How to Reform Public School Education System

No Child Left Behind The educational philosophy inherent in the No Child Left Behind program is a combination of the philosophy of Adler and of Holt, even though both are opposing. Adler's educational philosophy hold that public schools should serve the democratic ideal by implementing a uniform curriculum for all children, and this is evident in the No Child Left Behind standards adopted by public schools.

At the same time, the philosophy of Holt is evident in the idea that each child is an individual and deserves special attention if struggling to ensure that the child's needs are being met and that a unique and individualized approach is taken for at risk students (Koonce, 2016, p. 23). Thus, No Child Left Behind takes both philosophies and attempts to make them work together as a single philosophical unit. My stance on the issue is that No Child Left Behind does not work very well because of this.

It is uniting two opposing approaches to education and is destined to fail. Schools are expected to show positive results, which encourages them to pass students along and overlook faults; but if schools are being serious and dedicated in the manner that Holt proposes to each individual student, there will be less signs of passing the standardized tests because each student will be getting special attention.

Educators cannot have it both way; either there will be standardization in the classroom, and some left behind; or there will be unique and individualized attention and no guarantee of standardization. If I were head of education at the state or even at the national level I would make some recommendations about how to deal with the concerns of kids at risk, i.e., children raised in poverty, homes with abuse/conflict, learning disability/limitations, English as a second language, etc.

My recommendations would be, first, that children be tested on what they can do and placed in classes accordingly: this would be a pre-placement test before they start the school year. It would be based on where children are expected to be by a certain age, whether they can read, write, speak, do math, spelling, etc. It would rank students according to ability and allow those who have special needs or who are behind in certain areas to be placed in those classes.

Second, the stigma of remedial learning or of being in lower classes would be removed, because it is not important where a child begins, so long as that child is being educated in a manner that allows him or her to develop the skills needed to improve. This could take a quite individualized approach to education, but it would also ensure that no one is belittled or made to feel inferior, which can bring negative energy into a school and cause children to become frustrated.

Third, I would see to it that Maslow's hierarchy of needs is being met by at risk students; students who are at risk would have to show that their basic needs are being met first before education is attempted. Proper supports need to be in place for children to learn sufficiently and adequately, and, for instance, if children do not have adequate shelter, food, or parental love, trying to place education into their hearts and minds will be difficult because these more fundamental needs have not been met.

Therefore, I would recommend that children also be examined to see that their needs are being met according to Maslow's hierarchy. This would help to support at risk students on a fundamental level and "guide them in the development of an internally consistent point-of-view and a program that related realistically to the larger world context" (Knight, 2008, p. 5).

Follow-Up Question: Every Student Succeeds Act? http://www.ed.gov/essa?src=rn How does this match up with their philosophies? The Every Student Succeeds Act matches up better with the philosophies of Adler and Holt than does No Child Left Behind.

Whereas No Child Left Behind attempted to use a one-size-fits-all standard formulate concocted at the federal level, the Every Student Succeeds Act places this process of standardization at a more local level by allowing individual states to craft their own in accordance with the directives and goals of the schools in their districts. Thus, student performance targets and school ratings are state driven and based on multiple measures rather than on formal tests alone (U.S. Department of Education, 2015).

This allows for schools to have more control over the assessment process, which is in line with the philosophy of Holt. At the same time, there is still a measure of standardization, just on a more regional level, and this fits in with the philosophy of Adler, who wants see uniformity as a necessary means of ensuring that every child is taught the same and given the same directives, tools, and goals towards which to.