: Persuasive Paper Part 3: Possible Disadvantages, Answers, with Visuals

Week 10 English

Student’s Name:

Institutional Affiliation:

PART ONE: A Problem Exists

The No Child Left Behind Act was established in the year 2001 and is considered to be the most recent iteration of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, also referred to as ESEA (Hayes, 2008). This particular policy was passed on in the course of President Johnson’s administration as part of the war on poverty program. The main motivation of the law was to establish equity between schools serving low income families and those serving high income families through the provision of funds to schools that serve the former (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). The No Child Left Behind policy tends to cover a number of federal education programs where the law’s requirements for accountability, school improvement as well as testing are a priority. Those schools that fail to make adequate annual progress for two or more consecutive years are usually identified for school improvement and are therefore required to draft a school improvement plan in addition to committing at least 10% of federal funds to teacher professional development (Peterson & West, 2003). The NCLB expects all teachers to be highly qualified in that they must be fully certified by the state as well as possess a license to teach in the given state. States, on the other hand, are required to take up steps in ensuring that low income as well as minority students, are not taught by educators who are not highly qualified at higher rates as compared to non-minority and high income students (Erin & Rotherham, 2009).

Despite the fact that there are a number of issues that exist with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy it should be noted that this policy came about as a result of the need to improve student education which has in the recent past appeared to be highly imbalanced. Recent studies have revealed that school districts which serve low income families are continuously receiving less funding from the federal government as compared to those that tend to serve high income districts (Hayes, 2008). Nonetheless, the initial goals of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act remain the same even though the law has been amended a number of times with the NCLB being the 7th Amendment (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). In addition, school districts which serve low income communities are still lagging behind those which serve high income families. Ever since the No Child Left Behind policy was enacted in 2002, it has so far had a huge impact on United States public school classrooms. It has also affected what students are taught, the training of their teachers, the tests students take as well as the way funds are distributed on education (Peterson & West, 2003).

The rationale behind having standardized tests within states is considered to be quite reasonable. This is because by having such tests, all stakeholders can be able to have a clearer understanding of how each school performs (Erin & Rotherham, 2009). This particular aspect of the law makes it quite possible for one to actually measure the performance of one school against the others, thus providing reliable information that is in turn made available to the public. The challenge, however, comes with what to do with the information once people are in possession of it. More than a decade has passed since the NCLB policy was signed by president George W. Bush, making it the educational law of the land (Hayes, 2008). According to a recent review of how the policy has been implemented, it was observed that the No Child Left Behind has failed badly in terms of its own goals and in other areas. It is argued that it has neither increased academic performance nor significantly minimized achievement gaps, even as they are measured by standardized tests (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has in the recent past had misguided reliance on ‘one size fits all’ testing, sanctioning and labeling schools which in turn has greatly undermined numerous education reform efforts (Peterson & West, 2003). A majority of schools especially those serving low income students have since then become little more than test preparation programs.

PART TWO: Solution to Problem and Advantages

The No Child Left Behind policy requires schools to make annual improvements in their math as well as reading until they are able to achieve full proficiency. In simple terms, this means that the scores for math and reading must improve every year, for instance, in the third grade, until the school attains full proficiency in these two areas (Erin & Rotherham, 2009). As it has been indicated previously, if a given school fails to achieve the required scores in two or more consecutive years, measure are then taken as a way of correcting the problem. If, however, this problem still persists for about 5 years down the line, then the school is put under a charter or handed to a private organization to run it (Hayes, 2008). In cases where a school has on a continuous basis improved until it has attained the 99% proficiency then failed to achieve 100%, it means that the school is punished despite the fact that it has, after all, managed to make substantial improvements over the years (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). Although the NCLB policy has experienced a number of crucial flaws, some aspects of the law are quite reasonable and can therefore help solve the problem; some adjustments are also made on the law.

Some of the solutions that can be taken into consideration regarding the problems that have been stated above include trying to ensure that while schools are expected to show improvement in their total scores, the history of school performance should be taken into consideration (Peterson & West, 2003). This can be done instead of deliberately punishing the school for the simple fact that it has not improved 100% in some consecutive years. As long as a school does not indicate consecutive declines then there should be no need of giving some leeway to improve. It should be noted that it is not just what goes on in schools that tend to affect school performance but rather the numerous variables such as family and the community that play a key role in the determination of the performance of students (Erin & Rotherham, 2009). Any tangible measure also needs to designate ways of making communities value education and establish neighborhoods that can provide a positive learning environment for students. Another solution that can be taken into consideration concerns schools which consistently perform poorly and therefore need more assistance rather than being punished by having their funds reduced or completely cut off (Hayes, 2008). Schools should be tasked with the responsibility of providing strong reasons as to why they are on a regular basis not performing as expected and what they feel should be done for the in order to do better.

There are those who may argue that by so doing, one will be allowing poor performing schools to provide a number of excuses but they should also keep in mind that the education system needs to be designed in a certain manner. This means that unless a given school can prove that the problems they experience are unique and that others who tend to perform better do not necessarily experience the same challenges, then their reasons would not be acceptable (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). For the educational system to be better poor performing schools should be tasked with the responsibility of finding out how other schools facing similar challenges are handling them and yet manage to compete. Cooperation as well as friendly competition among schools would be quite vital for such a plan to be successful (Peterson & West, 2003). Allocation of some resources from the fund provided by the NCLB policy for the improvement of professional development of teachers in schools that are performing poorly is yet another solution to the problem. People need to understand the critical role that educators play in ensuring that students do well in class. Those educators who work in districts that do not provide good outcomes which are those that are located in poor neighborhoods need to be provided with the additional skills considered necessary in ensuring that they are able to deliver under challenging conditions that such districts pose (Erin & Rotherham, 2009).

