Education the No Child Left

Education The No Child Left Behind Act and the ESEA The No Child Left Behind Act has been a sore spot for educators since its inception. Superficially, it's difficult to disagree with the overall aim of the law. Simply put, NCLB was designed to improve learning for public school students, especially those students who face more difficulty in achieving a meaningful education (Perlstein, 2004).

Contrasted with other education legislation, such as the ESEA 2007 reauthorization, NCLB reads as too rigid and likely to do more harm than good, most notably to the exact at-risk students NCLB originally targeted (Crawford, 2004). NCLB attempts to improve education for public school students through a variety of means, and new funding opportunities. In large part, however, NCLB turns on the issue of accountability as it can be applied to various aspects of education.

For instance, teachers are to held accountable for their methods and abilities, judged worthy to teach or not based a series of strict rules. Similarly, the methods and programs used in the public schools will only be promoted if they are back by solid, accountable, scientific research that demonstrates their success. Finally, the schools themselves will be held accountable for the success or failure of their students through setting strict test score targets. If those targets are met, the school can be rewarded.

If not, then the school will be at risk for losing their public funding (Perlstein, 2004). This system of accountability for education is the hallmark of NCLB, and one of the primary reasons that the law received such wide support during its creation. There is a broad public and political support for this kind of accountability (Crawford, 2004). But even relatively inexperienced educators recognize that NCLB is ultimately limiting and will have a restrictive effect on education.

Innovation will be undermined and a commitment to effective education will be replaced with number crunching and preparations for standardized testing. For the at-risk students that NCLB was supposed to help, this could actually make their educational situation much worse. As a consequence, the National Education Association has proposed a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 2007 as an alternative to the rigid, punitive, and unscientific methods of NCLB (ESEA, 2006; Crawford, 2004).

While the ESEA summary does include some of the same elements that are present in NCLB -- such as accountability standards -- it does so without the agreed upon flaws of the current law. The overarching purpose of the ESEA is to ensure that all necessary resources are available for educators, that the achievement gap can be closed quickly, that students leave schools with the skills the 21st century demands, and that educators and students will have more enthusiasm for the educational process (ESEA, 2006).

These goals ask a lot of a single piece of legislation, as well as the schools that will have to implement them. However, the ESEA reauthorization will not limit state and local authority, as.