Essay 4 Final Draft

Revising No Child Left Behind

Imagine belonging to a school with a low academic performance level and being given the option to transfer to a better school.  Transferring would mean receiving a quality education and being prepared for success in the future.  After becoming aware of the new and exciting opportunities that lie ahead, imagine being turned away from the new school because it is already overcrowded or finding out the academics really are not as they appeared.  Many students have faced this very situation in an attempt to transfer to a new school under the unsuccessful transfer policy of the No Child Left Behind Act.  This law was signed in 2002 to ensure that all children in the United States would be on grade level in reading and mathematics by 2014 (“Stronger Accountability”).  Public school students in grades three through eight are assessed annually to measure adequate yearly progress toward student proficiency in reading and math (Hess 320).

One of the main goals of the No Child Left Behind Act is to “improve the academic achievement of the disadvantaged” (“Elementary and Secondary Education”).  The purpose of this goal, as stated by the United States Department of Education, is “to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (“Elementary and Secondary Education”).  Upon becoming president, it was George W. Bush’s goal to challenge schools across the nation to hold all students to the same high standards, “regardless of race, income level, background, or zip code” (“Stronger Accountability”).  Although the accountability plan was intended to have a positive effect on learning, the No Child Left Behind Act needs to undergo several revisions to prevent teachers from solely teaching test material, allow student progress to be evaluated in more effective ways, and remove penalties for schools failing to meet the law’s standards.

Although it has become a main focal point in many classrooms across the country, test preparation is not the best teaching method to get students ready for their future.  Under the No Child Left Behind Act, students are required to pass state-wide tests in certain subject areas.  Educators are concerned about their students passing the standardized tests; therefore, numerous teachers are “teaching to the test” (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  Standardized testing forces teachers to skip over other important lessons and place emphasis on preparing students for examinations (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  As a member of the Senate, current President Barrack Obama said, “One of the failures of No Child Left Behind, a law that I think a lot of local and state officials have been troubled by, is that it is so narrowly focused on standardized tests that it has pushed out a lot of important learning that needs to take place” (Chute).  Kids are forced to spend a great deal of time focusing on reading and math, which means they are not learning as much in other subject areas that do not require testing (Dillon).  The Center on Education Policy conducted a survey in 2006, just five years after the law was put into effect, and discovered that approximately seventy-one percent of U.S. school districts decreased the time spent on subjects such as history, science, music, and art (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  Overall, test preparation takes away from students’ learning experiences.

Even though students are spending a great deal of time in the classroom preparing for tests, supporters of the No Child Left Behind Act perceive the law as effective due to the student improvement that has been seen across the nation.  They claim that students retain more information when being prepared for tests and that knowing the information required for the tests enforces basic skills.  Proponents also argue that schools are right to spend more time on reading and math because it is essential to know these subjects, and they are used in other classes (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  The No Child Left Behind Act also provides a way to review teacher effectiveness.  The tests measure students’ understanding of the material, and it is believed that an effective teacher is responsible for making sure each child understands the information (Spellings).  Before the law was passed, a method did not exist to determine whether or not teachers were actually doing their jobs (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  When the law was put into effect, it ensured that students would meet certain standards by proving their knowledge of basic skills and that their teachers would teach them the necessary material.

The No Child Left Behind Act needs to be revised so that teachers are not spending so much time “teaching to the test.”  If teachers are not forced to dedicate so much time to standardized test preparation, kids will learn more in a variety of different subjects, helping them become well-rounded and better educated.  Fundamental skills are learned, but possessing a strong foundation in those skills does not help the student if there is no time allotted to move beyond the basics.  Some students are already comfortable with the basic content and are ready to move on to new material.  The No Child Left Behind Act does not challenge advanced students because so much time is spent trying to pull along students who are behind (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  Contrary to proponents’ beliefs, evaluating the effectiveness of teachers should not be based solely on standardized testing.  They should also be observed in their classrooms to determine whether or not they are effective, and adjustments can be made based on feedback given to them about their teaching methods.  Teacher experience, organization, and classroom management skills are other factors that can be evaluated and do not involve testing the students (Stronge 11-12).  Although some testing may be necessary, teachers should not be forced to waste so much time focused on teaching test material to students. 

In addition to testing, No Child Left Behind should allow students to be evaluated in other effective ways.  Looking at test scores is not the only method of evaluating student progress, but as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act, students are judged based solely on standardized tests scores (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  The results of standardized tests only indicate “a snapshot of student performance at a given point in time” (Abernathy 109).  For instance, research shows that fatigue is associated with low academic performance and that many students do not obtain the amount of sleep needed (Perez-Chada et al.).  Students are not likely to do as well on the tests if they are tired at the time the test is given.  A factor as simple as sleepiness has the ability to greatly affect results.  Test scores alone are also not the best evaluation tool because in order to prepare for standardized tests, students are taught to memorize information without really learning the material.  Randi Weingarten, president of the American Federation of Teachers, says, “Tests have become more about telling us how much students can remember and less about telling us what they have – or have not – learned” (Weingarten).  Memorizing information for a test does not necessarily mean the information will be remembered after testing is complete.  Memorization doesn’t teach students the critical thinking skills they will need to be successful in the future (Weingarten).  Test results should not be the only factor by which students are evaluated. 