There are a number of advantages associated with NCLB policy for instance the fact that it gives parents the right to know about the qualifications of the teacher educating their child; all parents have a right to know if their child’s teacher meets the necessary qualifications and is thus capable of educating their child (Hayes, 2008). The policy generally seeks to empower parents through provision of information regarding how students, schools as well as school districts are performing. Other advantages include the fact that there are standards which are set for teacher qualifications where accountability standards are measured each year by each state as a way of fostering educational achievement and growth (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). All outcomes are also reported to parents on a yearly basis. The No Child Left Behind Act puts more emphasis on reading, math and writing while at the same time measures educational status and growth by ethnicity, helping to close the achievement gap between Caucasian and minority students (Peterson & West, 2003).

PART THREE: Possible Disadvantages including Visuals

Even though there exists numerous benefits related to the No Child Left Behind Policy, it is important to also keep in mind the few disadvantages of challenges related to the same. For instance, those who oppose this particular policy argue that it has not been as effective in improving education in public education as expected. They also believe that the federal government has no constitutional authority regarding the field of education that that its involvement tends to erode state as well as local control over education of their children (Erin & Rotherham, 2009).

Figure 1

Source: http://photos.merinews.com/newPhotoLanding.jsp?imageID=10275

As it has been mentioned earlier, the Bush Administration had significantly underfunded the No Child Left Behind policy at the state level and yet it required these states to adhere to all the provisions of the act or be at a risk of losing federal funds. As a result, a majority of states have been forced to make budge cuts in non-tested school subjects such as foreign languages, social studies, arts programs and science, as well as for field trips, school supplies and books (Hayes, 2008). This move has also greatly affected students in terms of their social life in that if one was to visit a foreign land, they would not be in a position to communicate well due to lack of programs for foreign languages in their schools. Taking into consideration the fact that states are required to set their own standards as well as write their own standardized No Child Left Behind tests, they can be able to compensate for inadequate student performance by setting very low standards in addition to making tests unusually easy (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012). This is a possible disadvantage in that the students would not be in a position to perform well in tests that are set by other schools or in cases where they are needed to compete with students from other schools. Many individuals contend that testing requirements for the disabled and limited English proficient students are quite unworkable and unfair (Peterson & West, 2003).

Figure 2

Source: http://www.jagoinvestor.com/2011/02/financial-planning-child-education.html

One of the advantages that have been mentioned earlier is that the No Child Left Behind policy ensures that certain standards are set for teacher qualifications. This means that new teachers are required to possess one or more college degrees in particular subjects in addition to passing a battery of proficiency tests (Erin & Rotherham, 2009). Already existing teachers are required to pass proficiency tests. What a majority of individuals do not realize is the fact that these new requirements have brought about key problems with regards to obtaining qualified educators in subjects such as science, math and special education, as well as regions where school districts already experience shortages of teachers (Hayes, 2008). Teachers have so far objected to the Bush 2007 proposal which will allow districts to circumvent teacher contracts pertaining to transferring teachers to poorly performing and failing schools (Hanushek & Rivkin, 2012).

Conclusion

It is important not to lose sight of the reasons as to why the Elementary and Secondary Act was put in place to begin with and that all measures that are implemented should concentrate on tackling the root problem rather than creating a game of musical chairs. Shifting blame as well as using the ‘carrot stick approach’ as proposed by the No Child Left Behind policy is exactly that – a game of musical chairs. The NCLB approach is founded on outcome based theories education which dictates that high expectations goal setting will automatically result in higher educational performance for a majority of students. Since its inception, it has had a huge impact on United States public school classrooms in terms of what students are taught, the training of their teachers, the way funds are distributed on education and the tests students take. There are those who say that the policy’s landmark law tends to hold schools accountable in addition to empowering parents, and as it has been discussed above, it helps close the performance gap existing in American schools. It is therefore up to the concerned authority to not only ensure fairness and equity but also keep shared responsibility for student success in addition to adopting amendments that will assist in the achievement of goals and rejecting those that do not.

References

Erin, D., & Rotherham, A. (2009). States’ Evidence: What It Means to Make ‘Adequate Yearly Progress’ under NCLB. Retrieved on June 17, 2014 from http://www.educationsector.org/publications/states-evidence-what-it-means-make-adequate-yearly-progress-under-nclb

Hanushek, E.A., & Rivkin, G.S. (2012). The Quality and Distribution of Teachers under the No Child Left Behind Act. The Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(3). Pp. 133 – 150. Retrieved on June 17, 2014 from http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20799159?uid=2&uid=4&sid=21104289745283

Hayes, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: Past, Present, and Future. R&L Education.

Peterson, P.E., & West, M.R. (2003). No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability. Brookings Institution Press.

The National Center for Fair and Open Testing. (2007). No Child Left Behind Reform: What’s the Alternative? Retrieved on June 17, 2014 from http://www.fairtest.org/no-child-left-behind-reform-whats-alternative