Nation At Risk Gave Rise To Two Major Education Reform

After the No-Child-Left-Behind (NCLB) bill was introduced by the Bush administration in 2001, the use of standardized tests skyrocketed because all schools in the country were required to assess students using these tests to evaluate the student, teacher and school’s performance. A standardized test is any examination that is administered and scored in a predetermined, standard manner (Popham 8). The use of these tests have not improved education in the United States because teachers teach to the test, which means that they only focus on what is going to be on the exam and do not spend time on other material; tests like the SAT which evaluate the student solely on the outcome of the test and upon the score the student is placed where “appropriate”; and that one assessment is not enough to evaluate students, teachers, principals

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.

In 2001, Former President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. This Law launched the national standards and testing movement of the United States (2004).

Charter schools are unique public schools that is allowed the freedom to be more innovative while being held accountable for advancing student achievement. These charter schools are not private schools, they do not charge for tuition and they are open to all children within specific boundaries. Research has demonstrated that charter schools make picks up in the urban community with students who have veritably been undeserved by traditional state funded schools. Charter schools outscored their traditional school peers in 25 of the 41 cities in math, and 23 of the 42 cities in reading. On average, charter schools had no significant impacts on student’s achievement. Charter schools help enhance student learning, empower the utilization of new and imaginative educating strategies, and give schools an approach to move from a lead based to an execution based arrangement of responsibility. Public schools are like charter schools except for the freedom that a charter school has. And private school is based on tuition and that is funded by charities and tax holders in that community.

It was with wild fanfare that the state’s Republican legislature and Republican Governor enacted their reforms for the state’s public school system. Among the panaceas was charter schools, a ‘90s education fad that gives individual parents the right to send their children to state-approved public charter schools at public expense. Politicians reasoned that less-bureaucratic charter schools would teach students better than traditional public schools because charter schools wouldn’t be subject to the same mandates that the state had heaped upon public schools. Furthermore, traditional schools would be forced to compete with charter schools as they lured thousands

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

Their eyes met from across the room, and any student paying close enough attention could see the loathing in the teacher’s eyes as the principal walks into the room for the bi-semester teacher evaluation. In the blink of an eye the teacher returns her focus back on the students, but the obvious exchange between the two individuals makes those of us in the classroom that understand the source of the icy gaze extremely uncomfortable. My teacher hates the principal with a passion. Ever since the principal assumed control of the school three years prior to this particular evaluation, she terrorized my band director. Through micromanaging, criticizing relentlessly, organizing meetings incessantly, and sabotaging schedules, my principal fostered a hate from not only my band director, but also from the majority of teachers in my high school. The attitude and leadership techniques utilized by my former principal directly contradicts current theories of the scholarly community on how to effectively lead a school.

Since the 1980s, charter schools have allowed families to exercise school choice, a practice that had begun a few decades earlier when parents preferred to control their children’s education because of religious views or racial prejudices. As dissatisfaction with the performance public schools grew during the late 20th century, parents called on government to subsidize an arrangement where children could receive adequate education outside of the traditional public school system. Thus, two major school choice devices emerged: charter schools, privately run schools that receive public funding, and tuition vouchers, which cover some or all of tuition at participating private schools.

Charter schools differ from traditional public schools on three basic principles: accountability, choice and autonomy. Charter schools are held accountable for their ability to educate students, management of finances and handle operations. If they do not meet the guidelines established by the charter they are closed. They give families a choice as to what school their children will attend. Finally, charter schools have more autonomy than traditional public schools. They are able to make their own decisions regarding curriculum and school governance and can focus on academic achievement instead of bureaucracy. (“Resistance Hinders Success,” 2004)

During President Bush’s term, government became aware that American schooling needed major improvement. There was a need of a law which would improve the system while using scores to evaluate students as well as their teachers. "The fundamental principle of this bill is that every child can learn, we expect every child to learn, and you must show us whether or not every child is learning," (Secretary, 2002) President George W. Bush said on Jan. 8, 2002, signing ceremony of No Child Left Behind Act. However, this one size fits all approach revealed not be resourceful. "The goals of No Child Left Behind, the predecessor of this law, were the right ones: High standards. Accountability. Closing the achievement gap, but in practice, it often fell short. It didn 't always consider the specific needs of each community. It led to too much testing during classroom time. It often forced schools and school districts into

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

Another article “Massachusetts Charter Showdown,” emphasizes the ideas of adding more charters to the state. These charters will help those in rotten school districts get a better education and also serve those will special needs better. The author believes this idea on charters has merits and will cause the democrats to confess to their income inequality

In the United States, the public and politics mostly control American education. There are a number of ways in which political control is exercised in education. One way the public controls education is by voting for representatives in the federal and state governments that legislate education policies. Another way the public influences education is by voting for local school boards. Lastly, parents exercise choice regarding what school their children attend by enrolling their kids in private or educate them at home using a home schooling program accredited by the local government.

NCLB sets some new strategic directions to reform American education. The focus of President Bush's education agenda is to shift federal education dollars away from an emphasis on improving schools to an improvement of student performance and a closing of the gap between disadvantaged students and their peers. NCLB is structured to tie funding to accountability and results.

The No Child Left Behind act was signed and put into place by President George W. Bush in 2002. The act was passed in order to replace the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), put into place by President Lyndon B. Johnson in 1965, as part of his Great Society Program. The ESEA helped to cover the cost of educating disadvantaged students, while expanding the federal role in education. (Education Week 2015) The idea of the NCLB act, much like ESEA, was to help reform the educational system in both elementary and secondary school systems. The NCLB act was very ambitious, and brings up issues on improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged, training high-quality teachers, language instruction for limited English proficient students, 21st-century schools, and enforcing technology. (U.S. Department of Education, 2010) One of the biggest factors of this bill was the idea of closing the gap between advantaged and disadvantaged students. Bush felt that this could be done by using standardized tests to measure how students were doing, and to see how well the teachers are doing. These tests were then used to identify which school systems were not performing