Oral Presentation with Powerpoint from my report

The Federal No Child Left Behind 1

The Federal No Child Left Behind 3

The Federal No Child Left Behind Act

Tiffany Dorman

Saint Leo University

February 16, 2018 The Honorable Gus Bilirakis 2112 Rayburn HOB

Washington, DC 20515

Dear Congressman Bilirakis: 

As an employee of the public school system, I urge you to support us regarding changes that need to be made regarding the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. There are some positive and negative aspects the program that should be considered.

The impact this bill has had on our students is detremential to themselves, their families and the entire school district. Standardized testing is out of control in our public schools. Parents and educators are fed up with the stress, the time wasted in endless test prep and the costly fallout that includes narrowing curriculum. The National Research Council has concluded that the huge expansion in high-stakes exams has not improved student learning. I recognize that some schools do need improvement, but high-stakes testing and the requirements of this act does not help. Better ways to strengthen education exist.

Given the many well-documented drawbacks of high-stakes testing, I am dismayed to see elected representatives supporting policies that will increase the educational damage. Of particular concern to me is No Child Left Behind. It has forced every state to use high-stakes testing to judge its students.

This program needs re-evaluation; it is not a one size fits all plan. Either the Department of Education needs to be completely dismantled or given power to individual states. Please review the following report for more detailed findings of the No Child Left Behind Act.

Thank you for your consideration and please feel free to contact me if you would like to discuss this issue further.

Best Wishes, 

Tiffany Dorman Student-Saint Leo University 11615 Linda LN Dade City, FL 33525 (941) 705-2517 

Table of Contents

1. Title Page

2. Letter to Representative Gus Bilirakis

3. Table of Contents

4. Executive Summary

5. Body

5.1. Introduction

5.2. Body

5.3. Conclusion

6. References

The Federal No Child Left Behind Act

Executive Summary

This report provides an analysis and evaluation of the current and prospective changes to George W. Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act of 2002. This was a major platform in his campaign that he fully introduced just three days after taking office. He felt as though under privilieged children coming from low income families were being left behind in the public education system.

The results of my findings were that Americans are low, especially the African Americans and the Hispanics. There are many reasons that factor into the levels of our students entering secondary schools. The African American students 15% and Hispanic are 17% are capable readers. The fact that the data finding of the third grade student having a 25% possibility of seeking post-secondary education is astounding and we should be focusing on those elementary school students.

The report finds the prospects of the act in its current position are not positive. The major areas of weakness require further investigation and remedial action by the government. Recommendations discussed include:

· dismantling the Department of Education

· providing more power to the individual states.

· Require less high-stakes testing

Introduction

As put forward by various American scientific reserarch; education is the key which can be used to open freedom to the society. They also mentioned that education is the only commodity which people try to get for money. This means that education is valued in America and it is seen as the only key to total success in life. This is the key reason why the government penned the law "No Child Left Behind" which claims that all children whether poor or rich have a right to education and that the teaching institutions should be accountable to all the activities which happen in school.

Body

Universal Rankings and NAEP

Universal rankings in light of scholarly execution have featured the current battles of American training. The Trends in International Mathematical and Science Study (TIMSS) is an evaluation of scholastic scores for understudies from 38 unique nations around the world in science and math. When the new century rolled over, the United States positioned just nineteenth in normal eighth-grade math scores and eighteenth in science scores. Besides, American understudies have positioned around fourteenth in persuing proficiency among major countries since 2000 (Dee, 2010). As indicated by the 2009 discoveries from the National Assessment of Academic Progress (NAEP), just 1/3 of all understudies entering secondary school are capable in persuing, with just 15% of African Americans and 17% of Hispanic understudies being capable readers. Also, examine exhibits that an understudy who isn't capable of persuing before the finish of third grade has just a 25% possibility of moving on from secondary school.

Power of Legislation

The legislation will be very good for our school, and the society in general as the schools will be able to produce graduates who are competent and equal to the task in the market. This is unlike the previous policies and laws which only emphasized on the final grade rather than the competition of the student. The law will instill some discipline in schools by making them accountable. This will make schools liable to the kind of students they release to the community, for instance, if they do not have the required knowledge, and then the school will have to explain the kind of skills it has been instilling in the students. Since the law requires all education to have one uniform syllabus, it will be very easy to apply one standard academic tests and ranking of the students.

Since the publication of Goals 2000, scholarly research has featured; the requirement for measurable information to drive arrangement choices, the significance of holding state-funded educational systems responsible, and the developing issue of disparity in training. Understudy execution information is helpful in distinguishing the scholastic territories in which understudies are battling. Responsibility is similarly essential in forming instruction. Eric Hanushek, a researcher at Stanford's Hoover Organization, features the significance of responsibility and contends that upgrades in instruction ought to be connected with a framework that has outcomes and disciplines for neglecting to meet measures. At long last, imbalance inside a various society is a developing worry in American instruction (Brint, 2010). Late examinations have uncovered the connection between destitution and scholarly execution. David Berliner, an eminent instructive analyst at UCLA, has discovered that higher family wage is connected to youngsters' higher subjective execution (as estimated by IQ) and lower negative conduct (Berliner, 2005). Besides, the accomplishment hole amongst White and African American 9-year-old understudies in math is 28 rate focuses, with similarly critical holes in perusing and science.

