The Video Discussions : No Child Left Behind

School districts all over the country have undergone countless changes in just a few years. Are these changes for the better? Children in the current school system are faced with numerous tests every year. Why are they being constantly tested? The ceaseless use of standardized testing is a result of the No Child Left Behind Act. Continuous talk about the No Child Left Behind Act can be heard in the hallways of schools nationwide, but why does it matter? The No Child Left Behind Act plays a major role in our students’ education. The students affected by this act is America’s future. Without school making a positive impact on these students, it will be less likely that they will be motivated to make a positive impact on America in the

Not only has the increased amount of testing placed enormous pressure on teachers to perform, but on students as well; the pressure to do well on these assessments is causes young students to suffer from anxiety and stress. Brookside Elementary School in Norwalk, Conn., was just one of the thousands of American public schools classified as failing during the 2010-2011 school year, according to their standardized test scores (Berger). In "Raising the Curve: A Year Inside One of America’s 45,000 Failing Public Schools”, Ron Berler, a journalist who has written for The New York Times and Chicago Tribune, documents the year he spent observing students and educators at Brookside as they struggled to meet the demands of No Child Left Behind. “The

With the NCLB’s focused emphasis on English and math standards, other educational areas such as the arts and sciences have been overlooked. The No Child Left Behind Act also focuses on bringing the lower scores up and not helping in raising the scores of those students who are already at higher levels leaving these higher achieving students behind in a push for equality. Although test scores have risen and the achievement gap between minority and white students has decreased, the No Child Left Behind Act has damaged the United States educational system by not addressing the needs of all students, forcing curricula to exclude arts, civics, foreign language and sciences, and emphasizing testing and not learning. It is time for a change.

Abernathy, Scott Franklin. No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools. U of Michigan P, 2007. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). In this eBook, Scott Franklin Abernathy, an Associate Professor of Political Science and a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Minnesota, presents a balanced critique of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Abernathy argues that all policy makers must ask themselves “Can we ever really know if a child’s education is good?”, rather than assuming any test can accurately measure the elusive thing called a good education. Along with strengths and weakness of NCLB, Abernathy also presents many new models that law makers have been seeking to replace or use

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.

“Accountability is incredibly important for the school systems. People shouldn't fear accountability, they ought to welcome an accountability system as a useful tool to make sure no child is left behind” George Bush quoted. When the No Child Left Behind Act was passed in 2001, president George Bush along with many other people had different expectations at that time. Expectations that included improvement in testing scores, progress increase in grades along with improvement in teachers. For a short period of time this appeared to have worked, however with the course of time it is evident that NCLB has many flaws that have reflected in the outcome.

In an attempt to create educational reform, pieces of legislation like the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) have been passed with the hopes of making schools “accountable” to the children within their walls. Although this piece of legislation was eventually overturned its effects are still being felt within Americas public schools and it is estimated that this generation will be less literate than their precursors (Kohn). Although well intentioned, the NCLB failed schools, teachers, and most importantly students all as a result of one key aspect of the law: high-stakes testing. According to the No Child Left Behind act, all states are required to give standardized tests to their students in the hopes of holding teachers accountable for their scores and ensuring all students become “proficient.” These tests have come to determine whether or not students can graduate, how and what teachers teach, as well as how much funding a school will receive. High-stakes tests can make or break a school, but with all this pressure are kids really showing sizable gains in areas like math, science, or reading? The answer is no and time and time again

The No Child Left Behind Act was the biggest educational step taken by president Bush and his administration. Its main goal included the increase of achievement in education and completely eliminate the gap between different racial and ethnic groups. Its strategies had a major focus on uplifting test scores in schools, hiring “highly qualified teachers” and deliver choices in education. Unluckily, the excessive demands of the law have not succeeded in achieving the goals that were set, and have caused multiple opposing consequences. These unintended consequences affect students negatively which are who the law is most intended in helping. These consequences include a high focus on the low‐level skills which are reflected on high stakes tests; bad assessment of students who have English as a second language and students with special needs; and compelling incentives to eliminate students who score very low from school, so the test scores are achieved to their full potential and their goal (Darling‐Hammond, 2007).

