No Child Left Behind Act- Term Paper

Excerpt from Term Paper :

(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 assistance and alternatives for fulfilling the learning requirements of their children. Parents will be aware as to when their child is lagging behind and they will have fresh alternatives in case their child's school is not fulfilling their requirements. Proponents are of the opinion that schools which are unable to raise their standards must utilize their federal funds to receive children additional assistance; which may indicate shifting to a superior school in the region or paying for extra services in the locality like tutoring, classes after school hours, corrective classes, or summer school.

It offers resources and more investment flexibility to instructors and federal spending of schools on education will rise 29% with No Child Left Behind. Proponents are of the opinion that instructors will be possessing added data regarding every child's plus points and slackness that will help in readying the lessons, teaching methods and mentor professional development and assistance. Finally, school districts will be having increased flexibility to transfer federal funding into spheres which are meant for betterment in teaching practices, improvement, use of technology, and safe and schools which are free of drugs. (No Child Left behind Act Aims to Improve Success for All Students and Eliminate the Achievement Gap)

Opposing Viewpoints

It has been disparaged that instead of promoting all-round, advancing, or other different projects which are functional for every children in their schools, NCLB and any federal laws that authorizes consistency through grade-level experimentation implicitly dissuades the prolongation of programs which concentrates on the particulars of the needs of the children. (Martin, 2004) the "No Child Left Behind" Act penalizes schools while the students are unable to meet the desired levels, instead of gratifying them when they perform up to the level. (Clarke, 2004) Yet again there is an impediment in directing the monetary assistance to states, districts and schools. (Tony, 2002)

It has been criticized that under NCLB, Tide I federal funding -capital employed to give additional educational facilities to underprivileged students in educational institutions where incidence of poverty is high -- does not track children to non-Title I schools who function better. The outcome is that schools that fare better do not have any financial inducement to enroll children whose performance is not good. (Snell, 2004) it has been contended that the NCLB offers genuine impediments to assisting students and reinforcing public schools as it concentrates on penalties instead of support; authorization instead of assistance for successful programs and; privatization instead of teacher-guided, family-centric results. (No Child Left Behind Act/ESEA) it has been stated that by its title itself, the No Child Left behind Act builds a pledge to believe the requirements of individual students in improving the performance of students.

However, superintendents throughout the nation have revealed that this offers an important challenge. Since states have published their listing of schools that were unsuccessful in meeting their targets, specifically one question surfaced. A lot of schools are fulfilling the objectives in every, except one or two subgroups: small group of students having competence in English and incapacitated students. By needing these groups of students attain the same objectives concurrently as every other students, the law has been condemned within the meaning that it inflicts a blanket approach which overlooks the individual child. A lot of matters in evaluating LEP students and incapacitated students under NCLB are also surfacing. The initial question is that by description LEP students are not skilled in English and also by description students who are incapacitated possesses individual requirements, which initiated them to be branded like that at the outset. (Schwartzbeck, 2003)

Secondly, in the gamut of answerability buildup of NCLB, what is the manner in which students evaluated and numbered? As per the detractors a lot of important disparities exist from one state to another in the categories of alterations existing and how groups of students are reckoned towards sufficient development on a yearly basis. Ultimately, in the enormous interactive challenge offered by NCLB, the extremely challenging is in respect of how school leaders can and must experience the concerns these group of students' offer, while paying attention so that the students are not accused and yet making themselves responsible for a series of developments in performance. (Schwartzbeck, 2003)

It has been debated that every academician desires the most excellent for the students with specific requirements. However, they even desire the objectives for these students to be practical and significantly show some common sense coupled with the student's federally needed individual education projects. It is true that a few students having slight incapacitation are able to take the tests and fulfill the educational levels, but a lot of others are being questioned for completely unsuitable levels. One major question is regarding students with inadequate competence in English. As may appear understandable, as a LEP student is a brief situation. A student joins the school system devoid of glibness of English joins a specific program, is taught English, emerges successful in the fluency test and leaves LEP category. (Schwartzbeck, 2004)

Still then schools are blamed for raising the number of these students emerging successful in these state tests. Consequently, a lot of states are finding out different methods to ascertain the number of students with restricted competence in English. Several states take them into account for as much as three years after they quit LEP programs. However these statistical exercises never get at the crux of the problem. The urgency as a lot of superintendents have declared is a different method to make the schools answerable for imparting education to these students. (Schwartzbeck, 2004) case is being made that real statistical result, which is being anticipated, is impossible mathematically. By the year 2014, the government declares that every child will be in the level or above the level of national standards. In the case of a normal distribution, it will found that the children will be equally divided with 50% above the middle and 50% below the middle. In the opinion of the detractors, the difficulty is that, in two to three years we will not have any school left which is performing, since every school, which is having difficulties in testing, will dissociate more children into the schools, which were fortunate to perform in a better manner. (Monroe, 2003) an additional difficulty is present as per its detractors. Several states have put a lower standard or made the examinations simpler.

Quite others have employed ingenious statistical strategies to augment their ability scores. A lot others have shelved their plans of responsibility, such that little is anticipated in the short-term and whereas huge intensifications are "designed" to be meant for the final years. For causes which are very random, a lot of states appear encouraging whereas others seem to be languishing. The matter regarding quality teachers crops yet more queries. It has been debated that under the NCLB; skilled teachers must possess a bachelors degree, they should be approved by the state, and exhibit thorough understanding in the subject by possessing their college degree in the subject they teach or emerging successful in a state test on the subject. These procedures might brand certain good teachers as not qualified, whereas those meet the legal requirements but are unable to teach well are accepted. (Kafer, 2004)

The dilemma might be specifically severe in the village regions, where the teachers are engaged in teaching a lot of subjects. It has been reviewed further that at the regional level, accomplishment of the preference of public school and additional facilities has been irregular. Even though involvement in preferences and coaching is rising, just a small proportion of entitled students are taking part. The preference for public school execution even has not been fared well, in part due to insufficient ability and a series of opposition by the bureaucrats. The bulk of the low performing schools in the rural districts and urban districts have less or absence of better quality options for students those who want to shift. Research professional have found out that the those districts who do not report parents, gave parents a very minimum time to reach a conclusion between their alternatives, or just offered them schools which were faring as badly as or worse compared to the school their child was going away.

They also discovered instances of understated discouragement or concealment in letters addressed to parents, which are ambiguous regarding the position of the school and the alternatives present. It…

Cite This Term Paper:

"No Child Left Behind Act-" (2004, November 22) Retrieved July 28, 2017, from
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/no-child-left-behind-act-59160

"No Child Left Behind Act-" 22 November 2004. Web.28 July. 2017. <
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/no-child-left-behind-act-59160>

"No Child Left Behind Act-", 22 November 2004, Accessed.28 July. 2017,
https://www.paperdue.com/essay/no-child-left-behind-act-59160