No Child Left Behind: effectiveness, standardized testing, and educational reform

No Child Left Behind your purchase.'

No Child Left Behind

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was officially passed in 2001 and was introduced into education shortly after. This act worked to introduce standards-based educational reform of elementary and secondary education. One of the main components of the act was a push towards mandated standardized testing as a means for rating achievements and holding educators accountable for their performances. While the reform was supposed to improve the quality of education that children receive during their development, the actual results of these measures are heavily disputed.

There are many countries in which their education systems do not place a lot of faith in standardized testing; or use them at all in some cases. Furthermore, some I of these countries, are some of the top school systems in the world. Thus, after about a decade of mixed results from No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the data about the program's effectiveness hotly contested in many areas in regards to the effectiveness of the standardized testing strategy. There seems to be some improvement in certain demographics, however it is obvious that others are having trouble. There has also been many interesting developments that have occurred as teachers have been apt to teach based on the tests or "teaching to the test" rather than something representing a more holistic educational experience.

Four Pillars of the NCLB

There are four pillars or four primary components of the No Child Left Behind that were part of the act (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).

1. Stronger Accountability for Results

2. More Freedom for States and Communities

3. Proven Education Methods

Discussion

One study compares the short-term focused U.S. efforts on child care and early development with those that are more long-term oriented such as found in Norway. This provides insight as to how an early investment in education can pay off down the line (Havnes & Magne, 2011). The NCLB program seems short-term focused to many researchers because of the way that the program is funded. The move to standardize testing is focused on short-term results as opposed to focusing on more long investments that have longer payback periods.

Some researchers have gone even further with their claims. Another analysis argues that the requirements for "highly qualified" teachers are unlikely to have had any perceptible effect on the performance of students (Hanushek, 2010). Second, the combination of quality requirements and the more-stringent testing environment could make teaching appear more costly and risky as a profession and thus alter the composition of new entrants, but at least so far, no evidence of such effects has been found. Finally, the accountability provisions might change the dynamics of the labor market for teachers, including decisions about hiring and job separation. This provides an interesting perspective on the NCLB in regards to the quality of teachers and attracting potential high quality teachers in the future.

Another interesting perspective on the NCLB Act comes from Charles Murray. Murray makes some powerful claims regarding the roots or the foundation for the crisis in education. He believes that Educational romanticism consists of the belief that just about all children who are not doing well in school have the potential to do much better and that educational romantics believe that the academic achievement of children is determined mainly by the opportunities they receive (Murray, 2008). However, intuitively everyone in education knows that this is not necessarily the case. Some regions have a high percentage of students that do not have the ability or the desire to further their own education. Some of this might be because of the culture that students are exposed to or even income inequalities that deter students from investing in their own education.

Conclusion

The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act was officially passed in 2001 and was introduced into education shortly after. While the reform was supposed to improve the quality of education that children receive during their development, the actual results of these measures are heavily disputed. The effectiveness of the program is criticized on several grounds and many argue that standardizing the testing has only produce teachers that teach what is on the test, rather than customize their curriculum to fit the individualized needs of the students. It is unclear at this point what the future of the NCLB movement will be but it does not to have met all of the objectives that it has set out to.