Having only really followed politics seriously for the past 4-5 years are so, I don't really understand what No Child Left Behind was designed to do. I just know it's overwhelmingly looked down on by everyone (liberals and conservatives). I have a few questions: * What's the goal of NCLB? * What were the standards before NCLB was instituted? * Why is it such a failure?
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 was proposed by President Bush is considered one of the most sweeping educational reforms of our time. It's goal was to improve primary and secondary education by making the individual states, school districts and schools more accountable for their quality of education, as well as allowing parents more of a say in where their children attend school. To achieve these goals it standards-based educational reform which operates under the principle that establishing high standards along with measurable goals can improve the quality of education. It mandated that in order for a state to get federal funds it had to develop basic skill assessment tests at certain grade levels. Minimum academic standards would be set by the individual states. In addition, standards were also applied to teachers who were required to pass rigorous tests in their area of expertise. From 2001-2007 the federal funding for education was increased from $2 billion to $54 billion. The teachers unions, which have consistently opposed any attempt at education reform, have strongly opposed NCLB. They did not like the tests, the consequences to teachers who consistently failed to meet the standards, and they did not like the idea of parents giving more say in what schools their children attended. The first results came out in 2005 and showed that nine-year-olds made more progress in reading skills in the previous five years than in the 28 years prior. Also, in regards to African-Americans and Hispanics, nine-year-olds reached an all-time high. Achievement gaps between white and Hispanic nine-year-olds were at an all-time low. Critics argued that the stats were misleading since they compare 2005 with 2000 when NCLB did not take effect until 2003. If fact, it was implemented in 2002. Critics also point out that the increase in scores between 2000 and 2003 was about the same as those between 2003 and 2005. There are also criticisms to the very idea of standardized tests which could led to teachers "teaching the test" rather than focusing on deeper understandings of the subject matter. But despite these criticisms many states supported NCLB because local standards had failed to provide adquate oversight over special education. States throughout the nation have shown improvements as a result of NCLB. Supporters of NCLB also claim that the legislation encourages teacher accountability, offers parents greater educational options for their children and helps close the achievement gap between white and minority children.
Bush modeled NCLB after Texas' extensive standardized testing system. Last year, I lost no fewer than 25 instructional days with my students to district, state, and NCLB-mandated testing. That's five weeks, folks! Perhaps, I could've, I don't know, TAUGHT something during those five weeks... The problem with touting how well NCLB has "closed the achievement gap" is that each state sets its own standards, and some states are placing the bar very, very low. I believe I read where Mississippi was killing it under NCLB, but the standards were well below that of other states. In Texas, NCLB is all about ESL kiddos. And, basically, it's just a lot more paperwork for all involved and has zip to do with actually teaching the kids. The other real problem I have with NCLB is the very essence of the fact that it sets minimum standards. What about kids who are already performing at or above grade level? It leaves THOSE kids behind, as well. But who's really worried about those populations, right?
NCLB= 1.5 inches of homework every Monday, 3 inches for a week off. 12 hours of charted reading per week and an apple. That was for a 6 year old. I cannot speak for the elder chirins. Parents beware...
that is my problem with it. i have friends here who are teachers and it is their belief that children are actually learning less because so much time has to be placed on how to test. imo, its nothing more than a beaureaucratic cluster that takes away from actual teaching/learning.
For every low-achiever that "No-child" boosts, there is an achieving student that it hangs an anchor on. Better to stratify education so that average students get the regular curriculum, low-achievers get extra attention, and high-achievers get extra challenges. Making them all meet the same standards in the same class handicaps them all. Teachers should be held accountable for student progress, but give them more resources, not more paperwork.
And for several decades, this has been the issue no one ever wants to talk about--tracking students (i.e. ability grouping.) I prefer them to be grouped by ability, though, because it's easier to meet their needs, but with inclusion of all special ed populations, etc. into classrooms, tracking became obsolete. Even in my honors classes, which should be grouped by "high" honors (g/t) and "regular" honors, there is a wide variance in ability. FWIW, in my honors classes, I teach towards the top of my students' abilities. That meets the needs of the top students, and the weaker students still get what they need. That only works, though, because those kids know how to read and write and speak English. If they didn't, they would just be lost.
I had no idea about this part. I thought the mandate was federal and therefor standardized by them. No wonder it doesn't seem to be working. Well intentioned no doubt, but doesn't sound to be very well executed.
Not only are the standards not an across the board, nationwide mandate, there is not federal funding, either. It's all up to the states and individual districts.
