American Schooling And Educational Inequality - Research Paper Example

American Schooling And Educational Inequality Section II Social Policy and Policy System The No Child Left Behind Act passed in 2001 has the primary purpose of ensuring that students studying in public schools have the potential to achieve critical learning goals. The Act sought to reduce the existing gap in the education system, which saw some students lack access to quality education. Goals and Objectives One of the goals of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to increase accountability in the education system. Notably, prior to the establishment of the Act, many public schools were not accountable. Only a few public schools made the results of students’ public, and many of them did not meet the existing educational standards. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 sought to introduce testing requirements for each state. The tests must exhibit validity and reliability and be inclusive as well. Inclusion, in this case, requires states to offer tests for limited English proficient students, as well as the special education students. Accountability in testing requires each state to administer annual reading and mathematics assessment for third to eighth graders. The implementation of this was targeted to be achieved between 2005 and 2006. Science assessments at the elementary, middle and high school grades would be implemented in the 2007-2008 phase (Fletcher, 2006). Immediately after the passage of the Act, schools implemented the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). The NAEP assessment comprises of short questions and is undertaken by biennially. Random sampling and mandatory participation are of critical importance in identifying students who undertake the NAEP. In addition, schools face the compulsion of introducing an annual assessment for the limited English students. In addition, accountability in schools involved the introduction of Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The adequate yearly progress has the purpose of ensuring that schools demonstrate a high level of proficiency. The developers of the Act envisioned that within 12 years, schools would be able to register a hundred percent proficiency. Notably, schools face the compulsion of meeting the yearly state objectives for academic progress. The adequate yearly progress also includes continual achievement with different states establishing the objectives for progress (Gamoran, 2001). In accordance with the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 95% of students should participate in the assessment and should include all the subgroups of students. Accountability also compels schools that do not meet the adequate yearly progress objectives to face some consequences. Schools that fail to meet their yearly progress face corrective measures defined by each state. Some of the common consequences include the offering of technical assistance as well as the provision of public school choice. Evidently, schools that fail to meet the AYP may require technical assistance from the state. In addition, they may provide students with the choice to transfer to other schools if they fail for two consecutive years. Schools that fail consecutively for two years need to develop a school improvement plan (“No Child Left Behind Act”, 2009). Such schools face the compulsion of allocating 10% of Title I funds to professional development projects. Schools that fail to meet the AYP for three consecutive years should make provisions for supplemental services for students with learning difficulties and low performance. The Act compels such schools to allocate 5% of the Title I funds for supplementary services. Notably, the state must provide approval for the selected supplemental service providers. Schools that continue to fail for more than four years consecutively are subject to stringent consequences. Because such schools should continue with all the corrective actions from previous years of failure, districts may choose to replace the staff members to introduce a new curriculum into the failing schools. Other measures include the reduction of management authority, extension of the school year or the school day, restructuring the school’s internal organization, and provision of professional development. In the worst case, where schools do not meet the AYP for five consecutive years, districts may choose to take further corrective measures. These measures may include converting the public school to a charter school, a total reshuffling of the school staff. In other cases, the district may enter into a contract with an external entity to run the school or the state may choose to take over the school (“No Child Left Behind Act”, 2006). Districts decide the most appropriate restructuring measures for such schools. Notably, failure to make the AYP occurs when there is a 10 % reduction of the subgroups in comparison with the previous year. In addition, accountability in schools as highlighted in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, involves public reporting of a school’s performance. States were required to make public the state report card in 2002. The state report card should include dissemination occurring at the start of a school year, comparison of performance levels of students, and reflection of students not tested. In addition, the calculation of the graduation rates, provision of the names and number of schools requiring improvements, and the description of teacher qualifications are also included in the state's report card. Public reporting requires schools to provide notification to parents concerning the qualifications of teachers, the performance of students on state assessments, the available information on school choice, as well as the placement of students in the limited English proficiency programs (“No Child Left Behind Act”, 2009). An additional goal of the No Child Left Behind Act is improving the teacher quality. In order for a teacher to qualify for the Title I school, he or she must have certifications in the specific content areas and be highly qualified. The teachers must have proven their competency in previous years with no emergency credentials. Teachers were given until 2005-2006 to meet such requirements. States had a responsibility of developing plans to ensure that teachers had the required qualifications by 2006 (Olivert, 2007). In 2006-2003, states were required to increase the number of highly qualified teachers in every local district. In addition, all the states had to ensure that they increased the percentage