In 2000, the Bush administration saw the need for an absolute reform of our nation’s education system. What the Bush administration came up with was the No Child Left Behind act this Act was highly supported by the bipartisan party in congress. With the support of congress, the act spread throughout the educational leaders making NCLB a prominent choice in how to reform education. The basic parts of NCLB that many people thought would help consist of higher standards for math and reading and yearly testing. On May 23, 2001 Senator Ted Kennedy passed the bill for NCLB that later on President Bush would sign into law on January 8, 2002. When this became law, state funded schools had a choice whether to put this act in affect, But in actuality they were forced to implement to the NCLB. If the schools wanted more money, they would have to support and follow all of the limitations that go along with NCLB. Many of the provisions of the act first seemed reasonable at first. For example, one provision requires schools to give (AYP) Adequate Yearly Progress test which evaluates students and teachers. The teachers would also have to finish all of their teacher certification requirements by a given time. The most controversial provision requires where all ethnic, socioeconomic and special education groups must meet different proficient levels. The NCLB was a great proposal for reforming education, but it turned out to have the opposite effect on solving the problem with education in America.
No Child Left behind Act has limited the number of permanent qualified teachers in the classrooms. Since 1970, the Hoover Institute’s Koret Task Force on Education has seen a decline on SAT test scores: “Since 1983 more than 10 million students have reached their senior year with no basic reading and 20 million have advanced to the twelfth grade without basic math fundamentals” (U.S Department of Education). Clearly the standard of teaching in America is not working. When first looking at the reason why the quality of education was on the decline, many scholars wondered if it was because of the quality of teachers we had. Based on a recent statistic “22 percent of all high schools students take a course from a teacher without even a minor in the subject” (Bracey 9).This means teachers are teaching subjects they do not have experience in. In NCLB one of its biggest provision was that teachers would be have to either have or finish all there teacher qualification requirements to be a permanent teacher.
As an onlooker this was an understandable request, so many teachers agreed to this; little did they know the stress that would be placed upon them. While interviewing Erica Jordan Thomas, a teacher under NCLB, she says “ It is very stressful having to prepare students for a test that determines so much, while on the other hand trying to get fully certified you almost hit the point of giving up”(Thomas).If the teachers are stressed out how do you think the students feel? Students feed off of teacher’s which results in low test scores. In the NCLB act it says that teachers would be evaluated on how well the students do on the Adequate Yearly Progress test. While most teachers have not finished all of their requirements it adds on the pressure of trying to prepare students for the AYP and finishing certification which both have timelines. Many of our schools are understaffed and do not have enough teachers NCLB makes it harder to focus on bridging the achievement gap because they make it difficult to become a teacher. The provision has drastically hurt the school systems. NCLB forces the certified teachers to resume more positions because of the restrictions placed on under qualified teachers. These problems make it harder for children to excel in the classroom and lead to a percent of what is wrong with our educational system.
The Adequate Yearly Progress test was a substantial change for many of the nation’s schools. The incentives offered by the NCLB caused various complications for the education systems. The purpose for the AYP is to annually follow the progress of academic success of the students. This was also appealing to educators since it brought funding and exposure to the schools.. Little did the schools know, but the NCLB would make the schools more accountable which lead to more complications. The limitations with the AYP had a drastic effect on classroom performance. Chrisanti Haretos an education reviewer states that “Accountability in education has been described as a tripod made up of standards” (Haretos 30). This means education has been turned into three units of standards. The standards put into place were that students in third through twelfth grade had to be tested yearly and had to meet a required proficient level to be promoted to the next grade.
