Nclb Failure

Response to Intervention (RtI) came about initially in answer to the over-identification of struggling students as special education students. It was developed starting in the late 1970s by numerous researchers seeking a method of identifying learning disabilities that avoids the problems of the discrepancy model. Many educators were concerned that too many students were being identified as having a learning disability, not because they actually had one, “but because they had not been successful in a general education program” (Prasse, 2010). Many were also concerned that students with a true learning disability were not receiving the help they needed quickly enough. Before RtI, the accepted

As in any research based program there are benefits and challenges. One of the biggest benefits of RTI is it has the ability to transform how we educate all students. When implementing Response to Intervention it helps to treat learning disabilities, identifies students with disabilities, classifies every student’s strengths and targets the specific disability. Perhaps the greatest benefit of an RTI approach is that it eliminates a “wait to fail” situation because students get help promptly within the general education setting. As soon as assessment data indicates a problem area for a student, interventions are put into place to address these concerns. One of the biggest challenges that are occurring is that RTI is still uneven; some districts use it and some do not and because of this it becomes a challenge. There is confusion as to what RTI is and whether schools are required to use. In addition, the evidence based and differentiated instruction is one of the issues in response to education. “Interventions that are research based but not feasible are not likely to be implemented with fidelity, which would undercut the validity of RTI decision making” (Kubiszyn & Borich, 2010,

This three-tier RTI system is wonderful at the early stages of education because it allows teachers to identify at-risk students and move them through the intervention process. However, in the later stages, it is often too late to evaluate students for learning disabilities as these should have been recognized early on in a child’s education. It should be noted that students at this stage do still need interventions, but in a different format.

Wilson, Faggella-Luby, & Wei (2013) present a cogent plan for Tier 3 Response to Intervention (RTI) for secondary students with reading disabilities, content, and pedagogy planning tools, content instruction, and instructional method implementation. Both research application lacks concerning Tier 3 RTI in high schools (Wilson et. al). RTI is curriculum that addresses the learning needs of all students that also includes screening and monitoring progress. Continuing, Wilson et. al define Tier 1 RTI, core curriculum for all students serving the needs of 80% of students, Tier 2 RTI, small group instructional intervention, serving the needs of 15% of students, and Tier 3 RTI, an intense one to one intervention for students who continue to struggle beyond Tiers 1 and 2, serving 5% of students. Wilson et al. provides information the reader needs to understand in the article without clutter, expressing their writing with economy (Zinsser, 2013). The article is unified in theme, gives enough information without giving too much, and follows a clear progression (Zinsser). “More simple, than complex” (Henson, 1999, p. 58), Wilson et. al’s article is an example of good writing.

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

Scientific evidence-based interventions are generally assessed through a response to intervention (RTI). The RTI approach can potentially cross over cultural, socioeconomic, and linguistic barriers by assessing each student as an individual. Response to intervention should emphasize how well students respond to changes in instruction rather than what is considered the norm for the society they live in (Klotz, & Canter, 2007). These changes, or lack thereof, in a student’s progress are measured, and modifications to instruction are implemented in the RTI model. This model has multiple tiers of intense scientific, research-based interventions that increase, or decrease due to a student’s need. In a three tier RTI model every

It has been over a decade since the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was enacted on January 2, 2002. The long title of NCLB says it is “An act to close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind.” Although NCLB was created with this in mind, research shows that it has actually managed to widen the educational achievement gap between minorities and their white counterparts. In this paper, my central research question is “What are three factors that have led to the failure of the No Child Left Behind Act among the Hispanic and African American student population?”

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a framework based off the problem solving method that integrates assessment, and targeted instruction, within a multi-tiered intervention system. Implementation of RtI in schools is crucial to identify which students need additional intervention that will help increase their literacy skills, and prevent them from falling behind. RtI is based off multi-leveled tiers that are each categorized by the intensity of the intervention that is being used. The RtI framework is also used as a valued tool in monitoring and improving student behavior in the classroom through a model known as Positive Behavioral Intervention Support (PBIS).

This author discusses the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001(NCLB) and it mandates that every student in K-12 public schools will reach basic proficiency in math and reading by 2014. The goals of the accountability component of NCLB place emphasis on closing the achievement gap for all public school students, regardless of their socioeconomic status, ethnicity, or disabilities. The Federal Government mandates annual testing of all students in grades three through eight on challenging state standards for mathematics and reading (Beisser 2014). The author noted that the federal mandate didn’t intend on leaving any students behind, but after the law was passed it became evident that the United States has provided more, time, attention, resources and policies in the direction of students who scored below achievement level in reading and mathematics.

In the 3rd step plan the implementation is when educators will monitor and provide feedback to ensure the intervention is delivers properly. And step 4 is to evaluate the problem, consultant and teacher will evaluate the responsiveness to the intervention and modify if needed. These steps result in a great intervention program that is precise to see desired results in the RTI. With intervention trial and error is how real results are achieved. In previous years before interventions and RTI’s were placed in schools, too many children were sent for learning disabilities or special education showing teachers inability or unwillingness to teach sand accommodate academic diversity ( Reynolds, 1987). The article states how teachers can generally implement learning strategies until the student gets it and if after interventions and RTi’s measure the responsiveness as not responsive the child can be placed in special education to receive IEP’s to adjust to their learning disability.

“A Critical Practice Analysis of Response to intervention Appropriation in an Urban School” written by Kathleen A. King Thorius, Brendan D. Maxcy, Erin Macey, and Adrienne Cox, highlights some key difficulties urban schools face through the enactment of Response to Intervention. Response to Intervention emerged in the early 2000’s when the field of special education was critiqued on the way they diagnosed and identified students with learning disabilities. RTI is done through interviews, mentoring and monitoring. The intensity of the intervention undergoes three or four tiers in particular; Tier 1 is when all students are provided with general education and are supervised based on the improvement and expectancy for the age and grade and Tier 2 occurs when the teachers are not noticing improvements. Tier 2 is simply when the specified students receive more skill-oriented testing and monitoring. If there is no improvement seen, they are moved to Tier 3, which is when the students receive the most intensive instruction. If there is no improvement in this tier, they are then receiving Tier 4 instruction, which is otherwise known as special education. RTI provides a structure of how to supply intervention for those children struggling academically in fields that they previously lacked. However, as displayed in this article, the context of what occurs during this meeting still requires a bit more structure.

The last century in American history has yielded educational reforms, federal legislations, school improvement plans and interventions, which consistently influence best practices in school systems. After the report, A Nation at Risk (1983), the federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) of 1965 was reauthorized in 2001 as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). This reauthorization was a call to attain educational equality for all American students and to lessen the achievement gaps between and among ethnicity groups, children of poverty, and disabled populations (U.S. Department of Education, 2001). Additionally, because of this increased scrutiny of student performance, other classification categories emerged such as gender.

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.

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) holds all elementary schools, regardless of student characteristics, accountable for achieving proficient student scores in reading and math. By demanding that schools report achievement for racial, ethnic, and economic subgroups, the accountability system aims to shine a light on schools that “leave children behind.”