The Impact of the No Child Left Behind on Society, Research Paper Example

No child left behind NCLB is a program that was created in efforts to hold schools and teachers accountable for the education and progression of every child. Diane Ravitch (2009) explains the consequences if the NCLB requirements are not met:

Schools that do not make progress toward the goal of 100% proficiency for every group are subject to increasingly, stringent sanctions. In their second year of failing to make “adequate yearly progress” for any group, failing schools have their students given the choice of leaving to enroll in a better public school. In the third year of a school’s failure, students are entitled to free tutoring after school. In the subsequent years, the failing school may be converted to private management, turned into a charter school, have its entire staff dismissed, or be handed over to the state. (Ravitch, 2009).

In addition to having regulated proficiencies, there are expectations in place in and when schools fail to perform according to standards. Alvin Granowsky (2008), explains that “schools that have low scores and/or do not show needed improvements in test results, receive negative labels, such as unacceptable, and their teachers and administrators threatened with loss of jobs” (p. 1).

An article in Intervention in School and Clinic states, “The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act is potentially the most significant educational initiative to have been enacted in decades” (Simpson et al., 2004). The Act had set standards for how performance is measured and set guidelines for what to do when standards are not met. Thomas’ article, “Turmoil in the Testing Industry,” discusses how NLCB is having an effect on the testing industry. Assessment makers are having a hard time creating high-quality tests that properly assess NCLB’s standards” (Toch, 2006). However the inability to properly assess the standards has not changed the purpose of the NCLB Act. According to the Virginia Department of Education’s website, “These standards represent a broad consensus of what parents, classroom teachers, school administrators, academics, and business and community leaders believe schools should teach and students should learn” (Virginia Department of Education, 2007).

The educational system is set up to prepare the children for their future. It mandates a well-rounded education on a various amount of topics. However, the NCLB Act focuses on math and reading. “71 percent of school districts reported that their elementary schools had reduced instructional time in at least one other subject to focus more narrowly on reading and math” (Azzam et al., 2006, p. 94). There are agencies and tools available to aid in the education process. An article written by Donna Reed, states that “this agency assists parents and educators in understanding the law, makes referrals if they need more assistance, and promotes workshops about NCLB” (No Child, 2005).Reports taken by the Center on Education policy “shows that student scores in math and reading have generally gone up since 2002” (Perkins-Gough, 2007, p. 91)

Recommendations for changes to NCLB are to work with the program in its existing state. Reed (2005) writes, “NCLB is a reauthorization of the 1965 ESEA. It will not go away in the foreseeable future” (Reed, 2005). Therefore capitalizing on the program will provide for the best end results. “Teachers and administrators should strive to create a climate of caring and cooperation, instead of competition. We know that students are more likely to attend school and excel when they feel they belong. Feelings of connection lead to greater effort, greater persistence, and positive attitudes. Feelings of rejection have the opposite effects” (Nichols & Berliner, 2008). Taking personal time for each student sets the basis for higher learning and success with the NCLB program.

References

Azzam, A. M., Perkins-Gough, D., & Thiers, N. (2006, November). The impact of NCLB. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 94-96.

Granowsky, A. (2008). No child left behind: A tale of unintended consequences. Paper presented at the LDA Texas Annual State Conference, Austin, TX.

Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D.C. (2008). Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership,            65(6), 14-18

No child left behind act. (2007). The New York Times. Retrieved September from http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/no child_left_behind_act/index.html?scp=1spot&sq=No%20Child%20Left%20Behind%20Act&st=cse

Perkins-Gough, D. (2007). Are U.S. students getting better in mathematics? Educational Leadership, 65(3), 91-92.

Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill ‘no child left behind.’ Education Digest, 75(1), 4-6.

Reed, D. (2005). Marian the librarian meets NCLB.  Library Media Connection, 23(7), 56-58.

Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Graner, P.S. (2004). The no child left behind act: Challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School & Clinic, 40(2), 67-75.

Toch, T. (2006). Turmoil in the testing industry. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 53-57.

Virginia Department of Education. (2007). Standards of learning currently in effect for Virginia public schools. Retrieved from http://www.doe.virginia.gov/go/Sols/home.shtml