No Child Left Behind Act

No Child Left Behind Act: Wrong or Right?

            Knowledge can be obtained all around us, but an education is a precious aspect in one’s life that is gained through hard work. What determines a good education versus a bad education is not clear, but has been based on the level of knowledge and skills that one has developed. All students should have the right to receive the same level of education in order to be able to have equal opportunities in their future lives. In order to stay on track, President George W. Bush came up with a law that Congress passed in 2001 called the No Child Left Behind Act. This act calls for, “all children to be proficient in reading and mathematics by the 2013-2014 school year,” (Stecher). The idea behind this act is logical because schools and teachers should be teaching the same material and setting students up for successful futures. Yet this goal is unrealistic due to different economic classes and the negative effects that are happening within schools today.

The No Child Left Behind Act has set standards in the hopes of improving education and decreasing the gaps between schools and student performance; yet accomplishing these standards do not lead to achievement of the No Child Left Behind Act. “By the 2005-06 school year, states were required to begin testing students in grades 3-8 annually in reading and mathematics. By 2007-08, they had to test students in science at least once in elementary, middle, and high school,” (Education Week). This is not a fair assessment of knowledge because students who performed well in class and on homework might perform worse on tests due to stress. Also, differing economic statuses of schools may make some students perform better because schools with high budgets can afford more materials and can teach the same material in different ways, therefore making the test scores better. These tests do not count towards the students’ grades, so they are often not taken seriously and students do not perform their best on them. “Starting with the 2002-03 school year, states were required to furnish annual report cards showing a range of information, including student-achievement data broken down by subgroup and information on the performance of school districts. Districts must provide similar report cards showing school-by-school data,” (Education Week). Report cards put more pressure on students to perform well because report cards are mailed home for parents to see. Yet if a student tries their hardest and performs to their best ability, but earns a bad grade on a report card then the student will become discouraged and not want to learn, let alone be determined to reach proficiency. These steps seem attainable and realistic, but they come with consequences for the schools and students.

Although the No Child Left Behind Act standards seem logical and attainable, economic differences make this very difficult to achieve. In Jean Anyon’s essay, “Social Class,” Anyon relays that the differences in schools are vast in accordance with teaching methods and philosophies of education. The differences are primarily economic, and depend on the area of the school and the background of the student’s family. When receiving schooling, children are given little choice in their learning and are put on a particular track to follow depending on their social class and “expected” futures. In a working class school, mechanical skills, copying skills, simple punctuation, and obedience skills are taught. In this social class, students are taught the bare minimum and only what is absolutely needed in order to survive. They have little choice and are directed what to do with no thought process needed. In middle class schools, the skills of following directions, simple grammar, and finding answers from textbooks are taught. The learning in this class is based solely on obtaining the correct answer and does not focus on how one got to that answer.  Expression of ideas, individual thought, creative writing, and punctuation are the main focus of the affluent professional schools. Schools want members of this class to be creative and independent. The focus is no longer about obtaining the right answer, but expressing the answer with visuals and creative writing. Executive elite schools are teaching children reasoning, mathematical thinking, and language (different parts of speech). Schools of this type expect a deep level of thinking and questioning in their students.

Due to different levels of economic status, students are grasping knowledge in various ways that affect math and reading scores. Part of this is due to the fact that schools of higher economic standing can afford more materials than schools of low economic standing. For example, if students have a greater variety of books to practice reading than they will be able to read more easily. A low economic standing class may have one or two books that the students have heard so much that they have memorized and are no longer improving their reading skills. Furthermore, children’s books are being updated frequently and the low economic standing class might have older books because they can’t afford new books every year. The No Child Left Behind Act is unrealistic because one cannot expect students who are taught differently and who have access to differing materials to perform and be at the same level in math and reading.

