Essay 4 Rough Draft

Revising No Child Left Behind

Imagine belonging to a school with low academic performance 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 (U.S. Dept. of Ed. “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” (U.S. Dept. of Ed. “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” (U.S. Dept. of Ed. “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” (U.S. Dept. of Ed. “Stronger Accountability”).  Although the accountability plan was intended to positively affect 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”).  Standardized testing forces teachers to skip over other important lessons and place emphasis on preparing students for examinations (“No Child Left Behind”).  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”).  Overall, test preparation takes away from students’ learning experience.

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 test 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”).  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 put into effect, a method did not exist that determined whether or not teachers were actually doing their jobs (“No Child Left Behind”).  When the law was put into effect, it ensured that students would meet certain standards by proving 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 were not forced to dedicate so much time to standardized test preparation, kids would 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).  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 factors to assess that do not involve testing the students (Stronge 11-12).  Teachers should not be forced to spend 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”).  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 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 was learned and 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).  Testing 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 testing results since any other methods of evaluation may create skewed results.  For example, an alternative evaluation method, such as reviewing student grade reports, can be too easily manipulated.  All teachers grade their students differently, so looking at grades would not give an accurate reflection of student abilities.  Students who have teachers with lax standards would be 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”).  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 would be 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 kids know as opposed to tests being used to show what students do not know.  The portfolio can be presented to a panel of students, teachers, and parents (What is the Alternative to Standardized Tests?).  The portfolio method is currently used in some areas of the United States along with other successful assessment methods.  For example, the Work Sampling System (WWS) assesses student performance based on collections of student work.  Progress is summarized by the teacher and placed numerically on a scale for comparison purposes.  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” and 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”).  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”).  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 the reconstruction of schools, give educators the incentive to provide extra help for students (“No Child Left Behind”).  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 (U.S. Dept. of Ed. “Choices For Parents”).  Supporters of the law believe that the consequences, including the transfer policy, are in the students’ best interest.

Although action should be taken in failing schools, some of the penalties are too severe and should be changed to benefit students and improve the education system.  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 reformation.  As a result, funds that are set aside to help schools with many poor students are taken to pay for the reformation of failing schools, which then places more public schools at risk due to lack of funds (Karp).  It is not even certain that turning the school over to the state or making it a charter school will increase academic performance (Abernathy 76). 

Even though some students changed schools under through the transfer policy, many more students did not 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 turn failing schools in the right direction, students would 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 would 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.  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 meet this goal.