No Child Left Behind
What Is It, and What Does It Mean for American Education?
The No Child Left Behind Act is the name given to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Signed and endorsed by the Bush administration, NCLB attempts to improve American education by outlining a number of new regulations. These regulations target students in impoverished districts and neighborhoods, aiming to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. According to Wallace and Steptoe, authors of Time Magazine’s 2007 article How to Fix No Child Left Behind, some major requirements for public schools nationwide include:
Ø Yearly assessments of student progress in reading and math in 3rd through 8th grades, as well as once in high school
Ø Three assessments of student progress in science, from 3rd grade through high school
Ø Assessments developed at the state level; generally a standardized, multiple choice exam
Ø Test results must be published, and broken down by specific ethnic and ability groups, or else the school will lose federal funding
Ø Schools must reach certain levels of annual yearly progress (AYP) which serves as proof of student improvement
Ø Schools failing to make AYP must provide the following:
o After 2 years: offer students the opportunity to transfer out
o After 3 years: provide tutoring
o After 5 years: school must be restructured, with changes in staff, curriculum, or other measures
Ø Teachers must meet certain qualifications to be deemed high-quality (HQT)
These reflect some main measures included in NCLB. Wallace and Steptoe also assert that most parents and educators applaud the effort to eliminate the achievement gap between white and minority students, a goal set for 2014. However, the approaches utilized to achieve this currently face scrutiny, with many educators, parents, and administrators looking to improve the Act. This monumental educational Act results in a number of implications for students, teachers, and administrators.
One of main concerns regarding NCLB is what precisely it means for students. According to the Illinois State Board of Education, progress is measured through AYP at the school level (2007). This does not account for individual student progress, not to mention those progressing, but still below recommended grade level achievement. Wallace and Steptoe describe a student who improved four grade levels in reading in a year, yet remained below grade level. When such students receive failing results on their standardized tests, they could easily feel discouraged and that their efforts were meaningless (2007). In addition, Wallace and Steptoe point out how schools trying to increase their students’ achievement often focus primarily on those quite close to state standards. NCLB does not provide much for those severely below or greatly above that standard (2007). In this sense, those quite far behind are likely to get lost in the classroom as teachers work with those demonstrating the greatest progress potential. Particularly gifted students are not encouraged further, possibly causing decreased interest and passion for learning. Wallace and Steptoe reveal another implication for students. In order to ensure high scores on standardized tests, teachers must explicitly teach test content (2007). Since most standardized tests are multiple choice, students are often taught only to memorize, not to apply or critically consider knowledge. This appears to be a meaningless form of education since students will not be well-prepared to utilize their learning. Additionally, NCLB insists on progress evaluation for math and reading every year, and three times for science. As a result, subjects like social studies, art, P.E., and even science, are taking a back seat to math and reading. In fact, Trickey reveals the startling results of a study by Martin West of Brown University (2006). In this study, conducted from 1999 to 2004, West found reading classes had increased 40 minutes, whereas social studies and science lost 17 and 23 minutes, respectively. Rather than organizing additional programs for students struggling with math or reading, West’s study shows that all students are given less exposure to other, perhaps equally important subjects. Another less-discussed implication of NCLB is that it authorizes military recruiter access to student names, addresses, and telephone numbers. According to an article by the Military Free Zone website, schools receiving funding under the Provisions Act of Title I are obligated to give this information to military recruiters in order receive funding. This is unknown to many students and parents. The Military Free Zone site also mentioned that some parents do not agree with this stipulation and are refusing to provide that information, leading to decreased funding.
Some of the greatest challenges set forth by NCLB must be accomplished by the teachers within their classrooms. As previously mentioned, many teachers are compelled to teach test content rather than overall concepts, ideas, and their corresponding applications. If a certain teacher does not adequately prepare his or her students for the exam, and the school fails to make AYP 5 years in a row, NCLB allows staffing changes (Wallace and Steptoe 2007). This means a teacher capable of inspiring critical thought could be replaced by a teacher focusing primarily on test content. Altogether, this seems counter-productive, since the goal of testing should be to ascertain student knowledge, not to dictate course content. Teachers are forced to balance curriculum content and test preparation. For teachers working hard to elevate their students to state standards, there may be incentives. For example, Levitt, author of Freakonomics, notes that teachers whose students perform well may be “praised, promoted, and even richer.” Levitt also reveals that at one time, California gave $25,000 bonuses to teachers responsible for remarkable test score improvement (2005). Another major implication for teachers under NCLB is the demand for high quality teachers (HQT). According to a U.S. 2004 Department of Education Fact Sheet, a highly qualified teacher is one that has “1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.” In order to prove their competency, teachers at the middle and high school level must have “1) a major in the subject they teach, 2) credits equivalent to a major in the subject, 3) passage of a state-developed test, 4) HOUSSE [High, Objective, Uniform State Standards of Evaluation], 5) an advanced certification from the state, or 6) a graduate degree.” These requirements appear reasonable, especially to students completing their teacher education program. In addition, the Department of Education Fact Sheet asserts that fully competent teachers possessing years of experience are not required to leave their jobs and attend school. Instead, they must demonstrate HOUSSE as an alternative measure of their competency (2004).
