No Child Left Behind Essay Example

school and appointment of new management. National Assessment of Educational Progress administers national tests from third through eighth grade, but some states aim for recognition of their own state tests. Furthermore, teachers must hold a college major for every core subject they teach as per the law.

Under the law, federal funds can be utilized by schools to fulfill No Child Left Behind standards, with an emphasis on using scientifically supported educational programs. Former President Bush considers this legislation a significant accomplishment in domestic affairs, historically a weakness for Republicans. Despite opposition from both sides during its passage in 2001, Bush asserted that the legislation has already benefited schools nationwide during the 2004 election and stressed the importance of expanding upon it. One proposal he made was extending No Child Left Behind by mandating two or more years of reading and math testing in high school while requiring annual state testing for grades three through eleven.

In order to expand the law, Bush is proposing three initiatives. Firstly, a yearly request for an extra $250 million to be allocated towards the tests. Secondly, the creation of a $500 million fund for states and school districts that choose to incentivize effective teachers. Thirdly, Bush has suggested ideas such as implementing a national test for reading and math to a sample of 12th-graders in each state biennially and encouraging privatized schooling with $50 million in local communities. In fact, Bush has already set an example with the introduction of the first federally supported voucher program in the District of Columbia.

Bush's goal is to expand the Reading First program by allocating $1.26 billion towards training teachers in research-based reading instruction

for young children. He also wants to extend the testing program to include science classes. While John Kerry previously supported No Child Left Behind in 2001, during the 2004 Elections he sought to reclaim democratic leadership by proposing his own revisions to the law.

Kerry's approach to the aw involved establishing a trust fund worth $200 billion, which would be funded by discontinuing tax reductions for individuals earning over $200,000 annually. The objective was to finance educational initiatives such as No Child Left Behind, programs for children with disabilities, and teacher training programs. His plan entailed raising certification standards for new teachers and streamlining the dismissal process of tenured teachers who underperform in states receiving federal funds. Additionally, he suggested giving low- and medium-income families college tax credits ranging from $2,500 to $4,000 while granting an increase of at least $5,000 to high-need school teachers along with an annual bonus of $5,000 for those teaching in areas where subjects like math and science are scarce. Finally, Kerry aimed to modify evaluations under No Child Left Behind so that academic standards do not decline and schools receive equitable treatment.

Kerry endorsed the notion of providing free college tuition for four years at public schools to pupils who commit to contributing two years of service in distressed schools. Despite criticizing Bush for not completely financing the law in most of his talks, Kerry couldn't deny that federal spending in education under Bush surged by 48%. The issue with both candidates is their reluctance to implement significant amendments to the law.

Despite good intentions, politicians from both sides have overlooked some inherent flaws in the law, leaving teachers frustrated. One primary

issue is that it evaluates teaching effectiveness through standardized tests, with American public schools administering over 100 million exams each year. However, educators doubt their accuracy and seek alternative methods to assess students' knowledge and skills in line with curriculum objectives. Despite being unpopular among teachers due to additional testing requirements, this law has gained popularity among parents and politicians thanks to its easy interpretation and subjective grading system.

The use of standardized testing by politicians and parents is popular due to its convenience in evaluating school performance through numerical data. Nonetheless, there are several issues with these tests that require caution to avoid being misled in believing them to be an accurate reflection of students' learning. President Bush, for instance, has made the mistake of relying too heavily on these tests, as he stated, "Without yearly testing, we don't know who is falling behind and who needs help. Without yearly testing, too often we don't find failure until it is too late to fix" (Failing).

Although standardized test scores offer a brief glimpse of a student's performance at a particular point in time, their usefulness is limited and potentially ambiguous. Relying on these scores to make crucial decisions about schools or students can be misleading and detrimental. This is due to external factors such as illness or physical discomfort, like menstruation, which could result in an unfavorable score that does not accurately reflect the student's abilities. In addition, teachers are capable of identifying struggling students through conventional measures such as class performance and multiple tests conducted over an extended period of time. These methods account for the possibility of off-days by students. Faulty test scores can

have harmful effects on both individual pupils and entire educational institutions; one erroneous outcome may lead to the closure of a whole school.

