Jonathan Hallock
Freshman composition 151
M. Hoggard
Essay #4 Final Draft - 4/24/04
No Child Left Behind, or No Child Left?
What is the “No Child Left Behind” act? If you are anything like I was, you have only the vaguest idea, which is understandable. Over the last few days, I have taken some time to read up on the act itself, and I will take this essay and try to relate what I understand.
The official site for the US Department of Education (www.ed.gov) lists the NCLB act as: “a historic, bipartisan education reform effort that President Bush proposed his first week in office and that Congress passed into law on January 8, 2002. (McPherson)” In addition, it goes on to say that, “The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) -- the main federal law affecting education from kindergarten through high school. NCLB is built on four principles: accountability for results, more choices for parents, greater local control and flexibility, and an emphasis on doing what works based on scientific research.” While the first portion of the description is mostly meaningless fluff added simply to make the act seem more impressive, the second part points us down a closer path to find out the actual purpose of our leader’s historic, bipartisan reform of our education system. A summary of each of the listed sections can be found on ED.gov at http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html.
The first principle, accountability for results, requires all states to implement statewide accountability systems covering all public schools and students, essentially setting in place a standard in each state that each school district must meet. Assessment results and State progress objectives must be broken out by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that no group is left behind. School districts that fail to meet the goals set in place are subject to state and federal corrections and restructuring, while districts that meet or exceed such goals are given access to academic achievement awards (McPherson, http://www.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html ).
The second principle, which was to add more choices for parents, aims to add relief and other opportunities for children that are stuck in districts that are not meeting the state set goals. School districts that have been identified as needing improvement must offer children the opportunity to attend a better public or charter school, paying for transportation and funds out of their budget. This is meant to give failing schools a large incentive to improve in the face of losing a large portion of their budget and a number of students (McPherson online).
The third principle, which was to allow greater local control and flexibility, generally states that school districts will be allowed a higher level of control on how they use federal educational funds in return for the higher demands on accountability (McPherson online).
The last principle, or “doing what works based on scientific research”, is as simple as it sounds, allowing for a greater level of research to go in to finding ways to improve school districts and better educate their students (McPherson online).
Although the ED.gov is a wonderful place to gain an understanding of how the act would ideally work, and its intended functions, one could most certainly not count on them to describe any negative impacts of the act on American school systems. To get a better idea of the downsides of the legislation I took awhile to read over NoChildLeft.com (http://nochildleft.com/) maintained by Jamie McKenzie.
Critics of the legislation (http://nochildleft.com/2003/jan03.html#8 ) mark the act as “making a mockery of state rights and local control,” based on how under this act the federal government now has the final say in the goals and methods of improvement of each state’s school districts (McKenzie online). They criticize the act for placing a large strain on an already severely burdened educational budget. Despite the increased budget for spending, the penalties for not showing marked improvement, as well as the shuffling of students from failing schools, to schools that may not be able to support their needs, places a large strain on a system that may already be strained as far as it can go. They explain that the act itself is more punishing than supportive, marking a school as “failing” for not meeting the federal and state goals, and punishing it for such marks, leaving it in the local school’s own hands to make its improvements. They state that the act opens a “pandora’s box of untested and unproven changes” in its top down legislation with little to no focus on local social problems (McKenzie online).
In the worst case scenario, the broad scope of such an act could lead to the forced closure of many schools that aren’t able to meet the requirements of the state. It can lead to a large strain on the education budget and an almost commercialization of the remaining schools, causing them to strip down all facets of their education facilities but those which will net them a government reward. If a school district is forced to close because of the strain on its budget from being forced to relocate students, it will no longer be able to pay such expenses, and the local inhabitants will be left with no choice but to migrate or commute. The act could lead to a “dumbing down” of our education system, allowing more rudimentary courses in favor of higher grade marks, rather than running more difficult classes under the risk of being marked as “failing” and losing government funding. Schools lack the funding to provide a multi-tiered education system, and are scared out of raising the bar even the slightest notch.
In my humble personal opinion, after hearing both sides of the debate, it’s become clear that our education system is in dire need of an updating change, but I’m left quite sincerely doubting, that this change is the right one. The act seems almost as if it was taken as a brash action without much real thought, simply to quiet an angry public. With this act the focus has become less about actually teaching children, and more about seeing results. The amount of funding received being about “results” turns our education system into a commercial business, with a simple motto of “turn out results or be doomed.” It seems to me from a logical standpoint that rather than applying such a global top down judgment on schools marked as failing, and stripping money away from such schools, instead more money should be applied to schools in need of change. If “failing” schools had monetary aid and a personalized, caring restructuring, perhaps they wouldn’t be “failing” anymore.
From my experience, no two people learn the same way, and any act that seeks to sort people into categories and judge them all universally, is almost certainly doomed to failure.
Works Cited
McKenzie, Jamie. "No Child Left." Nochildleft.Com. 28 Mar. 2006. FNO Press. 12 Apr.
2006
McPherson, Edward R., ed. "
Department of Education. 12 Apr. 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment