No Child Left Behind policy and educational outcomes

Politics

A Policy Issue in Education: No Child Left Behind

Political Influences that Helped to Determine the NCLB Act

The publication of a Nation at Risk Report in 1983, put education into the political ring as the Reagan Administration determined that the state of education was a national security risk (Reutzel, 2009). This report caused the public and politicians everywhere to begin looking at education and the state of reading readiness of the kids in the United States in a different light. President Bill Clinton started the path of uniting the National Governor's Convention with legislation entitled Goals 2000: Educate America Act, in 1994. This legislation was the start of countrywide testing in reading and math to show responsibility for public education. At the same time, the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) was put out by a congressionally funded testing service. This showed the reading scores amid the nation's fourth graders were going down (Reutzel, 2009). This was what truly started the downfall of literacy education without political influence.

The next ten years would see a wealth of data obtained both publicly and privately, showing the collapse of a nation and the social difficulties that would result if education was left to educators and the educational system. Federal funding would be given to schools of poverty or schools that were underachieving. Research standards like those used by other professional fields like engineering and medicine would be used to determine the reformation of literacy education. Literacy reform really became an issue of concern in the U.S. Congress. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1964 was revised in the No Child Left Behind legislation of 2002. This legislation relied heavily on the scientific research in regards to reading that highlighted the fact that precise, systematic phonics education within literacy programs was needed (Reutzel, 2009). It was then that the literacy education community found itself under the attentive eye of the political arena.

Why and How NCLB Formed

The No Child Left Behind Act came to be in 2001 because of states altering their education strategies to hold the schools more answerable for their kids' accomplishments. During the past couple of years all the states have shaped some sort of regulation in order to hold schools answerable so that there would be more of a plan to make sure that all kids are successful. In the past those kids who were in Special Education classes were not being looked at by way of these statewide assessments. This was established to be bothersome for the reason that no one knew how those children in the special education classes were doing. No one knew if they were falling behind, what kind of education were they getting and how they could be incorporated in testing so that those in charge would know that the special education students were not being left behind (History and Overview of the No Child Left Behind Act of 200, n.d.).

Before the NCLB was fashioned, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997 started to compel schools to necessitate special education students to be integrated in the statewide tests. If they were not physically able to take the test there had to be some sort of scrutiny report that would account for the position of these students. Then in 2001 the NCLB was put into practice and made sure that children with disabilities were incorporated in the school's accountability. It was determined that all children, in grades three through eight, would be tested in reading and math, and in 2007 the testing of science was also included. Another chief addition with the NCLB was that it would now included test results for minority schools and ESL students. Looking at those students with learning disabilities led to a difficulty for policy makers as to how they should shape a consistent way of evaluating these children's capabilities (History and Overview of the No Child Left Behind Act of 200, n.d.).

Strategic implementation of NCLB

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) was intended to accomplish a determined goal. The goal was that all children would be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013 -- 14 school year. The main approach for attaining this goal was accountability. NCLB holds schools and districts answerable for their kids' mastery of state content standards, as measured by state assessments. NCLB accountability rests on numerous key ideas. These include: the obvious descriptions and targets for preferred academic results will offer both inducements for and gauges of enhancement; that recognition of districts and schools not meeting their enhancement targets will help center aid and involvement in places where they are most required; that extensively accessible information about student accomplishment will facilitate parents, educators and other stakeholders to make knowledgeable choices about how best to serve their students or children; and that targeted help will stimulate school and district progression (Le Floch, Carlson, Felipe, O'Day, Stecher, Taylor and Cook, 2007).

The No Child Left Behind Act affects almost every person who works in a public school system. All schools in districts that receive Title 1 federal money must produce comprehensive yearly reports on the advancement of their students. Each school must also account for the advancement of four subgroups: minority children, children with disabilities, children with limited English ability, and children from low-income families. If a district is not successful in measuring the level of all kids, immediately and progressively, to the state-defined level of aptitude, the district will loose some of their authority (Whitney, 2011).

Comprehensive knowledge about the performance of schools in a district and subgroups of students must be easily obtainable to anyone who wants these facts. Real estate agents will rely on these facts to answer client inquiries about school districts and areas. Teachers often look at these facts before choosing to apply for a job in a school, district, or state. Superintendents will make use of these facts in order to decide which principals are managing triumphant schools and which are not. School boards will use these facts to assess superintendents. Voters will make the most of these facts to appraise school boards. Industry will utilize state report cards in order to make choices about where to place new services (Whitney, 2011).