When schools focus on achieving the minimum standards for all students, the students who are above average are negatively affected and the consequences are showing. The No Child Left Behind Act is supposed to get students to be proficient in math and reading, but when we “group students by ability, public schools have been forced to make a trade-off,” (Shah). One study points to the fact that when focusing all efforts on improving students who are struggling in math and reading, the students who are excelling at math and reading are being forgotten in the dust. “Tracking the individual scores of nearly 82,000 students on the Measures of Academic Progress, a computerized adaptive test, the study found, for example, that of the 10,166 students who scored at the 90^th percentile or above in math as 3^rd graders in 2008, only 57.3 percent scored as well by the time they were 8^th graders,” (Shah). In five years, only about 60% of the students who scored high in 3^rd grade continued to score as high in 8^th grade. That means that within these five years, over 30% of the students who had been excelling were falling behind and this was either being ignored or unnoticed by their teachers because of the pressure to meet the No Child Left Behind Act and the focus on the students who are struggling. These scores may reflect various issues, but no matter what the issue that brought this about, there is no denying that the scores went down and that this is a major concern. One seemingly possible effect is because of the pressure that schools are facing in order to get their students up to the level of proficiency in time. However, if the academically challenged cannot reach proficiency then why do the higher academic standing students have to suffer?

There are downfalls to enforcing that every student be proficient in math and reading. “Michael J. Petrilli, the executive vice president of the Washington think tank and a former U.S. Department of Education official, believes emphasis on getting all students to reach proficiency on math and reading tests have a negative effect on high-achieving students, especially when combined with other policies such as those that encourage more students regardless of their academic records, to take Advanced Placement courses,” (Shah). If every student took Advanced Placement courses, no matter how strong they were in that subject, then the class would go at a much slower pace in order to meet the needs and make sure that every student understood before moving on with lessons. The higher placed academic students would become bored and would no longer be learning and gaining the knowledge that they deserve. These Advanced Placement courses would no longer have meaning because anyone, no matter what academic standing would be in the course. Thus, the No Child Left Behind Act is geared toward students of lower academic standing, but it makes the students of high academic standing fall back. “The Forham authors also acknowledge that the idea that all high-achieving students will remain that way indefinitely is naïve, just as it’s naïve to expect 100 percent of students to reach proficient; the mandate of the No Child Left Behind Act,” (Shah). In aiming efforts solely toward reaching proficient, we have lost track of the real purpose of school, which isn’t necessarily to get all students to be proficient, but to get all students to learn and improve their understanding. However, due to the No Child Left Behind Act, schools are focusing more on getting students to be proficient rather than helping students to learn, which involves an immense amount of pressure for schools.

There is so much pressure put on schools by the No Child Left Behind Act and getting their students to the level of proficiency by the 2013-2014 school year, that the goal of learning is forgotten. The article, Low Marks all round; Atlanta’s public schools, states how the school system has deprived its students of the right to learning that they deserve. Teachers and the administration have encouraged students to cheat due to the pressure to meet the No Child Left Behind Act standards. “Some teachers gave pupils answers. Some filled in answers themselves. Some pointed to answers while standing over pupils’ desks. Others let low-scoring children sit near—and copy from—higher-scoring ones,” (The Economist). This is startling because by allowing and helping students to cheat, schools are giving students the answers instead of teaching them. “Quality education is a civil right, and the lack of it for all children is the civil rights issue of our time,” (Shah). When teachers allow students to cheat, the students grow up thinking that cheating is okay and that they don’t need to learn because answers will be handed to them, which is an issue in itself.

Some of the issues that are created in schools today are there because of the No Child Left Behind Act and the pressure to achieve that goal. Negative effects, while trying to achieve a good goal, still cause barriers and hardships on schools, teachers, and students. Due to the pressure on schools to meet proficiency in math and reading for all students by the 2013-2014 school year, there has been school wide cheating, negative effects on above average students, obvious differences in economic classes, and a misunderstanding about what true learning and schooling are about. Schools and teachers face enough pressure with keeping their students engaged and enthused about learning, but teachers can’t make learning fun and creative if knowledge is only used as a means of measurement in order to get every student at the level of proficient.