Lastly, every district’s administration must make decisions that ensure NCLB’s requirements are met. Unfortunately, according to Winerip’s New York Times article Standardized Tests Face a Crisis Over Standards, some states addressed the large number of schools failing to make AYP by making the standardized test less demanding of the students (2006). In this way, the state’s scores are artificially inflated. Further, since the scores are artificially high, funding for programs providing additional assistance for these students may not be available, because the schools would not seem to need it. As representatives of their schools, and intermediates between schools and testing agencies, administrators can work with policy-makers to ensure this does not happen. Sadly, Winerip (2006) describes how many states switch to entirely multiple-choice exams in order to save money. He reveals, “It costs a test company 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question.” Since administrators work to revise school budgets, they must decide to preserve exam rigor or to allocate funds elsewhere. According to Wallace and Steptoe (2007), when a school fails to make AYP after two years, it is required to allow students to transfer out. Administrators must also allocate budget money to cover busing for these students, taking away from funds to increase program quality. Money for education is supposed to come from the federal government. Nine cents out of every federal dollar is allotted to the nation’s education, though many schools do not actually see much of that funding (Wallace and Steptoe 2007). Lastly, administrators must communicate with the school community, so that students, parents, and teachers understand the consequences of this legislature. At times, sifting through the lengthy and wordy components of NCLB can be frustrating. Administrators could endorse programs to inform the school community about the changes and implications of NCLB. By making terms and numbers relevant, administrators can generate support and ideas to cope with NCLB’s requirements.
Overall, NCLB reflects the desire to improve achievement in struggling students. Most of the problems arising from this legislation relate to the manner in which requirements are met by each school. Hopefully, with time, adjustments can be made to increase its effectiveness without harming students greatly above or dangerously below state standards.
Sources Cited:
Illinois State Board of Education (2007). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Annual Yearly Progress. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://www.isbe.net/ayp/default.htm.
Levitt, S. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York. William Morrow. 2005.
What Is It, and What Does It Mean for American Education?
The No Child Left Behind Act is the name given to the 2001 Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Signed and endorsed by the Bush administration, NCLB attempts to improve American education by outlining a number of new regulations. These regulations target students in impoverished districts and neighborhoods, aiming to close the achievement gap between white and minority students. According to Wallace and Steptoe, authors of Time Magazine’s 2007 article How to Fix No Child Left Behind, some major requirements for public schools nationwide include:
Ø Yearly assessments of student progress in reading and math in 3rd through 8th grades, as well as once in high school
Ø Three assessments of student progress in science, from 3rd grade through high school
Ø Assessments developed at the state level; generally a standardized, multiple choice exam
Ø Test results must be published, and broken down by specific ethnic and ability groups, or else the school will lose federal funding
Ø Schools must reach certain levels of annual yearly progress (AYP) which serves as proof of student improvement
Ø Schools failing to make AYP must provide the following:
o After 2 years: offer students the opportunity to transfer out
o After 3 years: provide tutoring
o After 5 years: school must be restructured, with changes in staff, curriculum, or other measures
Ø Teachers must meet certain qualifications to be deemed high-quality (HQT)
These reflect some main measures included in NCLB. Wallace and Steptoe also assert that most parents and educators applaud the effort to eliminate the achievement gap between white and minority students, a goal set for 2014. However, the approaches utilized to achieve this currently face scrutiny, with many educators, parents, and administrators looking to improve the Act. This monumental educational Act results in a number of implications for students, teachers, and administrators.
One of main concerns regarding NCLB is what precisely it means for students. According to the Illinois State Board of Education, progress is measured through AYP at the school level (2007). This does not account for individual student progress, not to mention those progressing, but still below recommended grade level achievement. Wallace and Steptoe describe a student who improved four grade levels in reading in a year, yet remained below grade level. When such students receive failing results on their standardized tests, they could easily feel discouraged and that their efforts were meaningless (2007). In addition, Wallace and Steptoe point out how schools trying to increase their students’ achievement often focus primarily on those quite close to state standards. NCLB does not provide much for those severely below or greatly above that standard (2007). In this sense, those quite far behind are likely to get lost in the classroom as teachers work with those demonstrating the greatest progress potential. Particularly gifted students are not encouraged further, possibly causing decreased interest and passion for learning. Wallace and Steptoe reveal another implication for students. In order to ensure high scores on standardized tests, teachers must explicitly teach test content (2007). Since most standardized tests are multiple choice, students are often taught only to memorize, not to apply or critically consider knowledge. This appears to be a meaningless form of education since students will not be well-prepared to utilize their learning. Additionally, NCLB insists on progress evaluation for math and reading every year, and three times for science. As a result, subjects like social studies, art, P.E., and even science, are taking a back seat to math and reading. In fact, Trickey reveals the startling results of a study by Martin West of Brown University (2006). In this study, conducted from 1999 to 2004, West found reading classes had increased 40 minutes, whereas social studies and science lost 17 and 23 minutes, respectively. Rather than organizing additional programs for students struggling with math or reading, West’s study shows that all students are given less exposure to other, perhaps equally important subjects. Another less-discussed implication of NCLB is that it authorizes military recruiter access to student names, addresses, and telephone numbers. According to an article by the Military Free Zone website, schools receiving funding under the Provisions Act of Title I are obligated to give this information to military recruiters in order receive funding. This is unknown to many students and parents. The Military Free Zone site also mentioned that some parents do not agree with this stipulation and are refusing to provide that information, leading to decreased funding.