The use of standardized tests raises several concerns. These tests rely on norm-referencing theory, which employs a bell curve system and results in some students failing. Although they may seem fair and impartial, standardized tests (particularly those with multiple-choice questions) are not entirely objective and are graded solely by machines. Many subjective decisions made by humans contribute to the creation of these exams, such as item selection, phrasing and content choices, determination of correct answers, test administration, and result interpretation (FairTest, K-12 Testing Fact Sheet).

The bias of standardized tests towards white, middle-class males living in cities is a major concern. This results in tests favoring those with similar cultures and upbringings to those who make the test, while typically disadvantaging females, children of color, those from lower socio-economic backgrounds, and rural students. Though efforts have been made to mitigate this bias, the inherent nature of the tests still favors middle-class students.

Standardized tests are not effective in pinpointing weaknesses in students or schools and only serve to confuse and hinder the process. Moreover, traditional methods that teachers use are already sufficient in identifying struggling students. Another concern is teaching to the test, as the emphasis on good scores restricts the curriculum and limits teacher flexibility.

The Class cannot learn about major events due to a strict curriculum and timetable designed to ensure that everything on the test is taught. Teachers cannot offer extra help to struggling students since they must cover the content within a specific timeframe. The focus on standardized tests negatively

impacts students' critical thinking abilities since they are primarily tasked with memorizing facts. The class becomes monotonous because there is little time for enjoyable, hands-on activities that promote a creative learning environment. Furthermore, No Child Left Behind's "school choice" or voucher program presents issues when a school is classified as failing for over three years, as it provides alternative options for students who would otherwise be restricted to the failing school.

Although parents have options to send their child to another public, charter, or private (including religious) school, this is more than just an attempt to ensure a good education. It is a conservative agenda to fund their religious ideas and schools by privatizing yet another public institution, similar to what is happening with Medicare. There are several issues with allowing the conservative agenda to control our education system, including funding problems. While schools receive some federal funding, the majority of their funds are from the state.

The predominant concern currently is the severe budgetary difficulties faced by most states. This is due to federal funds being spent on various endeavors like the Iraq war while simultaneously granting significant tax cuts. Such inefficient allocation of resources by the government is eating into funds typically designated for states. Moreover, states are also required to expend more resources on state homeland security following 9/11. Add to all of that, the expenses incurred due to No Child Left Behind, and the states are left grappling with significant financial stress. Consequently, states must engage in a balancing act with their budgetary resources- determining how much should be allocated towards essentials like roads, police, etc., and providing funding

for No Child Left Behind. However, this becomes increasingly challenging as most schools are compelled to trim their budgets- for instance, the Milwaukee voucher program cost state taxpayers an estimated $65, with 11,621 students in attendance during the 2002-2003 school year.

According to the National School Board Association (NSBA), almost half of the $6 million that will be diverted from Milwaukee Public Schools and its 105,000 students - accounting for 45 percent - will not be covered by federal contributions towards the state's debt. In addition, some non-religious private schools may charge tuition fees higher than those of public school students. When a school is labeled as failing, they receive less or no federal funding which serves as an incentive for improvement and must also finance their students' attendance at other institutions. This problem becomes more difficult for such schools to overcome.

The primary reason for a school's failure is often related to financial issues. Usually, wealthy schools do not experience failure, while those in need of federal funds do not receive an adequate amount. This creates a snowball effect, leading to ultimate collapse. Furthermore, a misconception exists that public schools can operate with smaller budgets when a student is lost to a private school. However, according to former Milwaukee Public Schools Superintendent Spence Korts, losing one student from a school is not the issue. The problem arises when losses are spread throughout the district, making it difficult to consolidate resources in specific buildings.

