Historical Topic Analysis

doc

School

Liberty University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

703

Subject

Arts Humanities

Date

Jan 9, 2024

Type

doc

Pages

Uploaded by sgimon17

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Poverty During No Child Left Behind School of Education, Liberty University Author Note I have no known conflict of interest to disclose.

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Abstract The No Child Left Behind Act provided equal education access to children in poverty. There were mixed opinions on the support of the act. The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was a government initiative that aimed to provide equal education opportunities for children in poverty. It allowed the government to allocate more funding to schools, but there were mixed opinions on its support. The main concern was the lack of funding for Title I schools to administer yearly state tests, which could lead to the government taking over the school if it failed. Additionally, the high standards for students to meet expectations were too high for their abilities, causing the potential for schools to be shut down and children relocated. Despite its intentions, NCLB faced challenges in implementation and success, with concerns about inadequate funding for Title I schools and the potential for government control, NCLB would eventually become unsuccessful. Keywords: No Child Left Behind, Minority, School Funding

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND Poverty During No Child Left Behind The No Child Left Behind Act gained a lot of attention through the years. It allowed for the government to allocate more funding to schools that needed it while offering equal education opportunities for children growing up in poverty. There were mixed opinions on the support of the act. The main concern was the lack of funding given to Title I schools to administer the yearly state tests that would evaluate their success as a school. If the school performed poorly, there was a risk that the government would take over the school leaving children and families in difficult positions to decide whether or not to leave their children in the school or move them to another district. The other concern was the standards that students had to perform at to be able to meet expectations were too high for what they were able to do. The No Child Left Behind Act offered equal opportunity to children nationwide to obtain high-quality education, protecting those of lower income. However, some disparities led to concern about the academic achievement of children in poverty and whether or not the act was beneficial. Summary and Context The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was meant to ensure that all children would have access to fair and equal opportunities to get a high-quality education. Simpson et al. (2004) describe that perhaps the biggest educational reform to be implemented in many years is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. The initiative's key components include the mandate that all students receive instruction from qualified teachers and have access to high-quality educational institutions. Additionally, states must increase academic achievement standards for all students, including those with disabilities, as mandated by the NCLB legislation. NCLB has standards that represent themselves as challenges for educators. Schools are expected to perform better each

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND year they are evaluated. This means that schools need to set high academic standards for their students to reach in order to prove that the educators within the school have succeeded. Critical Analysis Sanders (2008) emphasizes that the very population it was intended to serve—low- income students—may find fewer educational opportunities as a result of its implementation, particularly due to its system of rewards and punishments. The statute may effectively force low- income students to stay in underperforming public schools while neglecting to meet their actual educational needs, reducing the likelihood that they will ever achieve academic proficiency if its provisions are carried out. Since the decision in Brown v Board in 1954, equal education has been a topic of concern for many Americans. With the NCLB Act, Title I schools are to administer state tests to students in the fourth and eighth grades. The goal of these tests is to evaluate if the schools are providing adequate education to the students (Sanders, 2008). Accountability requirements of NCLB rely on mean proficiency scores and demand that all subgroups meet the same goals for accountability, they disadvantage high-poverty schools and schools with a diverse student body. Kim and Sunderman (2005) use student achievement data from six states to show how the demographics of schools that meet the federal requirements for adequate yearly progress and schools that are identified as needing improvement differ. Using school-level data from Virginia and California, it was demonstrated that these differences result from regulations requiring students in racially diverse schools to meet multiple performance targets in addition to the selection bias inherent in using mean proficiency scores. High-poverty schools enroll mostly large populations of minorities that have a history of performing poorly academically. The authors suggest that adequate yearly progress (AYP) failure rates in high- poverty schools are more likely because of the lower levels of proficiency and higher levels of

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND poverty that make up the school’s population. There was controversy with the accountability portion of NCLB. Some believe that schools should be held to a consistent performance standard and that significant accountability pressures are required to hasten minority and low-income students' academic progress. Subgroup accountability rules have the potential to overidentify racially diverse schools as failing to make AYP, according to the author's analysis of the NCLB accountability system in six geographically diverse states. Score improvements are crucial for schools to collect data. If scores do not improve for two consecutive years, parents are notified that they may transfer their children to different schools. This becomes an issue when there is little to no space for students in other school districts that parents are able to take them to or even the difficulty of some parents' ability to drive their children further. With this obstacle, children are left to attend the same school and not be given the opportunity to succeed academically in another school. The majority of the student population that makes up a Title I school are going to the minority of the population which means that those demographics are going to be the groups that educators and policy makers are going to target in making reforms to allow them to succeed (African Americans and Latinos) (Sanders, 2008). From a Biblical perspective, God wanted all people to know Him and have a relationship with Him. There was no room for inequality in the days of Jesus, everyone was welcome to know Him and learn from Him. People of all situations and backgrounds wanted to listen to His teachings and see Him work His miracles. Often because of the situations people found themselves in, they were looked down on because of illness or social status. Luke 17:12-24 says “…Freely you have received; freely you give” ( New International Version , 1978/2011). This verse is proof that we received the grace of God freely, we received everything from Him freely

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND and we should not judge one another for the status we hold in society, but you offer grace and any assistance because we received it all freely through Christ. Jesus would have wanted all children to be educated and given the same opportunities as the rest of the population. Similar to the Parable of the Lost Sheep, if one child is lacking something (in this case it is income), educators should not let the child go without help simply because they are less fortunate than the others. There should be effort put forth by everyone to help that child succeed and get equal opportunity. Conclusion The No Child Left Behind Act gained a lot of attention through the years. It allowed the government to allocate more funding to schools that needed it while offering equal education opportunities for children growing up in poverty. There were mixed opinions on the support of the act. The main concern was the lack of funding given to Title I schools to administer the yearly state tests that would evaluate their success as a school. If the school performed poorly, there was a risk that the government would take over the school leaving children and families in difficult positions to decide whether or not to leave their children in the school or move them to another district. The other concern was the standards that students had to perform at to be able to meet expectations were too high for what they were able to do. NCLB was created with good intentions, to equally serve those underprivileged. As it was implemented it was clear that it was going to be difficult to implement and be successful. The No Child Left Behind Act provided equal education access to children in poverty, allowing the government to provide more funding to schools. However, opinions were divided on its support, with the main concern being inadequate funding for Title I schools to pass annual state exams. If schools failed, the

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND government could seize control, putting families in a difficult situation to choose where to send their children to school where it would be feasible for parents to take them.

POVERTY DURING NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND References Kim, J. S., & Sunderman, G. L. (2005). Measuring Academic Proficiency Under the No Child Left Behind Act: Implications for Educational Equity. Educational Researcher, 34 (8), 3- 13. New International Version Bible. (2011). New International Version Bible Online. https://www.biblestudytools.com/luke/17.html / (Original work published 1978) Sanders, A (2008). Left behind: low-income students under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Journal of Law and Education, 37(4) 589-596. Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Graner S. P. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act: challenges and implications for educators. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40(2) 67-75. https://doi.org/10.1177/10534512040400020101 Smith, J. S. (2020). Windows into the History and Philosophy of Education . Kendall Hunt Publishing.

Historical Topic Analysis

Related Documents