Essay on "Education - NCLB Views No Child Left"

Essay 5 pages (1535 words) Sources: 6 Style: APA

[EXCERPT] . . . .

Education - NCLB Views

NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND VIEWS and CONTROVERSIES Introduction:

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) singed into law by President Bush was intended to ensure proficiency in reading and in mathematics among American primary and secondary students by the year 2014 (DOE, 2001). Renewal of the NCLB program is up for a vote on its reauthorization in 2008 and nearly 100 national education, civil rights, and religious organizations have signed a "joint organizational statement on NCLB" (Olson & Hoff, 2007) against renewal of NCLB without fundamental changes.

According to many critics, major aspects of the NCLB program focus and defined goals were poorly designed and not capable of being evaluated in a meaningful way, in addition to being responsible for undermining the quality and effectiveness of the public school curricula in several states in particular. Olson and Hoff (2007) suggest that there is some evidence that NCLB may have increased the quality of teachers, but NCLB critics consider it to have wasted considerable effort and public education funds with very little benefit to the actual quality of American public education (Murray, 2006).

Perspectives on the NCLB Approach to Public Education: The NCLB approach was adopted based primarily on the basis of analysis within the Bush administration of data purportedly documenting the closure of an educational gap between white and black students and sufficient academic improvement in the President's home state of Texas. Murray suggests that the absence of any empirical studies establishing the academic effectiveness of the program and the concept and methodology of the data used to justify its proposal for Title I federal funds may be closer to a deliberate deception than to genuine mistake (Murray, 2006). In principle, the mechanism of NCLB compliance may actually reduce the quality of public education, especially for students whose satisfactory performance in the targeted subjects is already above the level of requiring remedial attention (Olson & Huff, 2007). That is largely a direct function of the fact that the principle mechanism by which NCLB programs are evaluated relates to student performance on achievement tests administered periodically by education administrators in each state. This direct link between achievement test scores and eligibility for Title I federal funds creates a natural incentive for inspiring major adjustments in the school curricula designed to provide intense focus on reading and mathematics to the relative exclusion of all other subjects (Darling-Hammond, 2004).

Even worse, instead of merely promoting extra attention to reading and mathematics - in and of itself, not necessarily such a bad goal - the NCLB program employs methods of evaluation that are readily capable of manipulation by academic emphasis on achievement test scores instead of on genuine academic learning, even in reading and mathematics. Already, this has resulted in numerous documented instances of educators in several states cheating the system by drilling their students in the actual questions from their scheduled tests beforehand and even manually changing students' answers on achievement test questions to improve their scores (Sonnenblick, 2008).

In addition to reducing attention to developing the academic potential of students with the greatest academic potential (Olson & Huff, 2007), the NCLB program (in effect) redirects education funds to a much narrower focus, usually at the expense of the entire range of academic areas outside of those covered by Title I funding determinants.

Furthermore, whereas previously, commercial enterprises furnishing academic texts and materials for profit provided a wide range of beneficial materials on different academic subject matter, the NCLB criteria have inspired a corresponding narrowing of education products, driven by demand (Murray, 2006)..

Unfortunately, to whatever extent the NCLB approach accomplishes its objectives, any benefit is likely to relate to primary school students rather than to either middle school or high school students, simply because Title I funds are distributed disproportionately, with 85% directed to primary school programs (Olson & Huff, 2007).

Likewise, the NCLB prescribes no real consequences for failing to meet its standards beyond Title I eligibility, the publication of failure, and the rights of parents of students in poorly performing institutions to apply for transfers to other schools (Olson & Huff, 2007). The objectives themselves are poorly conceived by virtue of the ambiguities inherent in the criteria of proficiency (Murray, 2006), and most importantly, reflect a complete lack of uniformity in the specific methodology of demonstrating progress with respect to federal objectives of improved student performance. Specifically, the Separation of Powers doctrine prohibits the federal government from establishing the particular academic standards used to gauge student progress and "proficiency." On the other hand, nothing in the Constitution or the fundamental structure of the U.S. government prohibits a federal requirement of uniformity pursuant to the collective decisions of a nationally representative board of educators from every state. Olson and Huff (2007) acknowledge some evidence of teacher improvement claimed by NCLB proponents, but suggest that many educators point out that the criteria used to establish that improvement relate primarily to initial licensing rather than to meaningful performance as would be readily measurable within the NCLB framework. In fact, some NCLB critics consider that a viable opportunity to improve the quality of public education that has been essentially "squandered" for its lack of inclusion within the NCLB concept in any meaningful way (Olson & Huff, 2007).

