No Child Left Behind - the Dangers of Centralized Education Policy - Case Study Example

TOOLS FROM LITERATURE: AN ASSESSMENT OF AN EDUCATION POLICY ANALYSIS Tools from Literature: An Assessment of an Education Policy Analysis Name: Course: Instructor: Date: Tools from Literature: An Assessment of an Education Policy Analysis Introduction No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy is a policy analysis of The No Child Left Behind Act, a domestic education policy, by Lawrence A. Uzzell. As the title suggests, the analysis is critical of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Statute and argues that the policy, based on what the researcher views as centralized control of educational standards, is self-contradictory as its implementation would guarantee “massive evasion of its own intent” and lead to a worst case scenario of unconstitutional consolidation of central government power over schools which would promote mediocrity at the expense of excellence (Uzzell 2005). This assessment will evaluate No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy as a policy analysis. The assessment will identify the tools from policy used to evaluate the NCLB Act as a policy as well as the various tools from social theory as well as the political assumptions deployed in evaluation and their effects. Policy Evaluation The analysis explains selected problems or issues that the NCLB Act is intended to deal with. It identifies improving educational performance in public schools and bridging the gap in education achievement between ethnic subgroups as the overarching objectives of the policy. It also explains the value premises, theoretical positions, effects and objectives of the policy and the implications of the policy to evaluate its ability to deal with education in a complex setting (Gil 1992). The main premise of the analysis’ arguments is that the NCLB Act, despite being lauded by its proponents as a landmark educational reform aimed at fostering academic excellence in a multicultural education setting, essentially represents increased federal centralization of education despite evidence that centralization has not been able to realize excellent educational performance. The analysis argues that NCLB, as initially formulated, is based on the unrealistic political assumption that public schools will be honest in reporting measurements of their results, is impractical to implement and that it can only work in a scenario where the federal government exercises Soviet-style micromanagement of state schools (Uzzell 2005; Gay 2007). The analysis highlights some of the anticipated difficulties with regards to implementation of the NCLB Act and the implications of the policy on the education system. These include issue such as the dependence on qualitative data for key indicators such as graduation rates, proficiency test scores, violence in schools and teacher qualifications and knowledge of the subjects they teach. Examining each in turn, the analysis highlights deficiencies and inconsistencies in reporting the quantitative data that is to be used in the evaluation of school performance under the NCLB Act. For instance, it points out that dishonesty is rampant in reporting of graduation rates, indicators for school safety as captured in reporting on school violence is unreliable, testing requirements for teachers are being lowered is response to the NCLB and proficiency tests are prone to manipulation (Uzzell 2005). Evaluation Methods and Tools The policy analysis identifies performance evaluation as one of the main tools used in evaluating the NCLB Act as a policy. Key to the NCLB is improving overall educational performance as measured through proficiency test scores in reading and mathematics. The Act also aims to eliminate educational achievement disparities between ethnic subgroups. Policy evaluation is therefore conducted through analysis of quantitative data on key performance indicators such as measuring adequate yearly progress by states towards the goal of 100 percent proficiency by 2014 and elimination of achievement disparities between ethnic subgroups. At the state level, this includes analysis of quantitative data on high school graduation rates, reported incidents of violence in schools and average proficiency test scores. The analysis uses a variety of primary and secondary data sources to collect information to collect information necessary for the evaluation of the NCLB Act. As an example, the analysis has cited data collected by other researchers to demonstrate some of the practical challenges of implementing of the NCLB. Secondary data from researchers such as Jay Greene and Greg Foster of the Manhattan Institute is cited to demonstrate dishonesty in reporting about graduation rates. Similarly, data from the National Council on Teacher Quality, another independent research center and think tank, is used to demonstrate how states could take advantage of the provision of the NCLB Act which aims to ensure that all schoolchildren have highly qualified teachers by lowering or relaxing their testing standards for conformity to the act (Uzzell 2005). From a social theory perspective, the analysis has depicted the anticipated challenges of the NCLB Act in realizing its objectives by examining the interaction between structure and agency (Gil 1992, Grin & Loeber 2006). The analysis depicts the NCLB Act as