NCLB has been controversial since President George W. Bush signed the act back in 2001. It was intended to make schools accountable for teaching poor children basic skills in math and reading. Schools that instruct low income children receive educational assistance funds based on how well students perform. Students are measured by standardized tests that vary from state to state. As stated by a Gallop poll, public opinion of NCLB grew more and more unfavorable between 2003 and 2007. At the same time, an increase of money has been spent on the program. Groups that have been critical of standardized tests have attacked NCLB because they believe that students spend too much time preparing for the tests instead of learning. Opponents of standardized testing in general, and NCLB in particular, call this "teaching to the test." These critics believe that preparing students for the NCLB tests takes time away from other subjects, such as art and social studies. Some critics maintain that standardized tests can't provide a fair and unbiased way to measure a student's abilities. But according to a 2003 Pew/Kaiser opinion poll, Americans believe that standardized tests are important for measuring students and teachers. And, last week, the president of the American Federation of Teachers published an editorial in the Washington Post calling for national standards. Standardized tests may have their drawbacks but they are here to stay. So is No Child Left Behind.
Recently Arne Duncan, the U.S. Education Secretary, has called for doubling NCLB funding. But just spending more money will not solve the problem. When Barack Obama talked about NCLB during his presidential campaign, he stressed that it was important to improve how students are assessed. He also said that the government should to support schools that need improvement, instead of punishing them. But no one has defined exactly how the government can support those schools. And no one has made any decisions about how to change the ways in which students are measured. It does not make sense to spend more money on NCLB until we have plans in place to ensure that we are going to make the program better. The first thing that Arne Duncan and President Obama can do to support schools that are struggling is to change the program's deadline. Right now, all students are supposed to be proficient at reading and math by 2014. That is not a realistic goal. The program has not been able to make enough progress in its first seven years and the deadline is now only five years away. Currently, NCLB focuses on subgroups of students within a school, rather than the overall performance of the school as a whole. This means that one or two underperforming students could prevent an entire school from qualifying for funding. And that would hurt all students at the school. So it would make more sense to focus on measuring individual improvement.
For NCLB to shift its focus on individual improvement, it needs to ensure that there are enough teachers in the schools. This is where the economic stimulus funds can make a difference. If students get more individual attention from their teachers, they will not need to spend as much time focusing on the skills that the tests measure. They will be able to learn faster. Having more teachers equals smaller class sizes. Having smaller classes means that teachers will have the time to create lesson plans that not only prepare students for the tests but also teach reading and math skills in ways that will be useful in life, not just for passing the tests. NLCB should also provide training for teachers so they know how to teach the skills to be tested and how to make time in the classroom for other subjects. NCLB should also focus on helping states to strengthen their standards for grades K through 3. According to the New America Foundation, research by the American Federation of Teachers shows that state standards are weakest in early elementary years. But these important years give students a strong start in the basics they need to succeed in upper grades. The Foundation for Child Development advises that NCLB could have an impact on students even earlier. In a 2007 report, they recommended using NCLB funds to give disadvantaged children more access to pre-K programs such as Head Start.
We need to remember why NCLB was established in the first place. It was created because children in poor school districts were at a disadvantage when it came to education. Education Secretary Duncan recently admitted that NCLB hasn't made good on its promises yet. Duncan stated, "I think we are lying to children and families when we tell children that they are meeting standards and, in fact, they are woefully unprepared to be successful in high school and have almost no chance of going to a good university and being successful."Shortly before President Obama's economic stimulus package passed, Secretary Duncan announced that he would be talking to teacher's unions and asking school officials and parents around the country for input about how to improve No Child Left Behind. While it will not be easy, the investment and commitment towards education is well worth it. Schools should have to pass tests to make sure that they are teaching their students the necessary skills to be productive members of society. But NCLB has more homework to do before it makes the grade.
Your post was definitely of great organization structure. You took your readers from a brief synopsis of the program and its history to some suggestions you find useful in improving the program. One thing I did not quite understand was the fact that you brought up controversy on the implementation of standardized tests, but did not address the issue or tie it in to the rest of your post. Nevertheless, I agree there are a lot of times in which governmental figures make statements without thoroughly considering the sacrifices and consequences needed. With the economy at distress right now, I am skeptical of how the government would be able to throw out such a large amount of funds to improve education, needless to consider Arne Duncan’s suggestion of doubling the NCLB fund. If funds are attributed to the program, it better be put to wise use. On the other hand, allow me to suggest that it might be interesting to see some counter-arguments to the issue. While you gave practical suggestions of how to enhance the usage of funds for NCLB, you might want to explore external factors that have been going against the program. In particular, what are the reasons NCLB has not been making progress for the past seven years? Where had the funds gone to in the past?
ReplyDeleteWhile the content is based on decent resources and well-structured in your post, there are various mechanical issues that I wish to draw your attention to. For instance, when you first brought out Arne Duncan, there was not any description of him that he is the Education Secretary of the United States. I did not know what role he played in the issue until the last paragraph of your post. In addition, I believe adding more links that direct your readers to the basis of your resources would be helpful, especially at times when you wish quote certain statements.
As for now, let us both wish the NCLB best of luck and hope it will benefit our future generation in the near future.
This is a great post which highlights important issues about President Bush's No Child Left Behind Act. I specifically enjoyed and often times agreed with your persuasive arguments which were supported by strong facts. Yet, after reading this article I have a few suggestions that should help strengthen and affirm your beliefs. Over-all the style of your article was good, however I would like to suggest a revision to the use of "the" in your article. Often times I was confused at whether you were referring to through out the post. For example in your fourth paragraph, in the second to last sentence, I was unclear at to which school you were referring to. Additionally, I think when introducing Secretary Duncan into your article, you should give him a small introduction such as, "Arne Duncan, Secretary of the U.S. Department of Education..." as to alert the reader who he is. Aside from these two simply fixes and a few structural/continuity errors--such as relinking the second photo, I think this is an excellent article well deserving of praise from those in the education world.
ReplyDelete