The Impact of the NCLB Program on P-12 Curricula:

Because the NCLB concept reduces education to a narrowed focus on reading and mathematics, it has a detrimental effect on American education. In the most general sense, contemporary educators have promoted the importance of expanding the scope of traditional education from its (already) narrow focus on a relatively limited range of human intellectual ability. The NCLB approach conflicts with myriad examples of academic improvement associated with various teaching methods that do not rely on rote memorization and drilling for test performance. Many educators have embraced the suggestions of Howard Gardner's Multiple Intelligences, in particular, for its ability to motivate improved academic performance through lessons presented outside the traditional lecture-based methods.

The NCLB program focus is a complete reversal of the attempt to stimulate student interest through presentation of a broader academic subject matter, it likely undermines actual learning even in the academic subjects it emphasizes because it provides an incentive for greater reliance, rather than less, on rote drilling instead of on a deeper understanding and retention of the material. In so doing, it also neglects the needs of both superior students as well as English as a second language (ESL) students (Crawford, 2004).

Conclusion:

The aim of improving the quality of the American education system is a worthwhile goal. In principle, the use of federal Title I funds for that purpose in conjunction with meaningful standards for eligibility is perfectly appropriate. Likewise, associating student performance as a measure of institutional progress with objective standards of improvement is the most natural mechanism for establishing compliance with federal objectives. However, the NCLB approach leaves much to be desired; in its original form and present incarnation, NCLB may do more to undermine crucial aspects of overall education quality for the purpose of ensuring the improvement of poorly- performing primary school students nearly exclusively.

Moreover, even the degree to which current methods of demonstrating institutional compliance leave much to be desired, primarily because they emphasize student performance of the type that is readily susceptible to inappropriate preparation for test taking as opposed to genuine learning, even in the two areas specifically targeted by the NCLB system. Meanwhile, the NCLB performance standards reflect absolutely no national uniformity and the only criteria articulated in connection with federal Title I fund eligibility relate to a subjective and amorphous concept of "proficiency" that only increases the likelihood of manipulation for funding eligibility purposes while further decreasing the actual quality of education.

Ultimately, the framework of a national incentive for… READ MORE

How to Reference "Education - NCLB Views No Child Left" Essay in a Bibliography

Related Essays:

No Child Left Behind Act- NCLB Term Paper

No Child Left behind Act- NCLB was formerly known as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act - ESEA which was enacted during 1965. Accented to by President Lyndon Johnson, the… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (4609 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Child Development / Youth / Teens

---

No Child Left Behind President Bush Term Paper

No Child Left Behind President Bush's so-called education plan, No Child Left Behind (NCLB), has turned out to be a rip-off, something perhaps educators -- and particularly African-American educators --… read more

Term Paper 10 pages (2969 words) Sources: 1+ Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Term Paper

No Child Left Behind - Problems Need to be Resolved

Why was No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation needed? Was it just to improve education? Was it to hold schools… read more

Term Paper 16 pages (5384 words) Sources: 10 Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

No Child Left Behind Act Review Impact Research Paper

No Child Left Behind

It has often been noted by many astute observers that every solution to a problem creates another problem. The No Child Left Behind Act o 2001,… read more

Research Paper 6 pages (1560 words) Sources: 7 Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

No Child Left Behind Concept in American Essay

No Child Left Behind Concept in American Education

In 1991, President George H.W. Bush pledged to overhaul the American education system by the turn of the century. A decade later,… read more

Essay 4 pages (1192 words) Sources: 5 Style: APA Topic: Education / Teaching / Learning

---

View 100+ more related papers  >>