and former ELL’s (Boward County Public Schools, 2010). Further required is an improvement plan that outlines interventions and procedures implemented if districts fail to meet the Annual Measureable Achievement Objectives (AMAO). Procedures and implementation are monitored by SALA (Bureau of Student Achievement through Language Acquisition) (Florida Department of Education).

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

Education is the foundation to secure an individual in having a better future and a successful career in life. Public education primarily falls upon the state and local government to take charge of, which get divided up into local school districts that are managed by school boards. School boards are “ an elected body corporate which manages delegated powers in regards to the deliver of education service within a defined territory (Duhaime’s Law Dictionary)”. Each state “has its own department of education and laws regulating finance, the hiring of school personnel, student attendance, and curriculum (Corsi-Bunker, Antonella).

The NCLB was structured to place the responsibility of our children on the shoulders of each state individually. In addition, it is also beneficial to parents and students who are living in impoverished communities with little to no resources available resulting in low performing test scores. The NCLB also states that local educational agencies now have federal education funding in their disposal.

Indirectly, or directly, one can argue, public schools are controlled by the federal and state governments. Several issues have emerged, because of the conflict between federal and state requirements for education. “Under the Tenth Amendment, any authority not given specifically to the federal government is reserved to the states. Thus, the federal government has no authority to regulate education directly; that belongs to the states” (Underwood, n. d., p. 2). To get around this, the federal government controls the schools through funds for complying with certain initiatives, procedures, and policies (Underwood, n. d.). Ironically, both the state and federal levels of government hold the district liable for implementing different agendas and legal obligations. The federal government, however, can ensure that no citizen is denied their rights or privileges, even in a private institution, because of the Bill of Rights and other amendments. Failure to comply by these amendments or statutes can lead to the loss of federal funding and legal reproductions for schools.

     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

Another example of the NCLB Act failing in the area of funding is seen in a Mexican-American school, located Houston, Texas, which does not have a library, lab equipment, or an adequate number of textbooks. This is because they are not receiving funding, because the school is being penalized for failing to improve test scores to meet AYP. The school board and administration cannot meet the needs to improve the resources for learning, thus cannot improve the overall test scores at the school. However, the administration does spend $20,000 for commercial test-preparation books and other testing materials in an effort to meet the AYP (Ellis 228). With a focus solely on raising test scores and not the actual learning process, their school will continue in this cycle of low test scores and lacking resources.

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.

The enactment of NCLB Act was placed on the policy process agenda to ensure that the public school system provides quality education for all pupils and not just a portion of pupils. In addition, to ensure that that not only are schools held accountable but also requires students to meet or exceed state standards along with providing flexibility on how federal money is spent. A functional stage of the policy process involves seeking solutions to problems. This process is known as policy formulation. Policy formulation is considered to being the second phase of the policy cycle process. According to Peter, (2013) policy formulation is important due to it begins to narrow and structure consideration of the problems on the agenda and to prepare

Jamal Abedi begins his article discussing what the NCLB Act is and why it was established in our country. Basically, the NCLB Act was the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965; it affects the states that use federal funding and hold those states accountable for student achievement (Abedi, 2004, p. 4). After explaining the NCLB Act and its purpose, Abedi creates a numbered list of the flaws of NCLB. The flaws include, “Inconsistency in LEP classification across and within states….Sparse LEP population….Lack of LEP subgroup stability….Measurement quality of AYP instruments for LEP students….LEP baseline scores….LEP cutoff points” (Abedi, 2004, p. 4-5), which he gives a short paragraph about the flaw then continues to explicate later in

Another major problem of NCLB is the people who create the tests. State senators across the country make different tests and decide what should be in the learning curriculum. To become a state senator you do not need a degree, and the senators that do have degrees are typically degrees of business or law. Why did senators make the tests and not teachers? Many of the state senators writing the tests do not have the educational background needed to write tests. And because every state senate makes a different test for every state, students who move out of state are supposed to be able to pass a test that they have not learned about.

In this discussion the only question I have is that the I cannot understand how a school can meet the letter of the law in NCLB by setting a curriculum and working with resources and materials, since NCLB does not set curriculum for a school - it increased federal presence in schools, create some funding for low funded schools but mostly it measures the effectiveness of school. I do, however, believe that NCLB has a huge part in as you write, education is rapidly changing each and every day so it would seem that students and teachers are responsible for accountability, then the model being used should be VAM (Value-Added Actual Growth). This will enable the school to review data from the expected growth to the actual growth.