Sign Up Now
Get instant access to over 1 million+ study documents
OR
Already registered? click here to login
By creating your account, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and student honor code.
Moreover, the legislation contains loopholes that exempt some states from complying in some ways and it allows for some practices that distort the test results in some situations. These loopholes and exceptions are themselves impediments to any good science that might come from the testing regimes required (McDermott & Jensen, 2005).
The authors of "Dubious Sovereignty" describe yet another of NCLB's contradictions. The proponents of the law say it protects individual students rights by enforcing a uniform standard for a high quality education across the country. However, the legislation allows the individual states to set up their own standards and create their own tests, and therefore there is not a true uniform standard nationwide (McDermott & Jensen, 2005). Mayers's article "Public Law 107-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Support or Threat to Education as a Fundamental Right?" examines how the law impacts the populations it was designed to help. Mayer's view of the law is negative. She demonstrates how some states use various methods to discount the test scores of subgroups whose scores can hurt the school's ratings, even though those groups are the supposed beneficiaries of NCLB. The author illustrates how the standardized test required of the law can pose difficulties to students who come from backgrounds where formal English is not spoken or accessed regularly. Still, such students are the ones lagging in achievement. Mayer's research points out that poverty is the greatest factor undermining student…
McDermott and Jensen point out another contradiction in NCLB. The law requires that states and localities enact policies and build curricula based on the evidence of scientific research. While it is a good idea to do so, the legislation itself is not based on any science, nor does it offer any body of good scientific literature to schools and teachers, nor guidelines for selection the kind of good science to use for this purpose. Moreover, the legislation contains loopholes that exempt some states from complying in some ways and it allows for some practices that distort the test results in some situations. These loopholes and exceptions are themselves impediments to any good science that might come from the testing regimes required (McDermott & Jensen, 2005).
The authors of "Dubious Sovereignty" describe yet another of NCLB's contradictions. The proponents of the law say it protects individual students rights by enforcing a uniform standard for a high quality education across the country. However, the legislation allows the individual states to set up their own standards and create their own tests, and therefore there is not a true uniform standard nationwide (McDermott & Jensen, 2005).
Camille M. Mayers's article "Public Law 107-110 No Child Left Behind Act of 2001: Support or Threat to Education as a Fundamental Right?" examines how the law impacts the populations it was designed to help. Mayer's view of the law is negative. She demonstrates how some states use various methods to discount the test scores of subgroups whose scores can hurt the school's ratings, even though those groups are the supposed beneficiaries of NCLB. The author illustrates how the standardized test required of the law can pose difficulties to students who come from backgrounds where formal English is not spoken or accessed regularly. Still, such students are the ones lagging in achievement. Mayer's research points out that poverty is the greatest factor undermining student success, but NCLB doesn't address that underlining issue.
An Explication of Selected Titles of No Child Left Behind Legislation In sum, during the period from 2002 through 2015, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) became the primary law in the United States concerning the general education of young people in grades K through 12. Some of the provisions of NCLB, especially those involving minorities and migrant children, were contentious because they operated to penalize schools that failed to demonstrate sustained
(No Child Left behind Act Aims to Improve Success for All Students and Eliminate the Achievement Gap) Parents will also gain knowledge regarding how the quality of learning is happening in their child's class. They will get information regarding the progress of their child vis-a-vis other children. Parents have of late been given the privilege to ask for information regarding the level of skills of the teachers. It offers parents
No Child Left Behind When it was first initiated, the No Child Left Behind Act was intended to make schools accountable for the education of their students. This federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act was supposed to improve the quality of education for all children in the United States. This paper will show, however, that in many school districts, the No Child Left Behind Act has had the opposite effect. As
What works for one child is not necessarily going to work for the next. So how can one promote the use of standardized tests as the only way to measure educational learning and success? The premise of the No Child Left Behind Act is very honorable. Each child should be taught by the best teachers that there are and each school should be held accountable for making sure that
Review and Comment Indications suggest that Obama will endorse a rewritten version of No Child Left Behind once requirements like teacher quality and academic standards are toughened up to focus more attention on failing schools. This will mean more, not less, federal involvement in the program. Overall, reaction to Obama's plans are negative. Most who were opposed to Bush's policy had hoped for a brand new start rather than a rehash
For Bush, the "formation and refining of policy proposals" (Kingdon's second process stream in policymaking) came to fruition when he got elected, and began talking to legislators about making educators and schools accountable. Bush gave a little, and pushed a little, and the Congress make its own changes and revisions, and the policy began to take shape. The third part of Kingdon's process stream for Bush (politics) was getting the