School Reformation Policies - Essay Example

School Reformation Policies Introduction The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy of education reformation is touted by the Bush administration as the hallmark of its achievements with regard to internal policies. Signed into law by the then president George W. Bush in January 23rd 2001, the No Child Left Behind policy is basically a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. According to Stecher, Vernez and Steinberg (2010), NCLB aims at the overall goal of attaining national uniform and high standards of education in all students and schools by the year 2014 with much emphasis placed in Math and Reading skills. In order to realize this, teachers recruited are to undergo training and meet high standards of qualification as set by respective states. Learning and experiments in general are to be conducted by the proven and infallible scientific methods. According to Hayes (2008), No Child Left Behind allows states to set their own standards of quality education and administer annual standardized tests to gauge performance of various states and schools. Federal funding is availed for those schools that comply with the NCLB policy. This is to the effect that if overall school performances are repeatedly below standards, as indicated by the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), procedural steps and measures are taken to ensure accountability. These include branding the affected schools as ‘failing’ schools, withdrawing/ reducing funds, overhaul of school management, provision of extra tuition and remedial studies and allowing parents to transfer their children to better performing schools. NCLB allows parents and guardians considerable say and involvement in their children’s education and in addition, Title I funding is offered to assist students from low income families. However, the Act has open flaws and obstacles that it presents in the road to attaining the much desired essential, basic and innovative education that should be achievable with such education reforms. First of all, I would suggest smaller classes with more and highly qualified teachers for disabled students and those with special needs and backgrounds. In addition to reducing the number of students per teacher, more care and time must be afforded for these groups. This would help even the achievement gap that has not been emphasized on at all, in NCLB. For example, both blacks and whites are seen to be equally improving and so the gaps are still left unchecked. This must not be the case, and extra attention must be paid to correct this gap. Special students like the blind for instance, during examinations, must have provisions to have questions read out to them. Secondly, I would urge for measurement of improvement and academic progress per student as opposed to the collective assessment under NCLB. It is possible for schools to retain high ratings even at high achievement gaps since NCLB only measures average school performance. This would lead to false hope of progress. Achieving 100% same-state standards by 2014 as is envisioned in the Act is unrealistic to say the least as many variables are often involved especially in disability cases. This is a simple illusion. Carris’ Ghosts of No Child Left Behind (2011) further states that the NCLB Act requires only a bare minimum of standards to be met without specific attention to any further improvement beyond the set minimum. It simply groups everyone together as one and discourages any personal talent and improvement in the long run, as all students are simply to be above average. Gifted students are awfully maligned and their enhancement disregarded hence. In some states like Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs was cut by up to 90% in the year after the Act became law. I am also of strong opinion that cutting funds for ‘failing’ schools only serves to hinder even more, any chances they have to regroup and improve performance potential. On the contrary, it is my belief that such schools ought to be given more attention, added more funds to revamp them and availed with more highly qualified teaching staff to augment and improve on what they have. Demonizing schools only serves to demoralize teachers. Still, there have been outcries and claims of insufficient funding from the federal government into the education sector even as the available funds are said to be directed in areas that are of little benefit and importance as is further stated in Ghosts of No Child Left Behind by Carris (2011). Apart from increased funding, this calls for review and consequent ability of schools to budget their own funds into areas where they deem pressing. Needless to say, the schools must be held accountable therefore for any misappropriation of funds and corrupt practices. Teachers should be better motivated too with increased pay packages and allowance in efforts to get the best out of them. To realize all these, more funding is required from the government into the education sector. Lastly, several concerns emerge with standardized testing. For one, according to Hayes, it ensures that teachers drill students and teach only to the test in preparation for exams. This hampers proper and adequate curriculum coverage and greatly reduces innovation and creativity of the learners as students study only to pass tests and not to ask questions. This puts undue pressure on both the teacher and the student and eventually makes learning difficult, leading to increased drop outs and poor performance. The testing system may also result to states setting cheaper tests to increase scores and protect schools and teachers. Missouri, for example, recorded improved testing scores but admitted to lowering testing standards. Research by the U.S. Department of Education observed in 2007 that different states showed different scores due to the differences in the stringency of their standards. This reduces quality of education in the end though on the surface, there may falsely seem to be significant improvement of standards across nation states. The desired changes stated above can be successfully implemented by increasing the level of funding to schools, expanding schools to allow more classes and lecture halls, hiring more teachers to reduce the number of students on a teacher and offering tuition and extra teaching time for challenged and slow students. Measures have to be put in place to minimize inconsistency in test standards across the states and check irregularities that are prone to it. In addition to simply taking annual tests, additional means of evaluating student performance such as teacher opinions, continuous assessment tests, and performance based assessments ought to be introduced. These, together with the standardized annual tests can form basis in determining placement of a student. Implementing these changes however may prove challenging especially in traditional bureaucratic schools as there can be unwillingness to offer special help and attention to those in need as the Act seeks to provide equal chances and a level playing ground for all. In essence, say if most white students showed better performance that most black students, grouping them separately for special assistance may result in negative opinion and claims of racism in schools, however pure the intentions are. Nevertheless, such a scenario is unlikely to occur as it is highly unlikely to find all black students in the special needs category and white students all doing quite fairly. There would have to be a good mix of race, disability cases and gender and hence issues of favoritism or neglect of a particular people would be absent. Also, as long as the AYP remains steady and encouraging, the drive to improve and scrutinize students on personal level may easily be overlooked. The school system would be glad to be rated amongst the best and continue to receive funding while in actual sense, it is the gifted students who make the school meet the minimum targeted averages. Slow students on the other hand are gladly left on their own to lag behind the rest with little or no extra attention so long as the school mean looks good (Carris, 2011). The government’s unwillingness to increase funding and schools’ consequent refusal to diverge adequate funds to issues that are critical such as teacher training and recruitment may prove difficult in attempts to implement these changes. Funds tend to go toward achievement of high scores in selected subject that hold weight. Other fields such as music and arts are therefore neglected and funding denied them since they are never tested. Modification of the No Child Left Behind policy can be promoted through various means at school, district, state or national levels. Getting Congress approval for one can be priceless in such an endeavor. One could also air views and concerns as is constitutionally allowed in the federal rule, making process where the public is allowed to comment on policies which the federal government considers in its revision or final drafting of document. Alternatively, one could collect the required number of signatures to have the said changes implemented. Publishing concerns in books and newspapers, writing letters to school heads and relevant education officials may solicit the much needed attention and see voice given to reason. In addition, getting parents on board with the issues raised and their consequent involvement in the push for reforms can play an important role. Teacher leadership is an important aspect of learning institutions. Burgess and Bates say teachers offer leadership and guidance to their students and even fellow teachers. This leadership is often limited and tied to the organization’s rules and regulations and such teachers are often restricted on what they can and can not do even if it is the very interests of the students and the institution at large (Burgess and Bates, 2009). Teachers, if offered more freedom and flexibility with their teaching functions and operations can bring extra zest and brilliant ideas into the school and class that in turn serve to benefit the student and the school. References Burgess, J., & Bates, D. (2009). Other Duties as Assigned Tips, Tools, and Techniques for Expert Teacher Leadership. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Carris, J. M. (2011). Ghosts of No Child Left Behind. New York: P. Lang. Hayes, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: Past, Present and Future. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Stecher, B. M., Vernez, G., & Steinberg, P. (2010). Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind: Facts and Recommendations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Read More