Critical Analysis of the No Child Left Behind Act - Research Paper Example

?The No Child Left Behind Act: Boon or Bane? Education is considered to be a right and not a privilege. Children deserve high quality education to prepare them in their future as contributing citizens to society. The government of the United States of America has been known to be an advocate of education for all. However, in realization that the educational standard of the US is struggling to be at par with its international competitors, politicians have held certain assumptions as follows: • Students are unmotivated and need more immediate consequences tied to their learning. • Teachers are either inadequately skilled or lack the motivation to inspire students to higher levels of learning. • Local communities, school board members, and superintendents do not know what their students should be learning or to what degree they should be learning it. • Accountability through testing will pressure the system to improve. (Ramirez: 205) Thus, the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was signed into law in January, 2002 to replace the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). The NCLB upholds four main principles that envisions the following outcomes: (1) stronger accountability for student academic performance, i.e., tougher state standards for students; (2) increased flexibility and local control over school operations i.e., flexibility in the way states spend federal dollars; (3) expanded school choice options for parents, i.e., parental choice in those schools labeled as ‘chronically’ failing schools; and (4) an emphasis on effective teaching methods, i.e., focusing resources in proven ‘research-based’ approaches (Gibbons and Paige as cited in Gardiner, Canfield-Davis & Anderson: 143). In an effort to raise the standard of education in the United States, the NCLB required public schools to test all third and eighth-grade students annually in Reading and Mathematics and to sort test results by race, socioeconomic status, disability and English proficiency. This is to identify where achievement gaps are prevalent. NCLB targets the end of the 2013-2014 schoolyear to have all students become proficient in both Reading and Math (Ravitch: 5). Consequences for schools that do not show progress towards NCLB’s goals of 100% proficiency in all groups identified (racial, economic, ability and English proficiency groups) are stringent. If the school continues to fail to make its “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) for any group, their students are given an option to either leave the school or enroll elsewhere. On its third year of failure, the students are entitled to free tutorial sessions after school hours. If in the following years, the school still continues to fare poorly, then government may convert it into one run by private management or turn the school into a chartered school, dismissing all its staff and turning it over to the state (Ravitch: 5). Thus far, NCLB has provided disappointing results, earning the criticism of many. In 2009, Ravitch reports that the latest release of scores from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) showed no evidence of the effectiveness of NCLB because no significant improvement was noticed in the scores. Achievement gaps between groups of students were still maintained. U.S. students scored well behind their international counterparts in Asian countries. Math and Science scores improved since these were the subjects emphasized by the curriculum in preparation for the national tests, however, Science scores lagged behind. This proves that since NCLB only considered Math and English as the basic subjects that students needed to be proficient in, it has neglected to give attention to non-tested subjects such as Science, History, Civics, the Arts and geography (Ravitch:5) Achievement gaps still persist notwithstanding NCLB’s mandate to upgrade educational standards for all students. Finkel (n.pag) analyses why Black students still get left behind their white peers in achievement rates, blaming it on hostile and alienating environments. More and more black students drop out of school due to poor academic performance, behavior problems or poverty. Finkel says Jim Freeman, the project director with Advancement Project’s Ending the Schoolhouse to Jailhouse Track project, identified exclusionary discipline and high-stakes testing and tracking have demotivated Black students and they are punished because of their low performance rather than helped. When they are suspended from school, they lose much time from it, missing out on several lessons and pushing them further back in performance. Finkel advises that instead of punitive discipline, schools should focus more on prevention and intervention techniques to help these low performing students to become better achievers. The NCLB has put pressure on school leaders and teachers to perform better so they can deliver high quality education enabling the students to achieve more especially during the national testing period. This is expected more of principals of schools with multicultural students. Gardiner, Canfield-Davis & Anderson’s study of urban school principals of multicultural settings revealed that principals found it challenging to create learning environments that promote social justice and equity because they are pressured to teach the students with the aim of passing the test instead of purely learning. The principals believed that successful learning ensues in student engagement in cooperative learning, self-directed learning, metacognition, planning, reasoning, and problem solving activities (156). However, NCLB exacerbates the situation by forcing administrators and teachers to focus on test scores rather than