Policy Memo; No Child Left Behind Act - Research Paper Example

English Policy Memo; No Child Left Behind Act Education is an important aspect of American development strategies. Of particular concern is among the various children will disabilities within the community. The No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) was launched in 2001 by the US president George Bush in his commitment to support the struggling minorities within the US to acquire quality education just like the children from well-up families. The US government passed the NCLB act as a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that meant to achieve equality in education. While the No Child Left Behind Act was meant to assure the quality of education and develop accountability it seems that its goals are attainable and beyond the scope of the law. The No Child Left Behind Act meant to model education among children from disadvantaged backgrounds and to ensure that irrespective of race, colour or health status, each child had the right to access to quality education. The policy required that the performance of the students be assessed from time to time to ensure that children performed well between 2rd grade and 8th grade (Olivert 23-27). The ability of the policy to set the standards of education and find ways of measuring performance is an important aspect of ensuring that all students become responsible citizens. To ensure that all students, including those from struggling families performed well, the policy stated that all student who do not attain the minimum score be provided with extra tuition or have their study time extended. This would go on until they attain they attain the benchmark grades to proceed with their education. This is crucial in ensuring that all students get good grades to acquire employment despite any economic constraints. To maintain accountability, the Act required that the teachers regularly report on the performance of students and provide results at the each of year. The Act achieved accountability by compelling the teachers to account for the performance of the student throughout the learning process. The teachers had to monitor the students’ results every time to ensure that all children achieve good grades (Roberts 12). The Act required that the schools and the district boards provide detailed report cards to the parents reflecting the performance of every child. Secondly, the NCLB Act required that strict measures be taken against teachers who do not deliver in terms of education performance in schools. The extreme measures include the change of the worker structure in the learning institutions. The policy took strong measures including demoting the teachers who failed to perform considerably in the long-term. Another focus of the NCLB Act was to improve the quality of education within the learning institutions to ensure that children’s are competent in the employment sector. Just like the ESEA act, the NCLB Act required that all teachers have relevant degrees and outstanding performance in the classroom. The teachers must have attained the minimum set standards as stated by the education boards depending on the changes in the demands of the academic standards. In addition, the Act guaranteed high quality education by providing emphasizing on high quality of educational content, which would see every student gain the relevant knowledge irrespective of their disabilities. Quality of education is important aspect of education today when the demands of the employment sector are rising rapidly and competition for employment is one the rise (Roberts 12-27). Therefore, the focus on quality of education was another important aspect of the NCLB Act. However, there seems to be inherent weaknesses in the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act, especially in ascertaining accountability and quality of education. First, there seems to be a great challenge in ensuring that the students perform well and they have the right quality of education (Aske, Laura and Rhonda 107-118). While the Act focused on two very important aspects of education, it seems to ignore that the two may at times be parallel and are hard to achieve simultaneously. The policy pushed the teachers to ensure that they provide good results and that the students’ scores are quite high. While requiring teacher to provide detailed reports of education may increase accountability, it may also push them to manipulate the performance in dishonesty mechanisms. For instance, the law required that the teacher report on the students’ performance in reading and mathematics at the end of the academic year. This may push the teachers to provide dishonest results to ensure that they get credit for good performance. In increases the probability of a teacher narrowing the scope of learning to ensure that their students perform fairly well at the end of the year. The manipulation of performance taints the quality of education in various ways. First, the students’ performance does not reflect their capabilities. Therefore, this will nullify the initial objective of the government to ensure that all students in the US obtain the right quality of education to become responsible citizens in future. Therefore, this policy will only produce paper results but not practical results. Secondly, the teachers may be forced to narrow down the curriculum to ensure that they do not have to provide extra tuition to the students who perform poorly at the end of the year (Aske, Laura and Rhonda 107-118). For instance, if a teacher knows that they will test specific aspects of Algebra in the final exam, they may opt to narrow to these aspects and probably omit the practical aspects of learning and its application real life. At the end of the day, the students will pass but they may not acquire the broad content of the curriculum. On this note, the quality of education may be a challenge to maintain if accountability of teachers is measured in terms of performance. The idea of rewarding the institutions that show high performance at end of the year may be breed the wrong competition among schools. Competition on the wrong note would be dangerous for the education system in the US. First, this would encourage dishonesty among institutions that intend to win prizes stipulated in the Act. While this may serve as motivation for the institutions, it will increase the chances of results manipulation in the chase of awards. For instance, a school that performs poorly will set simple exams to ensure that their mean score remains competitive. This kind of exam manipulation lowers the standards of education, as the rewards obtained may not reflect exemplary performance of institutions. Secondly, the threat of the Act to demote the teachers may hurt the purpose which the state the meant to accomplish. The law states the school structure may be revised wholly if students continue to perform poorly for consequent years. While this may be good strategy to compel the teachers to perform well, it will encourage them to use crude methods of attaining educational performance (Krieg and Institute Urban 34). For instance, the teacher will focus in delivering the theoretical content and will ignore talent nurturing which is important in the life of learners. Therefore, this system will discourage the development of independent learning skills that in demand in the contemporary work place as teachers strive to secure their job positions. Thirteen years down the line, there is already enough evidence that the education standards have been lowered instead of rising, contrary to the principle of the NCLB act. While most of the states have indicated a score of higher than 80% in terms of proficiency in reading and math skills, only about 27% on average that test proficient in the national tests such as the National Assessment of Educational progress. This shows that the impact of the Act is that students perform well in their institutions but poorly in the national exams, which are standard. This is an accurate measure of the dishonesty and cheating that is the consequences of a compelling. This calls for re-evaluation of the Act and provision of possible amendment to ensure that the principle objectives of the Act are realizable in the long-term. Another problem with the use of