a policy based on the assumption of the primacy of structure through centralization. This includes the various policy tools prescribed by the act such as measurement of adequate yearly progress towards the achievement of 100 percent proficiency. However, in contrast, the analysis argues for the primacy of agency as more effective than structure in achieving the goals intended by the NCLB Act. The analysis argues that as opposed to preoccupation with educational policymaking, the national government should allow states to experiment with school programs. It argues that state intervention through decrees from centralized administrators will not realize the intended effect but that instead, the state should empower families to “vote with their feet” by transferring to schools of their choice (Uzzell 2005). The analysis also appraises the NCLB’s capacity to deal with education in a complex setting and concludes that the Act, as formulated is self-contradictory and will not be able to achieve the goals of improving education performance in the increasingly multi-cultural, multi-religious and multi-ethnic education system that is the United States’. The analysis points to the variances between states and schools in terms of academic performance and ethnic composition which is used to emphasize the necessity for an education policy that accommodates diversity. The analysis appraises the potential impact of the NCLB Act in an “ultra-mobile society, in which communities are less and less defined by geography” and concludes that free choice, rather than regulation as represented by centralization, should be the preferred strategy for improving performance and circumventing the challenges of over-bureaucratized government schools (Uzzell 2005). The analysis also argues that in a pluralistic society, the state should keep of value-forming institutions such as schools and entrust decisions on education such as which areas to achieve proficiency to states and schools as a means of preventing conflict. The analysis argues that even though the NCLB Act does not explicitly mandate the curricula, the testing standards will drive the curricula in the long term. Similarly, it points out the danger of future administrations using their discretionary powers to deny funding to states whose testing programs are deemed inadequate (Gay 2007). Political Assumptions The analysis uses several political assumptions in its evaluation of the NCLB Act. Principally, the NCLB Act is viewed as a campaign tactic by the Republican (Bush) administration owing to its contrast with long-held Republican tradition of opposing centralized federal programs in education and governance in general. The analysis also dismisses the political assumption on which the act is based as “unrealistic” and counters that when faced with federal pressure to conform to the NCLB Act, state and local education officials will act in their own interest through “massive evasion” of the intent of the policy. It assumes that state education agencies would be resistant to implementing the provisions of the Act such as the detailed, rigorous testing programs and given broad discretion on how to implement these provisions, they would devise tactics to evade both the letter and the spirit of the law as stipulated in the Act. As an example, state and local education officials would resort to distortion of their performance measurements such as dishonest reporting on graduation rates by inflating the statistics in order to make schools appear more successful than they actually are. Similarly, schools would take advantage of the leeway provided by lax monitoring to provide misleading statistics on school safety, lower testing standards for teachers or “water down” proficiency tests to meet the annual targets stipulated by the Act. Therefore, the main political assumption informing the analysis is that bureaucracies will often act in their own interests first (Uzzell 2005). Conclusion The assessment has evaluated No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy by Lawrence Uzzell as a real policy analysis of an education policy. The assessment has identified some of the key methods and tools of policy evaluation as used in the analysis such as performance measurement using quantitative data key to the implementation of the NCLB Act as well as the political assumptions underlying the policy. By highlighting anticipated challenges in implementation, the analysis concludes that the NCLB Act as an education lacks the capacity to deal with education as a complex setting. References Gay, G. (2007). The rhetoric and reality of NCLB. Race, Ethnicity and Education, 10(3), 279- 293. Gil, D. G. (1992). Unraveling social policy. Rochester, VT: Schenkman. Gil, D. G. (1992). Unraveling social policy: Theory, analysis, and political action towards social equality (5th ed.). Rochester, VT: Schenkman Books. Gil, R. M. (2001). Structure and Agency in Everyday Life: An Introduction to Social Psychology. Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield. Grin, J. & Loeber, A. (2006). Theories of Policy Learning: Agency, Structure and Change. In Fischer, F & Miller, G.J. (Eds.) Handbook of Public Policy Analysis: Theory, Politics, and Methods. Florida: Taylor and Francis. Uzzell, L. (2005). No Child Left Behind: The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy. Policy Analysis 544(5), 1-25. Read More