Some of the greatest challenges set forth by NCLB must be accomplished by the teachers within their classrooms. As previously mentioned, many teachers are compelled to teach test content rather than overall concepts, ideas, and their corresponding applications. If a certain teacher does not adequately prepare his or her students for the exam, and the school fails to make AYP 5 years in a row, NCLB allows staffing changes (Wallace and Steptoe 2007). This means a teacher capable of inspiring critical thought could be replaced by a teacher focusing primarily on test content. Altogether, this seems counter-productive, since the goal of testing should be to ascertain student knowledge, not to dictate course content. Teachers are forced to balance curriculum content and test preparation. For teachers working hard to elevate their students to state standards, there may be incentives. For example, Levitt, author of Freakonomics, notes that teachers whose students perform well may be “praised, promoted, and even richer.” Levitt also reveals that at one time, California gave $25,000 bonuses to teachers responsible for remarkable test score improvement (2005). Another major implication for teachers under NCLB is the demand for high quality teachers (HQT). According to a U.S. 2004 Department of Education Fact Sheet, a highly qualified teacher is one that has “1) a bachelor's degree, 2) full state certification or licensure, and 3) prove that they know each subject they teach.” In order to prove their competency, teachers at the middle and high school level must have “1) a major in the subject they teach, 2) credits equivalent to a major in the subject, 3) passage of a state-developed test, 4) HOUSSE [High, Objective, Uniform State Standards of Evaluation], 5) an advanced certification from the state, or 6) a graduate degree.” These requirements appear reasonable, especially to students completing their teacher education program. In addition, the Department of Education Fact Sheet asserts that fully competent teachers possessing years of experience are not required to leave their jobs and attend school. Instead, they must demonstrate HOUSSE as an alternative measure of their competency (2004).
Lastly, every district’s administration must make decisions that ensure NCLB’s requirements are met. Unfortunately, according to Winerip’s New York Times article Standardized Tests Face a Crisis Over Standards, some states addressed the large number of schools failing to make AYP by making the standardized test less demanding of the students (2006). In this way, the state’s scores are artificially inflated. Further, since the scores are artificially high, funding for programs providing additional assistance for these students may not be available, because the schools would not seem to need it. As representatives of their schools, and intermediates between schools and testing agencies, administrators can work with policy-makers to ensure this does not happen. Sadly, Winerip (2006) describes how many states switch to entirely multiple-choice exams in order to save money. He reveals, “It costs a test company 50 cents to $5 to score an essay, compared with pennies for each multiple-choice question.” Since administrators work to revise school budgets, they must decide to preserve exam rigor or to allocate funds elsewhere. According to Wallace and Steptoe (2007), when a school fails to make AYP after two years, it is required to allow students to transfer out. Administrators must also allocate budget money to cover busing for these students, taking away from funds to increase program quality. Money for education is supposed to come from the federal government. Nine cents out of every federal dollar is allotted to the nation’s education, though many schools do not actually see much of that funding (Wallace and Steptoe 2007). Lastly, administrators must communicate with the school community, so that students, parents, and teachers understand the consequences of this legislature. At times, sifting through the lengthy and wordy components of NCLB can be frustrating. Administrators could endorse programs to inform the school community about the changes and implications of NCLB. By making terms and numbers relevant, administrators can generate support and ideas to cope with NCLB’s requirements.
Overall, NCLB reflects the desire to improve achievement in struggling students. Most of the problems arising from this legislation relate to the manner in which requirements are met by each school. Hopefully, with time, adjustments can be made to increase its effectiveness without harming students greatly above or dangerously below state standards.
Sources Cited:
Illinois State Board of Education (2007). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Annual Yearly Progress. Retrieved October 22, 2007, from http://www.isbe.net/ayp/default.htm.
Levitt, S. Freakonomics: A Rogue Economist Explores the Hidden Side of Everything. New York. William Morrow. 2005.
Trickey, Helyn. (2006). No Child Left out of the Dodgeball Game? Retrieved October 16, 2007, from http://www.cnn.com/2006/HEALTH/08/20/PE.NCLB/index.html.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). New No Child Left Behind Flexibility: Highly Qualified Teachers Fact Sheet. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from http://www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/teachers/hqtflexibility.html.
Wallace, C. & Steptoe, S. (2007, May 24). How to fix No Child Left Behind. Time Magazine, Retrieved October 18, 2007, from http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625192,00.html.
Winerip, M. (2006, March 22). Standardized tests face a crisis over standards. The New York Times. Retrieved October 19, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/education/22education.html?pagewanted=1.