No Child Left Behind as a way of providing quality education to all students within a state and nationall
The American education structure is different from many other nations. Although the American federal government gives 10 percent to the national education budget, education is principally the duty of state and local authorities. Every state has its education branch and regulations that control finances, how to hire teachers, attendance of students, and curriculum. States have control of what students learn and what they must achieve to proceed. The education system also uses the property taxes proceeds that fund the education of a particular district. Some districts are wealthy while others are poor. Hence, the government has to undertake certain measures so as to offer a level playing ground for all students. Therefore, this paper will look at the No Child Left Behind as a way of providing quality education to all students within a state and nationally.
An act known as the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) started in the United States in 2001. The act 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. The Act complements the standards-based education change, which places the academic quality of attainment for students. We use the standards to lead all the other elements of the corporate network. The movement advocates for computable content that every student can understand. Maintaining standards, the Act seeks to aid bring vulnerable students up to a level of standards that is acceptable as required by the standard-based education change.
The program achieves the needs of students by setting up funding for the education when the normal school structure is not successful. Every student has their specific needs, and this initiative intends to give resources for every student so that their requirements are met and they can attain level of education prescribed. NCLB expects all states to embark on standards that will help in the achievement of basic skill. The federal government sets no particular accomplishment standards. The standards set by the state form the basis of federal government funding. The program plays a significant role in identifying schools that do not meet the standards that are set forth in the federal Adequate Yearly Progress. For each year a school does not reach the set standards, there is a new solution. Teachers are put under pressure to achieve, rather than piling all the pressure on the students. The program can identify non-performing teachers, and NCLB essentially through the states identify these teachers whom they can maintain on high standards.
On the other hand, the program assists the students to achieve their needs because it provides a reasonable degree that the students should be attaining. It aids in certifying that the required level of attainment is registered so that the students can achieve the standards the students need to be triumphant in college. We can attribute the success of this program to the use of only one standard that all students should accomplish. All the students nationally are given a level playing ground for joining colleges. An area where the act does not favor students accordingly is the area of record keeping. For example, military recruiters get access to the students contact data. These recruiters contact the students but the students can always opt out of letting the recruiters to access personal data.
The No Child Left Behind program has various standards, which will be set off before examining whether they are feasible. The standardized state-wide tests that each school provides is one of the significant elements of this program. The test should happen annually so that the federal government can make a decision on how much money it should give to each school district for educating students. All the students in the state take these tests under the same circumstances. Moreover, the schools that are already securing sponsorship under the Title I from Secondary and Elementary Education Act of 1965 need to create progress yearly in their exams. For example, fourth graders need to perform better in the previous years’ exams for them to proceed to acquire funding. This ensures that this funding is bringing positive results and not producing results that are not desirable.
The goal of this program is to make sure that the results of these schools improve in many of these years. For example, schools that do not manage to attain the AYP for two tears consecutively are said to require improvement. The schools need to come up with a two-year refinement proposal that outlines how the students will realize more. The students who have a choice can move to another school. Also, when a school does not meet the AYP for three consecutive years, it is bound to offer free tutoring to the students and other education services that struggling students require.
Those that miss the Adequate Yearly Progress for four years require a corrective action. It could mean that a staff overhaul may take place, initiation of a new curriculum, or compelling students from this particular school, district or state to spend more time in class. Restructuring of the entire school might also be convenient where a school does not meet the targets the sixth successive year. Choices at this stage include shutting down the school, contracting a private firm to oversee the implementation of NCLB, changing the institution into a charter school, or handing over the school to the state.
The federal government involves itself in how states create AYP goals. For example, the state should make sure that the AYP computable goals exist in the first place. It is not a requirement for each school or school district to develop their own objectives. The goals are for all students, including those from poor districts. Identification of students with special needs such as students with disabilities and those who do not have a complete comprehension of English should be taken into account. Basing of AYP should be on state evaluations, and they also require other education components. Assessing of these goals should happen in schools. Annual report for the separate groups that we identify should also take place. The significance of this report is to see whether the objectives of the program are being met. States can take three years to make the AYP ascertainment.
Eventually, the bill follows through on its objective of organizing school in a manner that aids in making sure that all students are given a chance to succeed. Because of the firm formation of the yearly assessments of each of the schools, teachers become accountable for the students achievement. Teachers work hard and groom their students so that they can become high achievers who join college later in life. The annual tests determine whether schools need to make readjustments and whether the school requires more attention. Schools that do not meet the standards can face decrease in funding which appears to be implausible. The schools contends with the pressure of improving the performance with budget cuts.
This bill is prosperous since it provides a connection between the state’s education standards and the students’ results. It fundamentally holds the standards liable, and could inspire those drafting the policies about the Acts to do a commendable job. Also, it calculates the students’ performance annually to gauge whether the students are doing better or not.
It is uncertain whether the government is fulfilling on all of its goals. However, in looking at particular stories about the program, the picture becomes comprehensible. For example, the state of Pennsylvania proposes that it will pay its teachers by looking at the test scores they get. If students in the district perform below par, the teachers’ wages will be low. By basing the teachers’ pay on the tests will encourage teachers to work hard and encourage their students to perform well. If the students feel like the school they are in is performing poorly, they can request for a transfer.
In order to establish whether we achieve the services, it is essential to observe the culpability networks that were in use before the act came into use, and contrast student performances from then to now. NCLB has had positive results and students are performing much better when we compare with earlier days before the program. However, critics say that this program leads states to lower the accomplishment level, and this decreases the effective teaching that we expect our teachers to deliver because teachers only teach to test. Nonetheless, the tests provide data about students that allow improvement of success. Through the knowledge that the state gathers through these tests, improvement on the shortcomings happens.
Parents are not left behind and this program gives data to parents by ensuring that the states and the school districts give the guardians students report cards on the school, and the district should expound to the parents the AYP accomplishment of the school. The parents also need to know about the teacher that is handling their child and how the teacher ranks as an instructor.
Parents under the Individual Education Plan (IEP), have the right to follow whether their children are accomplishing under the Free Access to Public Education (FAPE). It assists guardians to see whether these schools follow the standards the state establishes. Some parents are uneasy as to whether IEP is being given the attention it deserves. For example, parents in Illinois had concerns with School District 140, stating that NCLB does not take place in schools. The parents feel that the students do not get additional education that NCLB recommends for students who perform below the state set standards. Guardians feel the support that the state promises to accord students is not available; thus, the education standards deteriorate.
In conclusion, NCLB exhibits positive results since its inception, according to all the stakeholders in the education sector who interact with the program. The initiative improves the achievement of students, which was the ultimate objective of the program from the start. The change in the teachers’ attitude has also had positive impact on the performance of students. There are instances where students need tutoring and these districts require more funding. It has not been common apart from some isolated cases because teachers are meeting the standards that have been set by the act.
Before the act, teachers were not culpable regularly for the type of education they were offering. Students did not achieve high grades in the tests because there was lack of teachers’ accountability. Another win for this program is that teachers who fail in achieving these set standards lose their jobs. The program could gain from a modification of strategy surrounding the removal of funds when the schools are not meeting the benchmark. This component of NCLB is faulty, just when the school is about to make a turn around the state withdraws the funding.