With the No Child Left Behind Act this harmful to school situations and with the deadline for achieving proficiency in math and reading looming, either some modifications of the No Child Left Behind Act have to be made or schools will not be able to meet the standards by then. “ Earlier this year, a coalition of advocacy and education groups wrote to U.S. Senate Tom Harkin, who chairs the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee, sharing their concerns about weakening key provisions in the law,” (Shah). Schools know that this goal is coming up in the next couple of years and they don’t want to be penalized by having to fire teachers or having students go to “better” performing schools for not meeting the act. “Most analysts expected that the changes would include permitting states to use so-called growth models, allowing them to get credit for moving the needle on individual student achievement, as opposed to improving outcomes for each new cohort of students,” (Shah). Although if individual achievement is focused on then the students who are above average will be focused on to improve, while other students are forgotten. The No Child Left Behind Act must be changed because it is unrealistic. There should be an act created around students learning and progress rather than to expect every student to be at the same level. Until that happens, the achievement gap between schools, students, and districts will be seen.

Works Cited

Anyon, Jean. “Social Class.” Rereading America. Ed. Gary Colombo, Robert Cullen, and Bonnie Lisle. Boston: Bedford St. Martin’s, 2010. 169-185. Print.

“Low marks all round; Atlanta’s public schools.” The Economist [US] 16 July 2011:32(US). Educators Reference Complete. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

“No Child Left Behind.” Education Week 19 Sept. 2011. Editorial Projects in Education. Web. 6 Dec. 2011.

Shah, Nirvi. “Many Early Achievers Lose Academic Edge, Researchers conclude; Report cites NCLB, anti-ability-grouping policies.” Education Week 28 Sept. 2011: 8. Educators Reference Complete. Web. 13 Nov. 2011.

Stecher, Brian M, Georges Vernez, and Paul Steinberg. Reauthorizing No Child Left Behind: facts and recommendations. California: Santa Monica, 2010. Electronic resource.

Discussion Task #1

Discussion Task #1

            Honey attracts more bears than vinegar ever will. If a bear smells honey then it will become more curious and want to know how to get the honey, while if it smells vinegar, it will not like the smell and will therefore run away. Honey is sweet smelling and attracts many bears, which we want to happen in the classroom. We want to make learning sweet for our students, so that they want to learn more. To do this, we need to make learning fun by engaging in interactive activities, instead of just doing dubious worksheets.

            In fifth grade at my elementary school, I had a great teacher who knew how to make learning sweet. I remember walking through the doors of the elementary school, around the corner, and straight up a small set of stairs to go into my classroom, which was on the left. I was excited to go to this class every day. I really enjoyed my teacher, Mrs. Whitcomb, and I knew that she really enjoyed teaching us too. I remember her room being vibrant with colorful paintings and I also remember having plants in the classroom. Each day the role of watering the plants was given to a student to do before we left school at the end of the day. This job would rotate among all of the students in the class.

            In one unit we were learning about the Egyptians and their culture. For this unit, not only did we learn facts about Egyptians, but we also got to make an Egyptian mold mask. This project was very fun and interactive. For another project we were out working in the garden outside of the school. This project was fun and allowed us to be responsible for picking weeds and the fruits/vegetables that were ready to be picked. This was great because it was a learning opportunity outside of the classroom. She allowed us to go out into the hallway to work on assignments sometimes alone to develop our IQ, but a lot in groups to develop our EQ. This gained our trust with her because we noticed that she listened to what we wanted and trusted us enough to do our work, not under her watchful eyes. Another aspect of Mrs. Whitcomb that I really enjoyed was that she knew us personally and knew the subjects that we were interested in. She was also a great listener because when we did a small unit on the Constitution, my friend and I liked the “We the People” song. So every day before we were to get on the bus to go home, she would put on the tape to the pre-amble of the Constitution, and my friend and I would sing along. This was a fun learning experience that did not seem like learning at all to us because we enjoyed it.

My teacher made learning sweet because she did not just throw information at us and did not expect us to just sit there and learn. She made learning interactive and fun; she made us part of the learning. When we became very frustrated, she was always there to support us and try to guide us to the solution and not just tell us. She was very patient with us and listened to what we wanted. I wanted to come to class every day because we were always doing something different and I never knew what to expect to walk into.