Shifting Directions

To better handle the level-headed discussion over training change, it is imperative to comprehend the parts also, duties of various levels of governments in training arrangement. There are three levels of training organization and administration. At the base are neighborhood government structures. These incorporate neighborhood school sheets and school locale inside the express that has the most direct effect on the instruction framework and schools inside their district. Next is the state government. The states can set principles, (for example, capability measures) and decide their particular tests to quantify understudy execution in respect to these gauges. Moreover, state governments are the essential wellspring of financing for state-funded training. The states additionally have the energy to control government-funded schools inside the state. They can shape the educational modules and controls for schools. At long last, the national government assumes a more steady part of government-funded instruction (Dee, 2010). It gives financing as opposed to particular directions by which schools must withstand. For instance, through ESEA Title 1 supports, the government causes states to fund schools and school programs. Despite the fact that the government can't control schools specifically, it can connect necessities to the assets given to states and schools. Moreover, the Department of Education assumes a part in creating measurements and figures to archive scholarly execution all through the nation.

Major Pushback

While there has been a move in the verbal confrontation in regards to government versus state control of instruction, it stays as one of the greatest (if not the greatest) purposes of dispute among officials and instructors today. There are the individuals who bolster a solid government partly in training. Eric Hanushek approaches the issue by belligerence that it is in light of a legitimate concern for the national government to get included. Hanushek contends that instruction is a national issue and a national intrigue.

The government is accused of settling on choices that will profit the whole nation, counting astounding instruction. States may not completely welcome the effect of instruction on the economy, especially if understudies move to an alternate state in the wake of graduating or dropping out of school. The government, nonetheless, is in a position to see how a populace of accomplished subjects can have a generally positive effect on the national economy. Hanushek contends that states may not see the immediate advantage of instructing their understudies, in this manner making instruction a national worry that ought to be tended to by the government.

These administrators are affected by a few intrigue gatherings and associations, for example, the National Association of School Psychologists, the National Educational Association, and the American Federation of Teachers, which have pushed for modifications in instructive enactment. Generally, these intrigues bunches center around the utilization of high-stakes testing; they campaign for different types of responsibility while widening the subject spaces that are tried and used to measure school achievement. These gatherings likewise question the utilization of negative authorizes as a component of instructive change. While a few intrigue bunches bolster expanding responsibility and transforming coming up short schools, the associations and intrigue bunches are doubtful over the present utilization of sanctions against battling schools. To put it plainly, these gatherings give contentions, in view of investigate, that urge Congress to discover approaches to channel better help to the most battling schools also, to dapperly affect the kids who are not capable and are by and large deserted. These intrigue bunches are putting forth Congress their own recommendations on the best way to modify the particular school-change methods installed inside the bill (not the political and monetary parts of the charge). At the point when differences among these particular vested parties emerge, they tend to center around content changes that are most instructively significant, most important for schools, and will have the best effect on understudy results.

At long last, the general population has additionally voiced their sentiments on NCLB and the eventual fate of school change. A current study found that 31% of Americans might want to see NCLB reauthorized in its present frame. Another 26% said they might want to see insignificant changes; 25% demonstrated they might want to see real changes; and, 18% detailed that NCLB ought not to be re-established by any stretch of the imagination. However, more profound investigation of this overview information uncovers that Americans, general, do 52% tend to help a type of progress in the current NCLB enactment. A staggering 73% of Americans said they would want to have a national standard and a national test as opposed to enabling states to set their own principles and tests (Howell, Peterson, and West, 2007). The American open has a tendency to have changing suppositions on wide issues identified with training and instructive change. Accordingly, the general population goes about as a thermometer to check the bearing they would like to see instructive change take. At the end of the day, not at all like administrators or specific vested parties, people in general, by and large, offers wide sentiments on NCLB and instruction arrangement, as opposed to centering on particular political viewpoints or the procedural substance of the enactment.

While there are solid supporters of a more federalist approach towards instruction, there are a few people who contend for a decreased government engrave on instruction. The essential wellspring of restriction to a federalist arrangement of instruction lies in the United States Constitution. The Tenth Revision of the Constitution expresses: "The forces not designated to the United States by the Constitution, nor precluded by it to the states, are held to the States separately, or to the individuals." Any duties that are not particularly designated to the government are designated to the states. Instruction isn't said in the Constitution (Boyer, 2008). Training is lawfully one of the forces saved for the states. Along these lines, any government inclusion in training constitutes a potential break in the Constitution.

