Weaknesss And Strengths Of The No Child Left Behind Act

To many students standardized testing has become another part of schooling that is dreaded. Standardized testing has been a part of school since the nineteen-thirties; in those days it was used as a way to measure students that had special needs. Since the time that standardized test have been in American schools there has been many programs that have placed an importance on the idea of standardized testing such as the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Evans 1). Over the years the importance of standardized testing has increased tremendously and so has the stakes, not only for teachers but also students. All states in the United States of America have state test in order to measure how much students learn, and help tell how well the

Standardized tests are exams that are supposed to measure a child’s academic knowledge but have long been a controversial subject of discussion. Although it is one method to see how a child is performing, is it the best method? Standardized testing can be biased or unfair, inhibit both the teacher’s and the children’s creativity and flexibility, affect funding for schools, cause untested subjects to be eliminated from the curriculum, and cause anxiety for children and teachers.

A never-ending issue has loomed over the head of our nation-- education. According to the Institute of Education Sciences, 63.7% of American students are below proficient in reading and 65.7% in math. In order to improve educational standards and increase student achievement, Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act (also known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act) in 2002. Designed to increase the role of the federal government in education, it holds schools accountable based on how students perform on standardized tests. Statistics show that the average student completes about 110-115 mandatory, standardized tests between pre-kindergarten and end of twelfth grade (an average of eight tests per year). Standardized testing utilizes

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

Standardized testing has become something of a norm under the No Child Left Behind Act. It has left the student and teacher responsible in having high test scores and has forced teachers to teach directly by the curriculum. What standardized testing does do is help develop memory, but at the cost of creativity (Emanuel 9-10). This is the problem behind standardized testing is that it has become linear and obsolete (Emanuel 9-10). It has been noticed by many for example Sir Ken Robinson said,” Testing in principal is a logical way of measuring student knowledge”, but he continues by saying that, “In practice it creates a very dry learning environment”. This shows that the No Child Left Behind Act and standardized testing is not working,

The use of standardized examinations have long been debated in American society. In fact, the last several years have seen an immense shift from the prioritization of standardized testing to more holistic measurements of student achievement. Despite this shift, many school districts across the nation and college/university entrance requirements still place a significant, if not pivotal, emphasis on test-taking and standardized exam results. Throughout this paper, I will explore 1) the history of standardized testing, 2) arguments for and against its practice, as well as 3) situate the consequences of its use in one of the three philosophical goals of schooling. All of this will subsequently paint an investigation into the purpose of schooling in American society.

Jouriles, Greg. “Here’s why we don’t need standardized testing.” Education Week 33.36(2014). 36,40. Web. 22 February 2015.

The purpose of this paper is to address the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) which was signed into law by President Barack Obama in December 10, 2015. The paper will also address the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) which was signed into law by President George W. Bush in 2002. The paper will talk about some of the key components of ESSA in comparison with NCLB and identify some possible strengths and weaknesses in ESSA’s new approach.

What once began as a simple test administered to students yearly to measure understanding of a particular subject has, as Kohn (2000) has stated, “Mutated, like a creature in one of those old horror movies, to the point that it now threatens to swallow our schools whole” (p.1). Today’s students are tested to an extent that is unparalleled in not only the history of our schools, but to the rest of the world as well. Step into any public school classroom across the United States and it will seem as if standardized testing has taken over the curriculum. Day after day teachers stress the importance of being prepared for the upcoming test. Schools spend millions of dollars purchasing the best test preparation materials, sometimes comes at the cost of other important material. Although test

Standardized testing has been around since the mid 1800’s. Even though testing has been around for a long time it is still debated whether or not it should precisely “score” students. Students have been subjected to standardized tests frequently through their years in school due to laws which have been passed by Congress. Decisions about the evaluation of schools and students are recurrently made by government authority and are often not in the best interest of teachers, students, or their classroom environments.

Toward new alternatives for standardized testing while researching text about standardized testing and the effects it has on students, a few authors who wrote articles about the negative impacts standardized testing has and the reality of this issue, particularly articles, books, statistics. These authors often placed the reality of standardized testing they were studying in historical context by discussing the importance of really analyzing standardized testing and the effects it has on students and the educational system. There are many different viewpoints about the issue of standardized testing and the importance of reviewing the testing system and analyzing whether or not it’s a reliable source to measure what students have learned. The goal of this paper is to bring this source into focus of test administrators and their discussions by connecting five different articles to stress the importance of this problem. Standardized testing shouldn’t be used in schools because they damage

Through the creation of the No Child Left Behind initiative in 2001, the government started requiring every state to set content standards for each grade level, as well as develop ways to assess student progress with meeting specified standards (Guide,22). The amount of standardized tests in schools have increased, but not everyone shares the belief that they are effective to students’ overall learning. Therefore, the purpose of this research, is to answer some of the toughest questions regarding standardized testing which include, is standardized testing an effective measurement of student ability? As well as, is standardized testing beneficial to students?

Today, it can be observed that society has shifted education drastically from the time schools were constituted, to now. Throughout history, schools have gone from private, where only the elite can attend, to public schools where virtually anyone can attend. One of the factors that goes along with education is standardized testing. Frederick J. Kelly, father of the standardized test, once said, “These tests are too crude to be used, and should be abandoned.” Not only has this shift occurred within education itself, but it has occurred within the testing concepts found within standardized testing so much so that the founder of these tests has chosen to give up on it.

There are numerous definitions of what a high stakes test is. This is probably due to the fact that its application encompasses educators (teachers and learning institutions), schools, and students. Therefore, in this regard, it is understandable that its authoritative definition differs from one quarter to another. However, according to Wolinsky (2014), a common definition and understanding of high stakes tests refer to testing that has serious implications for the person taking the test. The Glossary of Education Reform (2014) offers another elucidation of what a high stakes test is, stating that it is any test used to arrive at important decisions concerning students, educators, and/or learning institutions. This is further affirmed by Johnson & Johnson (2009; Fair Test, 2014), who state that the decisions emanating from high stakes tests are often life-altering, and may include the denial of a diploma, the repetition of a school grade, and denial of funding or even school closure.

The debate on standardized tests and its adequacy in testing a student’s knowledge about a subject has been going on for many years. Tests, in general, has been around for centuries and without them there would not be progress and no gleams of progress. Students ranging from elementary school to high school have experienced standardized testing. Teachers, educators, and parents are also involved in the students’ lives, which revolves around the tests, one way or another. There are many views on standardized test. However, the three most common views are: educators who are for standardized test which benefits students, educators who are at the other extreme of opposing standardized tests, and educators who view tests are a benefit if done in appropriate amounts.