the student and helping at-risk subpopulations who are linguistically, socio-emotionally and culturally diverse by segregating them from the rest of the class. These were thought to raise achievement scores in order to prove that NCLB is successful (156). On the contrary, the principals believe that segregating students of marginalized groups is disadvantageous for all students since they lose “opportunities to learn, appreciate and communicate effectively with people who have different values, beliefs and cultural practices, a necessity in today’s global economy” (Gardiner, Canfield-Davis & Anderson: 157). In helping students from inclusive settings, the strategy of co-teaching has become more popular. According to Keefe & Moore, co-teaching is a collaboration effort between a general education teacher and a special education teacher (77) and their goals are to increase the opportunities and instructional options for students and enhance the participation and performance of students with disabilities (Mastiopieri, Scruggs, Graetz, Norland, Gardizi & Mc Duffie: 261). Positive outcomes have been reported for students who attend classes with co-teaching arrangements. Children with disabilities lose the stigma of being learning disabled as they are encouraged to blend with the typically-developing students. Even the co-teachers gain much advantage in working together because they learn more from each other and become challenged to do better. However, the emphasis on testing by NCLB negatively affects co-teaching strategies because teachers get pressured to cover required material even if mastery of one topic has not yet been reached by the students. Such breezing through topics decrease the amount of differential instruction, leaving behind students with learning disabilities lagging in understanding (Nichols, Dowdy & Nichols: 649). Another angle discovered from a survey of twenty-four school districts is that co-teaching models are initiated to meet the mandates of NCLB of having highly qualified teachers in each classroom. Schools then, turn to co-teaching of a highly qualified teacher with a less qualified one and together, they both are considered highly qualified, meeting the standard set by NCLB. The pressure of NCLB on educators extends to the curriculum. Since it has emphasized Math and English subjects, other subjects like Science and Social Studies take a back seat, more so with the Arts and Physical Education subjects. Doing away with Art takes much out of a high quality curriculum because according to Dewey, arts education develops creativity, self-expression and an appreciation of the expression of others (cited in Vasquez Heilig, Cole & Aguilar: 136). High-stakes testing and accountability expected by NCLB have put scores on standardized tests as the priority in the educator’s mind, allotting more instructional time for reading, language arts and math and leaving other subjects with less time (136). The loss of art in the curriculum during the current high-stakes testing era is pathetic since art is something that provides an alternative means to view reality, expand the way students perceive the world and often has immediately unobservable benefits (137). Dewey’s theorized that children need authentic education that allows them to grow in all developmental areas and provides them with opportunities to be creative and critical thinkers. Limiting the curriculum to academic subjects and sorting out non-academic and creative subjects such as arts, music and physical education creates an imbalance in the children’s development. On a more foundational level, the NCLB has also impacted the curriculum of early childhood education, ruling out play and stressing more academic endeavours to prepare young children in developing testing skills. Ranz-Smith asks, “Has the current national effort to guarantee that our children achieve skills that seem developmentally significant at certain ages replaced and discounted our concern that we be developmentally appropriate?” (273). The NCLB has intensified the debate about the contrasting educational approaches of traditional (didactic/ teacher-initiated) and progressive (responsive, child-initiated) methods in the education of the young. Stipek, Daniels, Galluzo & Milburn claim that “Learning theorists tend to advocate the early introduction of basic skills using teacher-directed, didactic instructional approaches … emphasizing recitation and memorization,” whereas “child development experts who are guided by constructivist theories of child development advocate a ‘child-centered’ approach that emphasizes child-initiated learning activities” (2). It seems NCLB has given more power to the former, the traditional methods wherein teachers impart basic skills and introduce academic concepts much earlier than the children may be ready for. This implies that child-centered activities that revolve around play are not given much importance as play may be seen as a distraction to more serious learning. Such educators endorsing more teacher-directed methods do not consider that play is one effective tool in engaging children’s motivation to learn and if this is overpowered by “work” as represented by doing routinary worksheets and board work and little else, then the fire for genuine learning, in a way that is more natural to children through play, may be extinguished. In essence, Smyth believes that educators have now discovered that the great plan that is NCLB is flawed and developmentally inappropriate (133). It is to be remembered that this law was drafted in view of the need for higher and tougher standards in education. However, the main effect was for educators to teach for the test in order to pass and be considered high performing. Such effect defeats the purpose of upgrading the