Schools as a whole would have to meet a school wide proficiency level as well. With the pressure of schools trying to meet the standards set by the state, the focus turned from teachers taken time on concepts to rushing to cover material that will be on the AYP test. NCLB made it clear that schools must meet these standards as author Timothy P. Crisafulli says NCLB “puts the careers of tenured teachers and administrators at risk. It does this by setting unreasonable standards and then calls for the termination of educators when they fail to meet those standards” (Crisafulli 613). With the need for extra funding and the need to keep tenured teachers there has been cases of teachers helping students cheat or gain an advantage to do well on these test. If a school fails to demonstrate academic proficiency under the NCLB, they could be labeled as failing schools and be on the verge of termination. The problem with this is national schools are underfunded and just do not have the resource to help the students be prepared for the AYP test. As a result, there is a rise of schools that have been labeled failing schools and are struggling to meet the standards; NCLB has created a problem that threatens education for many rural states.
With all of the requirements put in place NCLB, the classroom learning environment has taken a hit for the worst. In 2007, a study was taken to see how the NCLB act affects the classrooms. Many of the creators of NCLB predicted that the class would be more attentive and be better behaved. A recent study shows “When administering a state standardized assessment test, both the student and teacher’s emotions naturally embark on a heightened alert due to their perception of the high stakes”(S Ruston, A Ruston 90). The high expectation made from NCLB put unwanted tension to the classroom not only do the teachers reacted to it so do the students. If a teacher is in jeopardy of losing their job due to low test grades, the teacher is going to spend less time on a subject to focus on all the test material. Some students need extra time on certain subjects but when they don’t receive it they get left behind and give up.
When a student gives up because of a lack of understanding on a subject, they often end up being a distraction to other students. It is apparent that “Both arts teachers and non-arts teachers believe instructional time and classroom practices have been altered in the district to accommodate NCLB requirements” (Spohn 5). When the classroom practices are altered students have a hard time reacting, so when teachers stop using innovative methods to fit NCLB, students get bored and end up becoming distractions. When talking to a former teacher, she say’s “As a teacher you know when a student is struggling, when you let it go you start to see the behavior problems arise” (Erica Jordan Thomas, personal interview. 5 Apr.2011). The NCLB has open the door for students to act out giving a student more complicated work only adds to the problems students go through.
No Child Left Behind failed to show mercy on the rural and low income schools making these schools compete with suburban and private schools. It’s no secret that there is a significant difference between private and higher income schools and low income rural schools. With the higher income schools and private schools the limitations of NCLB does not affect them as tough because they tend to have better qualified teachers and better resources. In 2003, David J. Cowen geographer researcher stated that “ Rural schools face unfavorable challenges such as difficulties in recruiting and keeping quality teachers, shortage of funding sources, and geographical isolation, all of which are detrimental to student achievement”(Zhang and Cowen 26). NCLB did not take in considerations that there are differences in the type of schools and how their surroundings can effect a student’s education.
Parents of underfunded and low income schools do not understand how schools with great resources and better teachers can be in the same testing field as there students. When most of the higher income schools keep getting extra funds because they have financial advantage ,it hurts the education system. With majority of labeled failing schools being rural low income schools it’s hard for these schools to bounce back. Since these failing school get labeled the struggles unfold triple time students are more encouraged to drop out, which under NCLB causes these scores to become even worse. NCLB hurts these rural schools because it’s harder to get qualified teachers in under performing schools. No teacher wants to be at school on the verge of shutting down or does not equip them right. Most of the time rural schools are forced to take less than average teachers. In a way No Child Left Behind benefits the wealthier and suburban schools and harms the rural as if this was the plan from the start.
There are plenty of research educators that believe NCLB needs to be discontinued. On September 1, 2009 Diane Ravitch a researcher on education wrote an article called “Time to Kill No Child Left Behind” In this article, it explains the concern that most people have with NCLB after 7 years of being in this system there has been little to no progress. Ravitch research shows that “The number of failing schools grows each year. In the past year, nearly 30,000 public schools—35% nationwide—were identified as failing” (Ravitch 6). Ravitch gained tremendous support with trying to disband the No Child Left Behind act all of the provisions and limitations make it nearly impossible to achieve the goals they had in mind. You are not going to help reform educations by making more problems than there were before. When looking at comparison scores from 2002 to 2004, you can clearly see that there is a decline in the level of scores. Ravitch made it apparent that it was too late to try and tweak the program: “It’s clear that the program needs to be buried” (5).