Another issue arising for students developing educationally in a high-stakes testing environment is the overwhelming consensus of the failures associated with the testing in meeting the needs of the economically disadvantaged and the students with special needs. As high-stakes testing became the prevalent norm for Texas and the U.S, supporters were adamant that this testing provide new opportunities for those students in the highest risk of failure. This new level of accountability would reportedly help struggling schools better meet the needs of their students, however the results have not proven favorable (Tim Walker, 2014). Even before NCLB legislation nationally, as high school students were required to pass an exam for graduation, the retention rates for minority and economically disadvantaged students began to soar. In a 2003 article in the journal of the Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development, authors Amrein and Berliner report “Many teachers retain students if they doubt their potential to pass the TAAS the following year” (Amrein & Berliner, 2003). The fact that minority and economically disadvantaged students have been retained at alarming rates in the state of Texas has not gone unnoticed around the nation. Critics have used this to show the lack of effectiveness of testing on actually increasing students’ knowledge base (Amanda Walker, 2005). Often, economically students, with minimal opportunities for outside intellectual growth, have been

In the case of No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is politics the enemy of problem solving? By examining selected political controversies surrounding NCLB, it will be demonstrated that politics is the enemy. Since NCLB’s enactment, vast amounts of research literature and news stories have been published on its effects, which demonstrates the impact and debate generated by this law. The major goals of this bipartisan legislation were to improve student performance through standardized testing by using data from annual test scores to measure each students’ and schools’ progress; to close the achievement gap between disadvantaged students and their better-off counterparts; and to hold teachers and schools accountable. All these actions were to

The No Child Left behind Act was implemented in 2002. Since then, the achievement gap has decreased in some areas. Test scores have increased for some students. Struggling schools have received extra help and more resources to raise student achievement. Students have also been offered wrap-around services, such as free tutoring to address learning deficits. Furthermore, the No Child Left Behind Act has had many failures as well. The NCLB was supposed to increase students’ performance academically and all students were expected to perform at the proficiency level by 2013-2014. Most states have failed to meet 100 percent of that requirement. I’ve recently seen the scores from the Milestone Test from last year, most of the students that I am

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act has become a large, nationwide issue, since President George Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002, giving the schools the responsibility to keep every student’s academic achievement at a passing level. (Florida Department of Education; 2003; pg. 1) Each state had twelve years to have all students proficient in reading and math, which gave each state less than a year to create a plan. (Kim & Sunderman; 2004; pg. 19) Title I, which is included in this act, began in 1965 when the Elementary and Secondary Education Act was passed, which gave federal funds to help academically struggling students. (North

Many states and school districts mandate testing programs to gather data about student achievement over time and to hold schools and students accountable. Certain uses of achievement test results are termed “high-stakes” if they carry serious consequences for students or educators. Schools may be judged according to the school-wide average scores for their students. High school-wide scores may bring public praise or financial rewards; low scores may bring public embarrassment or heavy sanctions. For individual students, high scores may bring a special diploma attesting to exceptional academic accomplishment; low scores may result in students being held back in grade or denied a high school diploma. (Marchant, 2004, p. 2)

We, as a country, have some of the lowest scoring in international tests in reading, math, and science when compared to several other countries. In order to improve education in America, we have to go to the root of our problem in the school system and find better ways to enforce new rules and regulations that wouldn’t be detrimental to both students, schools, and educators alike. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is having a negative effect on our education system because it reduces the choices of schools for parents, and the distribution of qualified teachers. It also has a negative impact on the amount that kids are able to learn in school.

Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob created an article that examined the impacts of this policy towards public schools. Their studies found that many resources are being robbed from classrooms to shift the focus of students and teachers to statewide testing. Their article also suggests that No Child Left Behind has created a widespread amount of manipulation in testing. “High-stakes testing may lead school personnel to intentionally manipulate student test scores” (Thomas Dee, 2010). Another key element derived from this extensive research study is the theory that a vast amount of instruction time is being wasted, prepping students for standardized testing. These statistics and theories help cultivate the belief that this is a failed policy worthy of