Supporters of the Act believe that student progress should be evaluated based on test results since any other methods of evaluation may create skewed outcomes.  For example, an alternative evaluation method, such as reviewing student grade reports, can be easily manipulated.  All teachers grade their students differently, so looking at grades does not give an accurate reflection of student abilities.  Students who have teachers with lax standards are at an advantage.  The proponents of the Act claim that covering test material is an efficient way to educate students, and they are more likely to learn and remember the information (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  Based on improved test results, many believe that the No Child Left Behind Act is fulfilling its purpose.

While using standardized tests as one indicator of academic performance, The No Child Left Behind Act should be revised to allow other methods of assessing students’ knowledge as well.  It is difficult to manipulate results of student progress measured in the form of research projects, oral presentations, and essays (“Fact Sheet”).  These types of assignments could be part of portfolio assessments of students’ best work that would show what children know as opposed to tests being used to show what they do not know.  The portfolio could then be presented to a panel of students, teachers, and parents (What is the Alternative to Standardized Tests?).  The portfolio approach is currently used in some areas of the United States along with other successful assessment methods.  For example, the Work Sampling System (WSS) assesses student performance based on collections of student work.  A summary of student progress is written and rated on a numerical scale.  Other nations have shown success through different methods as well.  For instance, in Sweden, teachers keep records of student progress through coursework, assignments designed by teachers, and nationally approved exams (“Multiple Measures”).  Different types of higher quality assessments would better demonstrate what the students have retained, and if used in addition to test scores, would give more accurate information about student proficiency. 

The consequences for failing to meet standards set by the No Child Left Behind Act should be revised because the current penalties for schools that fail to meet proficiency levels do not necessarily benefit students or improve public education.  Failing schools can be turned over to the state, reopened as a charter school, or shut down completely (“No Child Left Behind” New York Times; Karp).  If a school is turned over to the state and restructured, most of the faculty is replaced (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind” 3).  The school is then left further behind because it is forced to start from the beginning rather than improving upon the progress it has already made (Karp).  Charter schools do not appear to have a higher rate than customary public schools of achieving adequate yearly progress (Abernathy 76).  Currently, if a school is considered failing, its students possess the right to transfer to another school that demonstrates better academic performance (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  In many cases, students do not benefit from this opportunity because transfer options are often undesirable due to location or lack of significantly higher academic performance (“The Civil Rights Project”).  Some schools do not even accept transfer students because of overcrowding issues (Melago).  In order to benefit more students, schools failing to meet the standards need to be helped, not penalized.

Proponents of the law, however, believe it is necessary to keep the penalties for failing schools.  Many agree that requiring student proficiency compels the school systems to provide attention to students who are falling behind.  Penalties, such as restructuring schools, give educators the incentive to provide extra help for students (“No Child Left Behind” Issues).  The transfer policy of the No Child Left Behind Act is said to increase choices for parents and students when it comes to education.  Parents should be confident in the education their children receive, therefore; transferring to another school seems to be a good option.  Approximately 120,000 students actually took advantage of the opportunity throughout the 2006-2007 school year (“Choices For Parents”).  Supporters of the law believe that the consequences, including the transfer policy, are in the students’ best interests.

Although action should be taken in failing schools, some of the consequences are too severe and should be changed to benefit students and improve the education system within the school.  Rather than punishing schools with lower academic performance, the schools should be provided with resources to allow improvement (Weingarten).  Restructuring schools may seem like a good option, but it is argued that No Child Left Behind does not provide the necessary funds required to support the task.  As a result, funds that are set aside to help schools with many poor students are taken to pay for the restructuring of failing schools, which then places more public schools at risk due to the shortage of funds for low income students (Karp).  It has not even been proven that turning the school over to the state or making it a charter school will increase academic performance (Abernathy 76). 

Even though some students have changed schools under the transfer policy, many more students have yet to take advantage of the opportunity.  In the 2006-2007 school year, only two percent of approximately five million eligible students transferred to another school (Melago). Although parents are given choices through the transfer policy, they are often disappointed with the school options.  In a study conducted through Harvard University, several districts were compared, and students’ transfer options did not demonstrate a significantly higher academic performance (“The Civil Rights Project”).  If more action is taken to lead failing schools in the right direction, students will not have to worry about transferring to another school.  The consequences implemented under the No Child Left Behind Act should be revised and assistance should be provided to benefit all students and their schools.