of teachers receiving professional developments in 2002-2003. States that had hired paraprofessionals were compelled to ensure that such individuals had the required qualifications by 2006 (Rhodes, 2012). The other goal for the No Child Left Behind Act was to increase the options and choices for parents. Title I schools had a mandatory requirement of increasing notification to parents and placing emphasis on the need for parental involvement. In addition, schools needed to ensure that parents were aware of a school’s improvement status as well as the transfer option to performing schools. Parents also needed to be aware of the supplemental services that schools were providing (Stecher, Vernez, & Steinberg, 2010). The Act also focused on improvising the instructional methods in schools. Teachers needed to apply the scientific research-based studies. The scientific research-based studies compel teachers to rely on scientific methods that are applicable to larger populations and are subject to replication. The instructional methods must meet the established standards. The final goal of the Act was to introduce flexibility in funding use. As long as the Title I schools achieved the AYP, they had the room to decide how to use the funding they received from the state. Title I schools can reallocate 50% of the funding to different projects depending on their priorities. Eligibility Notably, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has different distribution formulas. Eligibility requirements vary depending on the distribution program. Under the Title I program, local school districts that have disadvantaged students from birth to the twelfth grade are eligible for funds. There are four specific formulas namely the basic grant, targeted assistant grant, and Education Finance Incentive Grant. Under the basic grant formula, school districts must have a minimum of 10 poor children and a 2% of the students affected by poverty. In accordance with the minimum requirements, almost all the school districts are subject to receiving this fund. The basic grant formula represents the least amount that a school district can receive under the Title I program. For school districts to qualify for the concentration grant, they must have at least 15% of children affected by poverty. In addition, schools that have over 6,500 poor children are also eligible for the concentration grant (Thurlow et al, 2005). The targeted assistant grant is more specific to districts that register high levels of poverty. For this reason, the formula allows schools that have more than 38% of poor children to receive more funding. The provision of additional funding is per child. In addition, school districts with over 35,515 children affected by poverty are eligible for further funding based on each additional child. Finally, school districts located in states affected by high poverty levels are eligible for the Education Finance Incentive Grant. The introduction of this grant sought to promote equitability in different school districts. Eligibility depends on the fiscal efforts exhibited by each state depending on how much income is set aside for educational purposes. States that have little funds for the education sector receive more funding (Yell, Katsiyannas, & Shiner, 2006). Forms of Benefits and Services The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 seeks to provide funding to Title I schools. Notably, Title I schools have the highest number of children affected by poverty. In addition, the No Child Left Behind Act ensures that every public school in the United States offers quality education to students in poverty and minority groups. The Act also provides students with limited English proficiency and students with special needs. The Act seeks to improve the quality of education in the public schools by introducing accountability measures and promoting teacher quality. The Act also touches on the instructional methods and the flexibility in the usage of funds. Evidently, the Act ensures that disadvantaged students have access to supplemental services and that they can transfer to better schools. The Act seeks to close the gap existing in the education sector. In addition, the Act provides a platform for parents to be actively involved in the progress of their children in school. The Act also allows funding under Titles II and III and in some cases IV and V. These types of funding provide educational services to exceptional students, students with disabilities, as well as gifted and talented students. English learners also benefit from the funding under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 by having access to different services under the program service plan for English learners (Rhodes, 2012). References Fletcher, E. J. (2006). No Curriculum Left Behind: The Effects of the No Child Left Behind Legislation on Career and Technical Education. Career & Technical Education Research, 31(3), 157-174. Gamoran, A. (2001). American Schooling and Educational Inequality: A Forecast for the 21st Century. Sociology of Education, 74(4), 135-153. No Child Left Behind Act. [electronic resource] : An Overview of Reauthorization Issues for the 111th Congress. (2009). [S.l] : [s.n.], 2009. No Child Left Behind Act. [electronic resource] : Education's data improvement efforts could strengthen the basis for distributing Title III funds : report to congressional requesters. (2006). [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Government Accountability Office, [2006]. No Child Left Behind Act. [electronic resource] : enhancements in the Department of Education's review process could improve state academic assessments : report to the Chairman, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate. (2009). [Washington, D.C.] : U.S. Govt. Accountability Office, [2009]. Olivert, D. P. (2007). No Child Left Behind Act : text, interpretation and changes. New York : Nova Science Publishers, c2007. Rhodes, J. H. (2012). An Education in Politics : The Origins and Evolution of No Child Left Behind. Ithaca: Cornell University Press. Stecher, B. M., Vernez, G., & Steinberg, P. (2010). Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind : Facts and Recommendations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morris, A. B. (2005). State Policies on Assessment Participation and Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 232-240. Yell, M. L., Katsiyannas, A., & Shiner, J. G. (2006). The No Child Left Behind Act, Adequate Yearly Progress, and Students With Disabilities. (cover story). Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 32-39. Read More