standardized performance procedures is that it provides no incentive for able students to perform (Partee and Progress Center for American 43). The Act meant to treat all students whether disabled or economically disadvantaged equal by setting similar standards. The idea is that all the learners acquire the same education and seems to hold the opinion that each person has the same potential in terms of academic performance. However, by setting up minimum standards makes students focus more on passing than capitalizing on their potentials. It gives the students to meet only the minimum, rather than achieve the highest possible score in class. It is wise to appreciate that all students have different intelligence and their performance is variant. Therefore, it is unreasonable to develop a policy that would establish minimum academic requirements while this may be too high for some and too low for others. The expectation from such a policy is that bright students will down their tools, as it is too easy for them to attain the minimum score. Such a law is likely to lower the average performance in the US, rather than raise it. From this observation, this policy research memo provides an alternative approach to provision of equal education for all, considering the various challenges that have faced the No Child Left behind Act. The recommendation is not that the NCLB act be abolished but the US government should consider the idea of reforming this Act to have more reasonable results that measure to its expectation as regards the standards of education (Partee and Progress Center for American 43). The idea that quality and accountability are crucial aspects of education holds and the government should maintain its focus on these aspects. However, since the policy strategies to uphold these standards have resulted to degradation of educational standards, it is crucial that we rethink the approaches to attain high value of education for all citizens irrespective of their socio-economic status, physical health or even racial differences. The government can only achieve the common schools idea only through a reform. To begin with, the government needs to focus on the aspect of quality within the learning environment. However, it is crucial to realize that there has to be a balance between quality of education and the performance of the students. If there is more focus on the performance and accountability, it is likely that the Act will lose in terms of the quality of education. To maintain high quality of education, it is crucial that the government gets involved in the development of the syllabus and in the testing of the students. For instance, the government should provide a mechanism to ensure that all students learn the right content and in the right quantity. The only way that this can be done is conducting regular uniform tests within all public schools rather than relying on the teachers’ exams that may be manipulated. This way, the students in various institutions will be subject to a fair test and this will a basis for rewarding the teachers and institutions. Standard exams should focus on both practical and theoretical knowledge of students (Krieg and Institute Urban 34). This will indirectly compel instructors to provide adequate learning without affecting the quality of education. Secondly, the institutions will have a healthier competition rather than the current competition that not based on the quality of education. Secondly, it would crucial for the US government to work along with the instructor in accomplishing the objectives of this Act. The law should not be a threat to the teachers’ career but an achievement of this career. The law should be reformed particularly to remove the clause that threatens the instructor with demotion. This will give the instructors the confidence to foster learning without the fear that the Act threatens them with dismissal if they do not perform. It would be more reasonable to motivate teachers to support the children from different backgrounds and to give specific attention to those who have special needs of learning. In addition, the Act should require a greater contribution of parents in the promotion of learning by requiring them to provide extra instruction to their students (Tavakolian and Nancy 70). This will be a more integrative approach that spearheads on the common good of the students. This way, the teachers and the parents will work towards the same goals without necessarily being the watchpersons of each other. Finally, it is recommendable that the Act appreciates the diversity of capabilities among students. While all students have the ability to meet the minimum standards, they have different capabilities and different passions altogether (Tavakolian and Nancy 70-77). While some students may perform well in reading, other may perform well in talents such as running and football. On this note, the Act should focus on both academic and talent abilities within the learners. Limiting the students to a minimum of academic achievement constrains their abilities. On this note, it would be crucial that the reformed Act reward talents and motivate these behaviors within the learning environment. A satisfactory education system is one that provides the opportunity for the learners to construct their abilities and to identify their potentials. The Act should consider developing talents among disabled students, rather than focusing on their class performance that may be subject to manipulation. This way, it is possible to use the Act to tap the potential of the diverse learning environment in public schools. In conclusion, the No Child Left Behind Act is an important Act that shows the US government to provide bridge the racial, economic and social gaps that exist within the nation. For a long time in history, the American government has developed policies to support education for all citizens. The NCLB Act purposed to raise the quality of education and promote accountability among the public institutions. The Act required a minimum performance standard for which the student must attain to be eligible for promotion to the next grade. To enforce accountability the law required that all teachers provide detailed performance records to provide a ground for awarding the best schools. From a critical point of view the strategies used to enforce these laws have resulted to reduction in quality of education as instructors manipulate student performance to secure their jobs and win awards. Therefore, it is crucial that the US government shows its commitment to achieve its initial objectives by rethinking the strategies to achieve them. To begin with, the government should consider focus work along with the teachers in achieving objectives of the Act. They should use standard uniform exams to measure performance in all schools to ensure that the instructors do not cheat or manipulate the curriculum. Lastly, the government should reform the Act to exclude the clause that threatens the instructors’ career to include clauses that motivates them to achieve the curriculum goals. Works Cited Aske, David R., Laura S. Connolly, and Rhonda R. Corman. "Accessibility or Accountability? The Rhetoric And Reality Of No Child Left Behind." Journal Of Economics & Economic Education Research 14.3 (2013): 107-118. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 May 2014. Krieg, John M., and Institute Urban. "Which Students Are Left Behind? The Racial Impacts Of The No Child Left Behind Act. Working Paper." Urban Institute (2009): ERIC. Web. 3 May 2014. Olivert, Damian P. No Child Left Behind Act : Text, Interpretation And Changes. New York: Nova Science Publishers, 2007. Discovery eBooks. Web. 3 May 2014. Partee, Glenda L., and Progress Center for American. "Using Multiple Evaluation Measures To Improve Teacher Effectiveness: State Strategies From Round 2 Of No Child Left Behind Act Waivers." Center For American Progress (2012): ERIC. Web. 3 May 2014 Roberts, Mari Ann. No Child Left Behind Act (2001). n.p.: Sage Publications, Inc, 2014. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May 2014. Tavakolian, Hamid, and Nancy Howell. "The Impact Of No Child Left Behind Act." Franklin Business & Law Journal 1 (2012): 70-77. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 May 2014. Read More

