Is No Child Left Behind Working - Essay Example

Is No Child Left Behind Working? No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the educational policy (Act) of 2001 meant to improve educational outcome among the student community in USA. The ultimate aim of this educational policy was excellent but lack of national achievement standard and liberty given to individual states in implementation and evaluation levels proved to be unsuccessful. To be specific, NCLB was an innovative attempt to reform the scenario of school education but its outcome proves its failure as an educational policy.

Thesis statement: The negatives of NCLB prove the same as an unsuccessful educational policy in USA. NCLB implementation in USA As an innovative plan within the educational field, one can easily identify that NCLB is the reauthorization of ESEA or the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Within this context, the Federal government aims to provide economic aid to the state/ local educational agencies to uplift the academic standards of the present educational system in schools. Besides, the success of NCLB was fully vested upon the beneficiaries of the foretold educational policy.

The basic factor of NCLB is to help the children with disabilities to acquire an important position within the educational system of the states in USA. As pointed out earlier, the aim of the federal government was systematic but the foretold educational innovation proves to be less successful because the federal government acted the role of a funding agency, not as an authority with full fledged power to alter the implementation and assessment of NCLB. Positives and negatives One can easily identify that the implementation of NCLB is with a number of positive and negative effects within the educational scenario. Gary L. Anderson opines that “On the positive side, some principals were able to use the leverage NCLB gave them to selectively implement some good programs” (27).

The annual measurement of accountability standards within state educational standards and achievement is one of the most important positive elements of NCLB. Besides, the suitable teacher qualification set by NCLB is an innovative measure. The initiative undertaken to assess the educational standards of students is another positive side of NCLB. In addition, NCLB gave ample importance to the students in developing reading and writing skills. The NCLB provides ample space to reduce achievement gap between white and minority students.

The initiative undertaken by NCLB to provide quality education to the needy is another positive factor. In addition, NCLB did not restrict the participation of parents in assessing the educational outcome of the student community. But the NCLB is with a number of drawbacks or negative effects. R. Grant Steen states that “Part of the problem is that NCLB supports an intervention that is too little, too late, and hence destined to fail” (169). For instance, state level underfunding hindered the further growth and development of NCLB to an innovative educational policy.

From a different angle of view, the primary goal of learning and vital subjects (say, science and foreign languages) was totally ignored. Rodney Larson opines on the failure of NCLB in Minnesota as “Although Minnesota is recognized as having a good public school system, the state didn’t meet the requirements for NCLB because it failed on one portion of Minnesota’s state assessment to meet NCLB” (143). The high quality of teacher qualification, lack of infrastructure development, and unwanted importance given to testing (not academic learning), are the other negative factors of NCLB.

Findings The main findings are pointed out below. 1. NCLB lacks some crucial factors within the implementation level. 2. Less consideration was given to academic learning and outcome. 3. The expected educational standards (teachers) were high and it manipulated the end result. 4. Less consideration was given to infrastructure development within state schools. 5. The federal government allowed the states to undertake responsibility upon implementation and evaluation of NCLB. Summing, NCLB is an innovative educational policy, but it proves to be less successful.

The process of decentralization or the lack of a centralized authority to monitor the outcome of NCLB is the most important factor which accelerated its failure. To be specific, NCLB can be considered as an innovative experimentation within the educational field, but it is not a successful tool to incorporate innovation into the field of school education in USA. In short, NCBL proves to be unsuccessful but it must be considered as an innovative step from the side of the federal government to reduce the achievement gap among the school student community.

References Anderson, Gary L. Advocacy leadership: toward a post-reform agenda in education. New York, NY: Taylor & Francis, 2009. Print. Larson, Rodney. Improving the odds: a basis for long-term change. Lanham, Maryland: R&L Education, 2009. Print. Steen, R. Grant. Human Intelligence and Medical Illness: Assessing the Flynn Effect. New York, USA: Springer, 2009. Print.