Revising the No Child Left Behind Act will benefit students and improve public education by preventing teachers from teaching to the tests, allowing student progress to be evaluated in a variety of ways, and assisting schools that fail to meet the law’s standards.  Imagine once again being that determined, motivated student who wants to succeed in life, but does not receive the quality education needed to meet this goal.  Students will not be prepared for the future if teachers continue to teach to the tests required by the law.  Student achievement can be demonstrated in various ways, so it is important to take advantage of each one.  Providing assistance for failing schools is necessary because helping schools means helping students.  The students of the United States deserve a quality education that will allow them to be successful, and revising the No Child Left Behind will help the nation achieve this goal. 

Works Cited

Abernathy, Scott Franklin. No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools. Univ of Michigan Pr,

2007. 109. Print.

“Choices For Parents.” United States. Department of Education. 2009. Web. 14 Nov 2010.

<http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/choice/schools/choicefacts.html>.

Chute, Eleanor. "Both Clinton and Obama attack No Child Left Behind Act." Pittsburgh Post-

Gazette 9 April 2008: n. pag. Web. 7 Nov 2010. <http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08100/871524-298.stm>.

"The Civil Rights Project." ERIC. Harvard University, n.d. Web. 20 Nov 2010.

<http://eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED489172.pdf>.

Dillon, Sam. "Obama Calls for Major Change in Education Law." New York Times 13 March

2010: n. pag. Web. 7 Nov 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/14/education/14child.html?_r=1>.

“Elementary and Secondary Education: Title I- Improving the Academic Achievement of the

Disadvantaged.”  United States. Department of Education. 2004. Web. 17 Nov 2010. <http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/pg1.html#sec1001>.

"Fact Sheet: A Better Way to Evaluate Schools." Fair Test. Fair Test National Center for Fair

and Open Testing, n.d. Web. 20 Nov 2010. <http://www.fairtest.org/files/better_ways_to_evaluate_schools-_fact_sheet.pdf>.

Hess, Frederick M., and Chester E. Finn. Leaving No Child Behind?: Options for Kids in Failing

Schools. Palgrave Macmillan 2004. 320. Print.

"How to Fix No Child Left Behind." TIME Magazine 24 May 2007: 3. Web. 13 Nov 2010.

< http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1625192-3,00.html>.

Karp, Stan. "Test-and-Punish Regimen Leaves Schools Further Behind." Philadelphia Public

School Notebook (2007): n. pag. Web. 19 Nov 2010. <http://www.thenotebook.org/winter-2007/07179/test-and-punish-regimen-leaves-schools-further-behind>.

Melago, Carrie. "Left in the Dark Over No Child Left Behind." Daily News 03 Feb. 2008: n.

pag. Web. 19 Nov 2010. <http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/education/2008/02/03/2008-02-03_left_in_dark_over_no_child_left_behind-2.html>.

"Multiple Measures: A Definition and Examples from the U.S. and Other Nations." Fair Test.

Fair Test National Center for Fair and Open Testing, 2010. Web. 20 Nov 2010.

< http://www.fairtest.org/files/MultipleMeasuresSummaryFACTJuly2010.pdf>.

 "No Child Left Behind." Issues & Controversies On File: n. pag. Issues & Controversies. Facts

On File News Services, 7 Dec. 2007. Web. 6 Nov. 2010. <http://www.2facts.com/article/i1200660>.

"No Child Left Behind." New York Times 16 March 2010: n. pag. Web. 7 Nov 2010

<http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=No%20child%20left%20behind&st=cse>.

Perez-Chada, Daniel, et al. "Sleep." PubMed Central. Associated Professional Sleep Societies,

LLC, 01 Dec. 2007. Web. 17 Nov 2010. <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2276125/>.

Spellings, Margaret. "Lessons From No Child Left Behind." U.S. News & World Report (2010):

n. pag. Web. 7 Nov 2010. <http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/12/ex-ed-secretary-spellings-5-lessons-from-no-child-left-behind.html>.

Stronge, James H. Qualities of Effective Teachers. 2. Association for Supervision & Curriculum

Development, 2007. 11-12, 91. Print.

“Stronger Accountability: Progress By Our Schools and the U.S. Department of Education.”

United States. Department of Education. 2008. Web. 17 Nov 2010. <http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/results/trends/progress.html>.

Weingarten, Randi. "No Child Left Behind Was Doomed By Its Flaws." U.S. News & World

Report (2010): n. pag. Web. 7 Nov 2010. <http://politics.usnews.com/opinion/articles/2010/01/12/afts-weingarten-no-child-left- 

 behind-was-doomed-by-its-flaws.html>.

What is the Alternative to Standardized Tests? YouTube: 17 Nov. 2009, Web. 20 Nov 2010.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MecWUOagA5A&feature=related>.