 

Works Cited

Aske, David R., Laura S. Connolly, and Rhonda R. Corman. "Accessibility or Accountability?

The Rhetoric And Reality Of No Child Left Behind." Journal Of Economics & Economic Education Research 14.3 (2013): 107-118. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 May 2014.

Krieg, John M., and Institute Urban. "Which Students Are Left Behind? The Racial Impacts

Of The No Child Left Behind Act. Working Paper." Urban Institute (2009): ERIC. Web. 3 May 2014.

Olivert, Damian P. No Child Left Behind Act: Text, Interpretation, And Changes. New York:

Nova Science Publishers, 2007. Discovery eBooks. Web. 3 May 2014.

Partee, Glenda L., and Progress Center for American. "Using Multiple Evaluation Measures

To Improve Teacher Effectiveness: State Strategies From Round 2 Of No Child Left Behind Act Waivers." Center For American Progress (2012): ERIC. Web. 3 May 2014

Roberts, Mari Ann. No Child Left Behind Act (2001). n.p.: Sage Publications, Inc, 2014. Gale

Virtual Reference Library. Web. 3 May 2014.

Tavakolian, Hamid, and Nancy Howell. "The Impact Of No Child Left Behind Act." Franklin

Business & Law Journal 1 (2012): 70-77. Business Source Complete. Web. 3 May 2014.

Read More