NCLB

NCLB has added to some unintended results too. One such result is the positive response, in specific zones, from instructors. Despite the fact that instructors have communicated blended sentiments over the enactment, there are some predictable territories in which most instructors concur the law has been powerful. In a 2007 online investigation, educators thought to be "exceedingly expert" were requested to rate NCLB. These educators revealed that the law completed a great job centering on main subjects and center scholastic aptitudes; it additionally advanced higher desires for all understudies. Besides, a substantial number of instructors found that NCLB was effective at empowering arranging and association for classes and positively affected educators' trust in their understudies (Brint and Guiggino, 2010). At long last, inquire about has archived expanded consideration in schools deeply scholastic territories. Generally speaking, there has been additional time spent showing math and pursuing. Indeed, 60% of regions require a particular measure of time for persuing in grade schools. Likewise, schools are guiding more prominent regard for the arrangement of their educational modules and direction with scholastic principles, and they are breaking down test scores considerably more thoroughly.

In spite of positive results of NCLB that have been featured by great factual information, there are likewise negative results. To start with, the dependence on high-stakes testing alongside strict punishments puts a colossal measure of weight on schools to discover approaches to plan understudies to breeze through tests, and here and there this can have negative impacts. For instance, schools that neglect to reach AYP for two back to back years must permit understudies the choice of exchanging to a better performing school. The issue is this basically considers a "mind deplete" inside a school region where battling schools will keep on being tested on the off chance that they lose their high-performing understudies to schools that are as of now fruitful. Moreover, investigate 41 archives an expansion in time spent on perusing and math which, thusly, diminishes time spent on different subjects. In the midst of budgetary emergency, the subjects that are not tried. For example, sports, music, and outside dialect can confront cuts (Israel, 2011). In addition, in light of the fact that a school's execution is construct exclusively in light of state administered tests, there has been an ascent in "educating to-the-test" which may limit an emphasis on imaginative reasoning and the utilization of non-customary educating approaches for a thin, ability centered instructional technique driven by educating understudies to perform well on a test. Numerous instructors contend that NCLB has negatively affected showing benchmarks as it has lost its emphasis on supporting kids' inventiveness, basic reasoning, and critical thinking.

Responses

Teacher’s responses affirm that the focal point of their educating has been affected in negative way by NCLB. Instructors overviewed in the 2007 online review (said prior) voiced reactions about NCLB's effect on individualized understudy learning, diminished inventiveness, debilitated connections amongst educators and understudies, and absence of comprehension and regard for instructors. Instructors revealed that the accentuation NCLB puts on individualized educating and learning isn't savvy since they are compelled to redirect some of their educating far from the gathering to center around the individual needs of kids. This really prompts less time spent showing in light of the fact that the instructor feels committed to address the requirements of every youngster. Besides, instructors noticed a general decrease in understudy's imagination on the grounds that their educating centers on test preparation or maybe advancing basic reasoning. Additionally, educators encountered a weaker relational connection amongst themselves and their understudies as they invested more energy in test readiness what's more, less time on becoming more acquainted with understudies actually. At last, instructors detailed feeling a decrease in regard and comprehension for their calling with the section of NCLB. They showed that, because of NCLB, educating was diminished to "dull" bore based, test-readiness instructing, 42 prompting an absence of regard and thankfulness for the educating calling

Conclusion

There are some recommendations which I would make to the law and some aspects which I think brings some confusion or contradicts other existing laws. For instance, the Department of Education should be dismantled; this is because the Department of education does not represent the entire federal role in the education sector and most cases it is seen as a tool which is used by the government to control education in the country. This is contrary to the law where schools should only be liable to the law concerning education. There is a growing development for training strategy to be done for offering money related help to ruined families as a method for shutting the accomplishment hole. The contention for this strategic approach is that lower financial status adds to bring down scholarly execution. The particular target of instructive enactment ought to be gone for expanding assets for families with low incomes.

References

Boyer, A., & Hamil, B. W. (2008). Problems facing education. Focus on Colleges, Universities,and Schools, 2(1), 1-9.

Brint, S., & Guiggino, P. C. (2010). Does the No Child Left Behind Act help or hinder K-12 education? Policy Matters, 3(4), 1-7.

Broad Foundation. (2008). Statistics on American K-12 public education. Los Angeles, CA: Author. Retrieved February 12, 2012 from http://broadeducation.org.

Chilcott, C. (Producer), & Guggenheim, D. (Director). (2010). Waiting for Superman [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Vantage.

Council for Exceptional Children. (2011). NCLB – A law under fire. Arlington, VA: Author. Retrieved June 08, 2011 from http://www.cec.sped.org.

Dee, T. S., & Jacob, B. (2010). The impact of No Child Left Behind on students, teachers, and schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.

Hayes, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: Past, present and future. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

Department of Education. (2012). Federal role in education. Washington, DC: Author.

Retrieved October 13, 2011 from http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/role.html.

National Government

State Government

Neighborhood government structures