standard of education because it eliminates the opportunity of educators to teach students higher-order thinking skills (Darling-Hammond: 1079). On the part of teachers, it reduces their creativity, innovative instruction, use of varied teaching strategies for diverse students and teacher and student motivation (Smyth: 134). Some critics passionately cry for the elimination of NCLB due to the evidences of failure and negative impact on the teaching-learning process. For one, Ravitch believes that it is a failed law that “dumbs down” students by merely focusing on Reading and Mathematics and ignoring everything else. This move does not thoroughly prepare young people to be globally competitive with high-performing nations due to their lack of skills. It does not prepare the youth to survive in an increasingly complex society once they step out of school. Politically, it has usurped state and local control of education (6). On the other hand, hopeful educators such as Gordon and Reese offer their recommendations in ameliorating the negative effects of the tests mandated by NCLB as follows: Dialogues regarding the preparation for side effects of high-stakes tests should be engaged in by lawmakers, assessment experts and school administrators. Staff development understanding the true purpose standardized testing and preparation of students for it must be provided to teachers. Curriculum should retain other important subjects apart from Reading and Math in order to deliver a complete educational package that would develop students’ concept formation and academic, critical and creative skills. Instead of totally relying on test results, educators should establish a variety of indicators of student achievement including various authentic assessment activities. The scores derived from standardized achievement tests should only be one of many school performance indicators of students. State personnel, educational associations and local educators should collaborate in disseminating information to the media and local communities the limitations of high stakes testing as the sole indicator of school and student achievement (365-366). Conclusion Implications of NCLB’s pressure to raise scores in national and international standardized tests may have begun with lofty ideals and noble aims to raise the standard of education of the US. However, its implementation came with threats to schools to “shape up or ship out”. It was a desperate attempt to bully educators in delivering the desired results of their students gaining high achievement scores to prove that American education is at par, if not better than its international counterparts. The consequences of such expectations made educational goals shallow instead of deep and meaningful. Rather than providing education that empowers an individual with true and authentic learning from relevant educational experiences and complementary subject areas, the curriculum was suddenly stripped of depth in content and instead, drilled students with mathematical problems and English language exercises. Who is left to suffer the consequences but the children themselves? The No Child Left Behind Act is ironic in a sense that it leaves many children behind grappling with achievement gaps. It is hoped that the negative impact caused by NCLB’s push for educators to comply to its stringent rules still be reversed to realize the intended bright vision of upgrading American education to the high quality all children deserve. High quality should not be confused with high quantity. High test scores do not determine a students’ success. True learning from a high quality educational experience does. Works Cited Darling-Hammond, L. “Standards, accountability, and school reform” Teachers College Record 106 (6): (2004):1047–85. Dewey, J. Art as experience. New York: Penguin. 1934. Finkel, Ed. “Black Children Still Left Behind” District Administration (2010): 26- 33. Gardiner, Mary E., Kathy Canfield-Davis and Keith LeMar Anderson. “Urban School Principals and the No Child Left Behind Act” Urban Review 41 (2009): 141-60 Gibbons, J. & Paige, R. “Guide to education and No Child Left Behind” 03/12/11 Gordon, S., and M. Reese.. “High stakes testing: Worth the price?” Journal of School Leadership 7.4 (1997): 345–68. Keefe, B., & Moore, V. “The challenge of co-teaching in inclusive classrooms at the high school level and what the teachers told us.” American Secondary Education, 32,11-1 (2004) Nichols, Joe, Alana Dowdy and Candy Nichols. “Co-Teaching: An Educational Promise for Children with Disabilities or a Quick Fix to meet the mandates of No Child Left Behind?” Education 130(4) :647-51 Mastropieri, M., Scruggs, T., Graetz, J., Gardizi, W., Norland, J., Gardizi, W., and McDuffie, K. “Case study in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures, and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40.5 (2005): 260-270. Ramirez, A. “Assessment-driven reform: The emperor still has no clothes”. Phi Delta Kappan 81.3 (1999) :204–8. Ranz-Smith, Deborah J. “Teacher Perception of Play: In Leaving No Child Behind are Teachers leaving Childhood behind?” Early Education & Development 18(2) (2007): 271-303 Ravitch, Diane. “Time to Kill No Child Left Behind.” Education Week 28 (2009) Soublis Smyth, Theoni. “Who is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?” The Clearing House 81(3) (2008): 133-37. Stipek, D., Daniels, D., Galluzzo, D., & Milburn, S. “Characterizing early childhood education programs for poor and middle-class children.” Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 7(1), (1992):1–19. Vasquez Heilig, Julian, Heather Cole and Angelica Aguilar. “From Dewey to No Child Left Behind: The Evolution and Devolution of Public Arts Education.” Arts Education Policy Review 111 (2010): 136-45 Read More