NSBA denies that a few students opting for a choice program can lower the building's temperature by two degrees. Some voucher advocates claim they are being double-taxed since they pay for private schooling,

but this assertion lacks foundation. Taxes fund many communal benefits, and public schools were created with this in mind. Even if someone pays for their child's private education, it does not entitle them to tax discounts or vouchers because public schools are accessible at any time.

Choosing to invest in personal security is akin to selecting private schools instead of relying solely on public education. In certain areas, like Milwaukee, the mean expense for tuition at a private school amounts to $5,700 and is frequently not incorporated into the taxes paid towards public education. It's important to recognize that even households without school-aged children still assist public schools through their taxes. As per the National School Boards Association, individual taxpayers alone cannot claim voucher funds as public schooling is a communal obligation. Additionally, there are those who argue that private schools offer better instruction when compared with their public counterparts.

Recent studies from Wisconsin and Ohio states investigated voucher programs in Milwaukee and Cleveland respectively, finding no significant disparity in educational outcomes between private voucher schools versus public schools. Although some data on private school test scores are not disclosed, the available information indicates that a private school's academic performance correlates with the socio-economic status of its surrounding community. Thus, a school located in an affluent neighborhood is likely to perform better than one situated in a low-income area serving mostly lower-income students.

In terms of transferring a child from a failing public school to a private school in the same area and demographic, there is little impact. However, private schools have the potential for better education thanks to increased funding through vouchers. Private schools are often seen

as superior because they have more freedom when it comes to selecting students based on academic performance or disciplinary issues - unlike public schools that must accept all students. Through the Cleveland voucher program, private schools can reject students who do not meet their standards. Currently, private schools hold an advantage over public ones as they can choose academically strong students. A common misconception regarding voucher programs is that only minority and low-income families benefit.

Low-income families face challenges accessing voucher programs or attending the best private schools due to most voucher programs not fully covering private school attendance expenses. Parents may have to pay several thousand dollars, as organizations like the Children's Scholarship Fund only cover 20% to 65% of tuition costs for recipients. This creates a burden on families struggling with additional expenses such as uniforms and activity fees.

NSBA and a recent RAND Corp. analysis argue that the notion of vouchers improving public schools through competition in the school market lacks evidence and is speculative. The analysis examined Cleveland and Milwaukee, finding that diverting large amounts of money from public schools to fund private school tuition for students who are likely already attending private schools is not an effective way to enhance public education. While a study by Jay Greene, commissioned by the pro-voucher Manhattan Institute claimed that vouchers improved Florida's public schools, this remains an isolated effort to demonstrate their positive impact.

Despite some researchers criticizing Greene's conclusions for lacking evidence and ignoring key factors, such as state assistance and the impact of being stigmatized as a failing school, there are examples of struggling schools improving solely by reducing class sizes, without vouchers being

offered. For instance, many schools in Florida showed improvements in their test scores prior to the implementation of vouchers, according to a professor from Stanford University.

The competition between public and private schools is not fair because private voucher schools operate under different rules, allowing them to reject certain students and avoid equal academic standards. Without uniform regulations, real competition cannot exist. Additionally, No Child Left Behind segregates students into subgroups based on race, eligibility for reduced-price lunches, and special education when determining qualifications for passing the yearly process.

Assessments based on participation rate and test proficiency are used to measure the student body and subgroups within a school. These evaluations aid in identifying students who require additional support, while also punishing schools for not providing assistance earlier. A school will fail to meet AYP performance goals if one of its subgroups does not achieve at least a two-thirds proficiency rate and 95 percent participation rate in math and reading assessments. If, for example, the "black" student subgroup underperforms in math, the school will be added to the AYP failure list. Despite taking corrective action, another subgroup such as "free and reduced lunch" students may have low participation rates which can lead to further penalties in subsequent years.

Even if schools tackle the problem of students with "limited English proficiency", it does not ensure good performance on the reading test in the following year. Consequently, third-year sanctions and possible new management within two years could be imposed on such schools. Edina, which ranks among the top 20 schools in terms of eighth grade test scores, is an instance where high stakes may put a successful school at risk.

