No Child Left Behind Act
The No Child Left Behind tends to cause neglect to important subjects because they are non-tested subjects, such as Social Studies, Art, health, and Music. With the neglect of these subjects, there is more focusing that’s being done on the tested subjects, like Math and Reading. This may cause a greater impression that NCLB is a positive thing for our educational system but studies show this is misleading to the public. States can set their own standard test score levels and classrooms being able to set their own teaching schedules this can allow room for manipulation of the system. Even though the states have the ability to set their own standards the schools teachers and students who don’t meet these standards have to face the consequences that are set upon them, they do not receive funds needed to improve their educating and even not graduating. The No Child Left Behind Act should be rejected due its negative effects on our students’ teachers and schools. The structure of NCLB encourages schools to focus on certain subjects while neglecting others, thus compromising students’ education in important areas. To find more time for reading and math, Jenning & Rentner (2006) says, 71% of the district are reducing time spent on other subjects in elementary schools-at least to some degree. The focus more on tested subjects such as reading and math should be addressed due to the fact that schools need to keep the children’s interest and in order to do this and get an accurate measurement on the educational level there needs to be more than just tested subjects taught in schools. Neglecting non-tested subjects such as social studies, art, and music could have a negative effect on the educational system, such as losing the child’s interest or a lack of knowledge in these subject that they made need later in life. It is essential to make learning enjoyable as well as knowledgeable. High stakes testing is mandated by the NCLB, the goal of the NCLB is for all students to achieve 100% proficiency in language arts and mathematics by 2014 this is explained by Walden and Kristsonis, (2008), every state sets their own standards of what “proficient” means. (pg.3) Shifting a child’s focus is not the answer, a child should be taught critical thinking as well as test taking skills. Even though these test maybe important, the subjects that they test on should be expanded, a child’s mind should be expanded. The manipulation of the AYP, the standardized tests mandated by the NCLB, can be shown in different ways. Maleyko, G. & Gawlik, M.A. (2011) reported findings by Olson & Jacobson (2006) & Porter, et al (2005) that show comparison of statistical manipulation of the subgroup size. For example; in Florida the subgroup can be as low as 50 students as long as they represent 10% of the school population. (pg.605). The use of smaller groups allows schools or teachers to choose the students taking the test this may result in the choosing of the students that are better in the tested subjects. Studies by Olson & Jacobson (2006) & Porter, el al (2005) demonstrate that there are inconsistent measurement standards across the country, which produces misleading information to the public when it comes to AYP. This misleading information includes the success and failures of schools across the country under the AYP accountability provisions in NCLB. (pg. N/A) The manipulation of these tests and test scores does not necessarily mean that the grades themselves were changed, it may just refer to the altering of the situation to allow for better scores to be made by students. Helping children that need the help, instead of those whole already know the information is also a way to manipulate the system. Another study Houston (2007) tells about the children closest to making the AYP, not the ones needing the most assistance, are the ones receiving the bulk of the attention. (pg.746). Students...
References: Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. A. (2010). The Impact of No Child Left Behind on Students, Teachers, and Schools. Brookings Papers On Economic Activity, 149-194.
Houston, P. D. (2007). The seven deadly sins of no Child Left Behind. (No Child Left Behind Act). Phi Delta Kappan, (10), 744.
Hunt, J. W. (2008). A Nation at Risk and no child left behind: Deja vu for administrators? From the perspective of an administrative career that was bookended by A Nation at Risk and No Child Left Behind, Mr. Hunt assesses the impact of three successive reform movements on the roles of building- and district-level administrators. Phi Delta Kappan, (8), 580
Jennings, J., & Rentner, D. (2006). How public schools are impacted by 'No Child Left Behind '. (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001)(Report). Education Digest, (4), 4.
Maleyko, G., & Gawlik, M. A. (2011). No child left behind: what we know and what we need to know.(Report). Education, (3), 600
Randolph, K., & Wilson-Younger, D. (2012). "Is No Child Left Behind Effective For All Students?" Parents Don 't Think So. Online Submission, ERIC, EBSCOhost.
Stanik, M., & Public Education Network, W. C. (2007). Open to the Public: How Communities, Parents, and Students Assess the Impact of the "No Child Left Behind Act," 2004-2007--"The Realities Left Behind". Public Education Network.
Sources used in my sources:
Porter, A. C., Linn, Li. & Trimble, C. S. (2005). The effects of state decisions about NCLB adequate yearly progress targets. Educational Measurement: Issues and practice, 24(4), 32-39.
Olson, L. & Jacobson, L. (2006). Analysis Finds Minority NCLB Scores Wildly Excluded. Education Week, 25(33), 5.
Please join StudyMode to read the full document