Nclb Failure

While NCLB appears great in principle, it is failing in actuality. The main purpose of the Act was to close the achievement gap between White and minority students, especially Black and Latino students, by increasing educational equality. The differences in the achievement gap is to be measured yearly through the use of standardized testing. As each student is unique, the use of standardized tests to measure whether students reach 100% proficiency is unrealistic. Teachers, principals, and school boards are so worried about being “proficient” that teachers are now teaching for the test, not teaching a rounded curriculum. With schools afraid that they may possibly receive sanctions, schools are now cheating the system by finding ways to bolster their scores to improve state AYP rates. Paul D. Houston explains in his article “The 7 Deadly Sins of NCLB,” that the Act relies on fear and coercion (2007). Teachers, school boards, and states are so afraid of receiving a failing grade that they are willing to skew results in their favour. Not to mention that states are allowed to choose their own statistical method to analyze their scores. Due to many unforeseen variables, these differences make it almost impossible to imply causation that students are reaching proficiency due to the NCLB Act.

Teachers have to focus mainly on the basic meaning of what the students need to learn instead of teaching the deeper and worldly application of the material being taught. In addition, every year each grade is required to make higher scores on the standardized tests than the year before. There is also the fact that the NCLB program holds children back. Those who are gifted or high performing students are not given the attention that they need, because all of the funding that the schools are given from the program is being used on programs to get all of the students to the minimum skill requirement, which is set by the NCLB. Also NCLB only focuses on math skills, English language skills, and eventually a science skill. This only elevates the scores for two fundamental skills that students need in today’s world. In focusing only on these few skills students lose the benefits of a broader education. Some schools in times of budget cuts have had to cut some of their classes so that they can focus on the subject areas dictated by the NCLB. Plus, some schools have done surveys and found out that high school students are lacking knowledge in the subjects of history, civics, and literature. Another point that people disagree with is the fact that the Act is requiring 100% of students, including disadvantaged and those with special needs, within a school to reach the same state standards in reading and math by

The No Child Left Behind Act, which passed Congress with overpowering bipartisan backing in 2001 and was signed into law by President George W. Bush on Jan. 8, 2002, is the name for the latest redesign to the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. The NCLB law which was implemented out of worry that the American educational system was no more globally focused, significantly expanded the government's role in holding schools accountable for the educational achievement of all children. Furthermore, it put an exceptional spotlight on guaranteeing that states and schools help specific groups of children to be academically successful, for instance, English-language learners, Students with Disabilities (SWD), and socioeconomically challenged students, whose academic

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

The law was meant to increase student achievement and to hold states, schools, teachers and students more accountable. How exactly is NCLB changing schools? In, 2005-2006, states were required to test grades 3-8 in reading and math. Shortly after, they added in an annual science test in K-12. A lot of tedious testing grew in schools and is still continuing to grow today. Along with tests came certain standards for each state, as well as consequences for those who failed to meet them. Report Cards were being sent home with the school’s data along with the students’ performance. Teachers were even given higher standards to meet. There was a change in

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

“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

No child left behind does nothing but dishearten the students who are proving to be ahead of the average student from wanting to improve. While the struggling students are simply carried from one grade to the next. The No Child Left Behind Act is great in theory but is too heavily reliant on standardized tests and percentages and not enough about what the students actually learn. Being a survivor of NCLB I have had firsthand experience with this topic and from an above average students point of view it really deterred me from wanting to push myself further and eventually lead to me falling into the average category as my high school career came to an end. Teachers and students treat education with the idea of “just

     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 No Child Left Behind Act. At first glance, this act sounds like all it can do for the educational system is improve it. If no student is left behind then everyone can have equal opportunities right? But if teachers are constantly testing in order to measure progress, then students can be held back. No Child Left Behind Act(NCLB) requires testing in schools in order to help regulate education and to measure how qualified teachers are. Some argue that the NCLB act adds many positive aspects to the educational system. However, the negatives outweigh the positives. The act enforces testing thus limiting the teacher's freedom causing him or her to teach to the test. This form of teaching, in turn, inhibits the student’s creativity.

Opponents of NCLB, which includes all major teachers' unions, allege that the act hasn't been effective in improving education in public education, especially high schools, as evidenced by mixed results in standardized tests. Opponents also claim that standardized testing, which is the heart of NCLB accountability, is deeply flawed and biased for many reasons. That stricter teacher qualifications have exacerbated the nationwide teacher shortage, not provided a stronger teaching force. The NCLB law has set a 2014 deadline for states to make public school students proficient in math and reading, but each state decides how to meet that goal. are from achieving proficiency.

One reason for the creation of the NCLB Act was that the American education system was not internationally competitive. The United States wasn’t producing as well educated students as other countries. When the NCLB Act was signed into law in 2002, the United States was ranked 20th in the world for math on the newest (from 2000) Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) results. In the newest results (from 2015), the U.S. was ranked 40th. Similarly, the U.S fell from 15th to 24th in science, and from 16th to 24th in reading, all over the same fifteen-year period (2000-2015). Some of the higher rated schools, such as Finland, have very few or no standardized tests. Creating more standardized tests doesn’t create a better education system.

Since the No Child Left Behind Act, also known as NCLB, has come into effect, it has caused some concerns with teachers and parents alike on how well it is working for the students. There have been issues that have arisen that needed to be addressed and instead been overlooked when a child does not meet with the school’s standardized testing and is pushed onto the next grade level.

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.

The more the schools or states keep adding more tests doesn't mean that all the students scores will be better. Secondly a way to reduce the testing could be to reduce the overlapping tests. Carvalho a superintendent at the 4th largest school district in the country has also reduced his students from 300 to 10 tests because of how much they overlapped each other. Some schools have started doing this to reduce the amount of overlapping tests they have.The U.S. takes 9 big tests a year but some states have better scores than the U.S. with fewer tests. If other countries can do better with fewer tests, so could the U.S. if we got the better quality tests and get rid of the overlapping ones. If America got rid of their overlapping tests they could make America's economy great again. Another way to may the economy of America better again would be to close the education gap. Based on NCLB the wealthyness of a person could explain their test results. The tests could not account for the poverty that the students may have. For example if a child were not to have a bed to sleep in that day they would be less concern about the test and more about where to sleep. The poverty of a student is not accounted for from the tests and that can decide the students