Moreover,

the American Association of School Administrators awarded Dr. Ken Dragseth with the National Superintendent of the Year award in 2003 for managing the district school system. Additionally, a majority of 91 percent of graduates pursue higher education.

Last year, it was discovered that the district failed to meet the adequate yearly progress mandated by law due to three absent students out of 53 in the Asian/Pacific Islander system, resulting in the sub-group falling below the required 95% participation rate. Dr. Dragseth noted that out of the 7,200 children in the district, a few missing students in a specific subgroup can cause the entire district to fail and face restrictions.

The statement, "That's just asinine," was made by someone in reference to the grading system that is being used in schools. This has been reported by City Pages. Additionally, the system can negatively impact schools if they receive new transfer students who don't speak English. Furthermore, the grading system could harm special education and limited English proficiency subgroups - groups that often require the most assistance.

Despite originally intending to subject these students to the same testing standards as others, No Child Left Behind eventually faced extensive critique, leading the Bush administration to revise their stance. U.S. Education Secretary Rod Paige declared in December that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, including autism or permanent brain injury as determined by the state, would be considered proficient if they pass an alternative test that is better suited to their intellectual abilities. (City Pages)

Paige limited the exemption to 1% of a school district's student population, which is roughly equivalent to 9% of its special education students in Minnesota. However,

schools must ensure that around 90% of their special education students achieve the same level as other subgroups on tests or they will be considered failing. This subgroup comprises dyslexic students, those with IQs below 75, and students who have limited English proficiency and may struggle with reading tests. Previously under No Child Left Behind rules, scores from limited English proficiency students who had recently arrived in the country were included in subgroups but removed once they passed an easier language assessment for immigrants than reading tests.

Put differently, No Child Left Behind necessitated non-proficient English students to attain reading proficiency in the language. Various research indicates that limited English proficiency pupils take between four and 11 years on average to become fluent. Despite achieving mastery of the language, these students perform comparably to native speakers on reading assessments. About 26% of Minneapolis Public Schools' students possess limited English proficiency, while approximately one out of three in St. Paul have this status (according to City Pages).

Within the Osseo school district, students speak 77 different languages. Due to a significant percentage of special education and free and reduced lunch students, it is highly likely that many schools within these districts will receive a failing label and require restructuring under No Child Left Behind. Even for schools that do not have a measurable number of at-risk students enrolled or miraculously avoid being labeled as a failing system, the standards set by No Child Left Behind continue to increase with each cycle.

According to No Child Left Behind, the upcoming decade will see a continuous increase in the required proficiency rates for reading and math. By the year 2014, the

end goal is for all subgroups and students to achieve proficiency on every assessment. Failure or perfection will be the only options for schools and districts to comply. If President Bush's proposal is passed, science classes and high schools will be subject to the same standards. This ambitious vision has been praised for its inspiring political rhetoric by City Pages.

Secretary Paige recently made a comparison between the challenge of ensuring every child's success under No Child Left Behind and the fight for racial integration in Alabama during the 1960s. This mirrors his earlier speech where he emphasized teaching all children well, not just a select few. Despite being in the wealthiest country globally, we have two unequal education systems that leave many low-income and minority students struggling to succeed. Unfortunately, politicians prioritize rhetoric over actionable plans while education issues like No Child Left Behind are overshadowed by concerns such as terrorism, Iraq, and the economy during election season.

Despite teachers being tasked with the challenging responsibility of ensuring every child can read and do math, they lack sufficient support from politicians who bestowed this burden upon them. This election has revealed a disregard for the many issues faced by educators, with Bush remaining oblivious to the reality of his actions. Despite their hope and pleas for recognition, teachers' concerns were overlooked by presidential candidates.

Instead of addressing the real issues of No Child Left Behind, Kerry chose to stay on easier ground such as funding. However, even with proper funding, the law in its entirety is flawed. Kerry seemed hesitant to appear as if he was against education and only criticized Bush's handling of the issue superficially.

As a result, teachers can only hope that Bush acknowledges the reality of the situation and resolves the problems with No Child Left Behind before any more children get left behind.