Student test outcomes often involve everyone who works at a school district. K-3 teachers must teach all kids to read. These teachers must be trained how to evaluate children and how to utilize measurement results to plan successful teaching. If a child is not making advancements with one technique of lessons, the teacher must utilize a different, yet more suitable technique. Teachers must utilize research-based techniques of teaching and be well-informed about phonemic consciousness and phonics (Whitney, 2011).

Teachers who teach upper elementary grades must teach math, reading, and science at advanced levels. These teachers have to have the skills to teach a lot of levels of students. Yearly testing will demonstrate the quantity of increase made by children of individual teachers. Schools will not be capable of retaining unproductive teachers. The risks are too high. Middle school and high school teachers must adhere to the new greatly qualified standard in the subjects they teach. Teachers in higher grades are accountable for improvements made by their kids. These teachers will be accountable for teaching students who transfer into their schools without the level of teaching they should have had. Special education teachers must teach students to the level of ability. If a special education teacher teaches a core subject, they must meet the standard of a greatly qualified teacher in that subject. Special education teachers must work more intimately with normal educators. A child may take a substitute assessment if their disabilities avert them from taking the usual state assessment but substitute assessments must test grade level information (Whitney, 2011).

Principals have a lot different things that they must accomplish. They have to revamp their schools, in order to put into practice research-based curricula, make sure that teachers are skilled in research-based instructional techniques, and supply core reading information to elementary teachers who did not get this instruction in college. Principals who increase their school's efficiency must get ready for abrupt changes in their student population. Special education directors must advocate effectual research-based techniques for students with dissimilar learning techniques. Graduation rates for children with disabilities have to be broken out on school and district report cards. These report cards will illustrate the ability rates of students with disabilities at each school. If the drop out rate is elevated, the superintendent or school board will expect an explanation. If test scores of children with disabilities are low, directors of special education may need to enlighten why these students are not attaining superior scores, even though each child has an Individualized Educational Plan (IEP) that is intended to meet the child's distinctive requirements (Whitney, 2011).

Superintendents must manage and assess education for workers in research-based techniques and curricula. They also have to make sure that all paraprofessionals in Title 1 schools are working in suitable competencies and meet the bare minimum teaching and information requirements. Superintendents must deal with student populations that change yearly as school choice options alter. These alterations will influence schools that have to present school choice, and schools that do not get Title 1 funds. The child who uses school choice does not have to attend another Title 1 school. They may decide to go to a school that does not get Title 1 funding (Whitney, 2011).

Evaluation of the Effect and Effectiveness of NCLB

Holding schools and school districts responsible for the level of education that they supply is the chief principle of the No Child Left Behind Act. The key to the Act's approach is the make use of measurement tools like standardized tests to be given on a regular schedule, the utilization of benchmarks, and a scheme of encouragements and punishments linked to the generation of higher test scores. On some accounts, the outcomes of this law have been very positive (Cleary, n.d.).

As new or amended standardized tests go into effect in every state, educators, parents, and others interested in education have more trustworthy tools in order to measure the accomplishment of students, as well as the accomplishment of schools. This law commands extended importance on the education of subgroups of minority children, disabled children, and children who doe not speak English. By including teacher certification as one of the measurements used to gauge schools, rising numbers of teachers are going back to school in order to pursue certification credentials (Cleary, n.d.).

NCLB has shown itself to be a standard case of a good idea, with bad implementation. it's a noble attempt that ended up demeaning teachers' morale and putting so much frenzied focal point on testing that real learning got left behind. Before No Child Left Behind was implemented, there was no clear answerability for how well schools were teaching students, and there wasn't a sense of accountability for those performing at a low-level. When students graduated from high school, no one knew whether they were reading at the fifth, eighth, or twelfth-grade level. The light bulb moment came when researchers exposed how poorly many low-income and minority kids were doing. Schools were not doing well by them, and a lot were performing beneath grade level (Rubenstein, 2010).

A lot of the promises in NCLB sound good for enhancing education. Everybody wants schools to do a high-quality job teaching all students. They want to close the gap that exists in achievement. They want to have capable teachers in all classrooms along with safe schools. Parents want to play a significant function in the schools. Unfortunately, the way NCLB in fact works opposes the guarantees that it fundamentally makes. NCLB entails a strict, universal structure that depends exclusively on test scores in order to gauge students and schools, it endorses teaching to the test and a dummied down program of study, the choice granted to parents has been a practical nightmare which does nothing to advance area schools and NCLB mandates school districts to pay for child transfers and privatization. These programs have no record of accomplishment. The increased in testing have already escalated the drop out rate and engaged more schools to push out low scoring children. Limited education finances are being wasted on testing, administration, and rules and regulations instead of on decreasing class sizes, providing more early childhood education, increasing parent participation, and pay for up-to-date textbooks (PURE FACT SHEET NCLB- the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly, n.d).