NCLB evaluates students’ scores based on ethnicity rather than as a whole school. In the NCLB act it allows to separate the scores based on ethnicity so for example African Americans are one group and Asians are another. NCLB categorizes every single thing and compares it against other ethnicities. You can almost compare NCLB to social Darwinism which is the theory that it’s the world is based on survival of the fittest. The world is naturally based on competition to be the best. Schools are supposed to help you achieve that goal. When the statistics came out it showed that there was a big difference between ethnic groups seeing this, many parents avoided sending their kids to schools that were more diverse this lead to schools with higher populations of the same race and separating students from other cultures. NCLB noticed the difference in socioeconomic statues and ignored it completely. NCLB needs to focus more on the low preforming ethnic groups instead of trying to punish them. In 2002 New York had “86% of failing schools and they were located in the five biggest urban districts, note that the NCLB act makes no attempt to address the funding inequities among rich and poor school districts” (Williams 372). The focus should be more on inner city schools rather than any other subcategory NCLB has.
Although there are many negative things that came out of the No Child Left Behind act, there are a couple of positive benefits. It would not be justified to completely criticize this act when in fact NCLB helped to show inequalities with our education system. NCLB was good at focusing on the problems at the beginning stages of the reform. The problem with the act is that it failed to find solutions after seeing the original plan failed. NCLB did help to show where we could do things different basically it was a good trial and error for American education. There is also some debate that without the NCLB there would not be as much money in the education budget even if it’s poorly distributed. You also cannot deny the fact that due to NCLB, there is an increase in the state run schools participation with the government. Even with the ever revolving cycle of trouble these schools are going through because of NCLB, the communication between state and government has been at it highest it has been in years.
The two positive contributions that NCLB had was improving communication between the schools and the state and making the curriculum more standardized. Edward C Fletcher Jr. says “NCLB has indeed made a major impact on educational curriculum and instruction in schools across America” (Fletcher 18). The bad thing that stands out is that these are some of the best rebuttals to what educators have to say about the positive effects of No Child Left Behind. It is easy to see why most reformists will gladly be able to put the NCLB act behind them and start over. In 2002, Karen Miller notes what President Bush stated in his state of the union “the era of low standards and low expectations is ending; a time of great hopes and proven results is arriving” (Miller 156). When looking back at the first proposal of NCLB this seem like an easy task to accomplish, but as we see it’s not going to happen off of half way planning.
No Child Left Behind was a promising answer to helping reform our nation’s education system. With substantial backing, this act seemed like it would go the distance and continue to gain support. When this act was first proposed, the incentives alone helped to persuade school districts to enforce NCLB, many schools thought that extra funding would solve all of their problems. they were wrong. After only two years of being in place students, parents and teachers began to get frustrated with this act. The amount of limitations and provisions that came with NCLB weakened the educational system more than it already was. With more than half of the total number of teachers gone from the classroom schools are in dire need for educators. There are more than 60 percent of labeled failing schools in urban and rural areas which lead to more overcrowding schools due to school closers. School zones have to redraw busing lines to reintegrate the school because of NCLB focus on ethnic capability. The stress of having to produce more than possible AYP test scores have driven teachers to the point of allowing students to cheat or even be given answers. All of these things are outcomes of the No Child Left behind act it is hard to believe that an act that on paper looks tremendous could have so many downfalls. It seems like every single section of the act was put to the test and failed with flying colors. It is hard to believe that a small portion of people still support NCLB. If someone would take the time to evaluate every section of NCLB and figure out how to efficiently imply the limitations and provisions so that it would benefit not only just the wealthier schools, this act could have a drastic change in education. The No Child Left Behind act has one more year 2014 until it is not effective anymore. Until then the parents, students and teachers have to be under the control of this ineffective system. We can only hope that once this act is over we can patch up the damage caused by No Child Left Behind and move forward in building America’s educational system.
Johnathon W.G. Williams I
¡The Rise! 