No Child Left Behind
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is an act that narrates an essential objective for the United States Education system. Dreadfully, the act is antagonizing, not solving, the real questions that cause many students to be left behind. Though it was designed for the federal government to make a meaningful contribution to strengthening the quality of education that students in low-income communities receive. Studies on NCLB expose a number of issues.
A significant number of these reports focus on the effects of the Act, while others expose its structural inadequacies. Also, some articles recommend moderate changes, but only insignificant regulatory amendments have been adopted before the law was replaced in 2015. There are two assumptions that the Act uses which include; that by threatening teachers, a schools performance will improve and that standard tests throughout a state should be the primary objective of a school.
Instead of scrapping the No Child Left Behind, policy makers should have come up with a law that understands the problems facing many schools. Come up with solutions that improve, no look down upon, the quality of education. Genuine accountability should have been at the center of this Act. In the short term policy makers should have done away with the punitive penalties and scrapping of testing students in grade three to eight in math and reading.
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB), is an Act that reapproves the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Fundamentally the federal government gives financial help to support vulnerable students by making sure that they get the proper tools to develop their education. In my opinion the problem with the NCLB is that it frightens teachers who have to prepare their students for a standardized test. Some of these teachers turn to cheating so that they can avoid sanctions and those that get caught cannot evade punishment.
Also, another problem of the Act is that we can derive benefits by choosing some computable skills from skills that children learn in school. In my opinion, we do not have any idea what a fifth grader wants. A lot of learning takes place in Elementary schools which is outside the reading and math’s which the Act wants teachers and students to dwell. The Act which was contentious before it was replaced institutes a test-based school responsibility to scale across America.
Studies from different sources point out how the new management programs develop in reaction to NCLB influence the performance of students, district finances, and estimates of institutions and teacher practices. Results of these studies show that NCLB brings improvements in mathematics for younger students especially those from poor communities. However, the studies do not show effects on student reading. Expenditure of school-districts increase significantly but the federal government does not reciprocate. Also, the compensation of teachers soars. Finally, the institutions dedicate most of their time on the target subjects which include mathematics and reading.
One of the issue that George Bush used in 2000 when running for the presidency was education. He wanted to make changes that would have a positive impact on the American education system. Bush wants a system that holds teachers and schools accountable and also raise the standards of students from poor backgrounds. The program was known as the No Child Left behind which he proposes to Congress. Congress passes the Act and it is in play for fourteen years before it was replaced.
The program has received its share of criticism from teachers and technocrats who say it has caused more harm than good. Proponents claim that this law assists American institutions improve the comprehensive quality of education. The proponents believe that the accomplishment gap among white and minority group of students is narrow because of this Act and that it helps in achieving equity. However, there are opponents who claim that under the Act, the quality of education has fallen and a significant number of African-American and Latino leave school without graduating. The No Child Left Behind policy was replaced in 2015 after being in for fourteen years in America.
The First alternative that policymakers should make is letting states to entirely leave this system of No Child Left Behind. One such proposition is the Academic Partnership Leads Us to Success. (A-PLUS) Act. Using the A-PLUS proposal in reapproving of NCLB would give states a chance to integrate their federal education funding and utilize the funds for any legal education cause they see as beneficial. It will help states to stay away from NCLB’s authoritative and schematic requirements that utilize funds in a manner that aids students to meet their needs.
Secondly, the number of programs that come under NCLB should decrease. For example, before NCLB, the initial Elementary and Secondary Education Act had five titles, thirty two pages and $1 billion fund from the federal government. There should be a universal program instead of coming up with a different solution for every problem.
Finally, and at the very least, policymakers should incorporate a state choice for Title I funding flexibility. Title I accounts for the highest NCLB expenditure. The program provides one of the initial and main reasons by channeling extra federal funds to schools in low-income communities. Nevertheless, Title I funds move through a complex funding process which researchers say includes, provisions that make the last outcome considerably different with the initial legislation. For the Title I program to work for students from vulnerable communities, policymakers should simplify the funding mechanism, and Congress should allow states make the funding mobile letting it to accompany the student to school that the parents choose.
Congress should get rid of federal injunctions on states and local community schools and create mobility of Title I funding. Such a perspective constitutes a first minor step forward change. Although the No Child Left Behind Act was replaced, I would recommend that states that are comfortable with the program should leave completely. Before the replacement of the program, research shows that the American Education Department had approved appeals from thirty four states to do away with particular impractical prerequisites from the NCLB.
States, under the program should aim for the main objective, ensuring every American student has the chance to receive high-quality education and achieve competency on demanding academic quality. However, many students from poor communities continue to receive low-quality education. Instructors should be held accountable for the results, but for NCLB to put a lot of energy on math and language arts means that teachers will go to any length to produce good results on these tests. It may mean that some teachers may cheat to avoid sanctions that come with the program. Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) limits teachers. Instructors abandon the other subjects and concentrate on what the standardized test comprises.
Whether states pull out of this program or not, the federal government should continue playing an active role by ensuring Elementary and Secondary schools are accountable by providing all children especially those from poor communities, with an education that has a competitive edge globally. By pulling out of this program, states should not water down their intentions for school accomplishment.
Rise in flexibility offers states the chance to attain the spirit of the Secondary and Elementary Education Act, which stalled Congress, while also permitting them to make and implement policies that match local needs. By taking advantage of the opportunity states do not want to change direction but rather expedite the changes that exist by doing away with federal restrictions.
The No Child Left Behind Act Flexibility, allows states to implement essential education changes such as appraising teachers more purposefully, increasing teacher-student interaction time and positioning students to achieve higher standards for math and reading. Now states can decide goals that schools can achieve without pressure from the federal government. Those responsible for the implementation of these alternative policies include the Education Department and all the states to ensure that achievement of goals is paramount. Regular consultations should take place between stakeholders, and a working timeline that is agreeable to all parties should be developed. The timeline should not put any party under pressure. Regular monitoring of the alternative program will assist in determining whether the policy is feasible or not. The policymakers should come up with a program that addresses the limitations of the previous policy. By developing an all-inclusive program, the stakeholders will save the state and federal governments a significant amount of money since that policy will be I play for a long time. The policymakers must also look at the needs of all the students and instructors. There are teachers and students who require special attention, and treating them as the rest will put them at a disadvantage. Also, during the implementation timeline, which can be put at five years, the instructors and students should not be under any type of pressure from any stakeholder. It does not mean that teachers should not be accountable, it gives the teachers a chance to put their training to use and get the best out of all students. Administering the standardized tests also puts students under pressure because a student who fails may feel less motivated and drop out of school before graduation. Therefore, those people given the mandate of formulating alternative programs should consider all parties.