NoChildleftbehind

docx

School

Grand Canyon University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

270

Subject

Sociology

Date

Feb 20, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by BarristerKnowledgeBat33

1 Affecting No Child Left Behind Low Income Students? Janelle L. Harper June 17, 2011

2 Table of Contents ABSTRACT …………………………………………………………... 3 Introductions ……………………………………………………..…… 4 What is No Child Left Behind? ………………………………………... 4 The System of Federal Oversight………………………………………. 8 Holding No Child Left Behind Accountable ………………………….. 9 Socioeconomic Status and Race………………………………………..11 No Child Left Behind and Families…………………………………..….12 No Child Left Behind Today………………………………………..….. 13 Conclusion………………………………………………………………15 Reference………………………………………………………………… 17

3 ABSTRACT Discusses the flaws in the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act. This paper will discuss the Statement of Purpose in the law; Negative impact of the law on low-income and minority students; Recommendations to improve the law. No Child Left behind (NCLB) Act claims that it is intended to ensure that all children reach "challenging" standards in reading and math and to close the academic achievement gap that exists by race and class. This implies that the nation will now move from ensuring access to school for all to ensuring high achievement for all children .

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

4 Introduction The No Child Left Behind Act that President Bush signed into law in 2002 was intended to reform America's educational system and promised to be the answer for the nation's educational gap. The ideas and thoughts conveyed in the law had the potential to be the perfect program for America's schools, and students. The law promised to ensure the same education for children from low-income families attending public schools that children in private and parochial schools receive. NCLB is filled with rhetoric stressing the importance of having highly qualified teachers, encouraging and nurturing literacy in children, allowing parents to have choice in which school their child goes to, and holding schools accountable for the educational outcome of its students. The law promised adequate funding to achieve these goals. The NCLB has made promises to the children from low-income families but has not achieved the achieved these goals. The question still stand nine years later is No Child Left Behind leaving low income families behind. What is No Child Left Behind? No Child Left behind Act (NCLB) attempts to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education, the consequences of the statute may instead deny access to adequate education for a large portion of the population. All our children deserve a high-quality education, not classrooms transformed into test-prep centers. In most states, the law will make scores on standardized reading and math tests the sole measure of student progress. Its implementation, primarily through its system of rewards and punishments, may actually inhibit educational opportunities for the very population it was designed to serve

5 low income students (McKenzie, 2003). If its provisions are enforced, the statute could practically force low-income students to remain in poor-performing public schools while failing to address their real educational needs, thus decreasing the chances of them ever attaining academic proficiency. Under NCLB, education will be seriously damaged, especially in schools with large shares of low-income and minority children, as students are coached to pass tests rather than to learn a rich curriculum that prepares them for life in the 21st century. In schools where children don't perform well, there will be intense pressure to eliminate or reduce emphasis on such untested subjects as history, science, languages, and the arts; to cut such "frills" as recess; and to reduce tested subjects to the form and content of the exams. Two recent research reports from the National Board on Educational Testing and Public Policy are the latest in a long series of studies that demonstrate that the higher the stakes, the more teaching to the test -- often with harmful effects ( Neill , 2003) . Researchers agree that a majority of schools will fail to meet the unrealistic demands imposed by NCLB's "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) provision. Virtually no schools serving large numbers of low-income children will clear these arbitrary hurdles. Moreover the process of determining which schools are not making AYP is deeply flawed (Neill, 2003). Under the No Child Left Behind Act, education continues to be evaluated by viewing the outputs of schools rather than their inputs, an approach that reflects the distinction between adequate and equal. In the previous era, as Congress attempted to fund education equally among all populations, legislatures focused on the resources going into schools, the inputs, rather than the results of the funding. In contrast, the "adequacy" approach, with its emphasis on standards-

6 based reform, evaluates student performance, or the outputs. Also contrary to an equity theory, Title I no longer explicitly allocates funds to "children of low-income families. Now the purpose of the law is to "ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education." Failing to reference explicitly the low-income population belies the policy shift. The structure of the statute now provides block grants to Title I schools rather than direct aid to low-income students. The funds are dispersed to assist all the students at the school; therefore, the low-income students get a smaller percentage of the grant to themselves. In fact, some programs may not be directed to low-income students at all falling through the cracks. Researchers agree that a majority of schools will fail to meet the unrealistic demands imposed by NCLB's "adequate yearly progress" (AYP) provision. Virtually no schools serving large numbers of low-income children will clear these arbitrary hurdles. Moreover the process of determining which schools are not making AYP is deeply flawed (Neill, 2003). NCLB mandates that Title I , stated must test students each year to assess the progress of each school. Congress hopes to hold entire schools accountable by imposing sanctions on those schools that perform poorly on the tests. If a school fails to improve its scores, several provisions of the statute address the ramifications for the poorly performing school ( McKenzie, 2003 ). If a school fails to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) for two consecutive years, it must notify the parents that the students are permitted to transfer to another school in the district ( McKenzie, 2003 ). If a school fails to make AYP for a third year, the school must institute supplemental educational activities for its students. After the fourth and fifth year of failing to make AYP, a school is subject to a restructuring that could include replacing staff, instituting new curriculum, regulating the facility directly through the state, and even closing the school and reopening it as a charter school. Furthermore, schools and teachers are given an unrealistic timeline to fix their

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

7 alleged "mistakes" if a school is not able to meet the standard annual yearly progress (AYP) within two years. By the law, if a school cannot perform up to AYP standards in four years it faces major teacher layoffs, and budget cuts. These provisions disproportionately and adversely affect low-income students and low-income schools ( McKenzie, 2003 ). While the statute allows the implementation of comprehensive poverty-related programming in schools, the money only sometimes covers the cost of administering the standardized tests that are the primary focus of the legislation. NCLB criticizes that statute because it discourages higher quality teachers from teaching at lower-performing schools. Teachers will want to teach in schools that offer them both a steady job and a degree of autonomy over what and how they teach (McKenzie, 2003) . Under NCLB, sanctioned schools are burdened with restructuring, which can include changing staff and faculty. Higher quality teachers that have their choice of schools will tend to accept fewer jobs from schools that are in danger of a faculty overhaul. In addition, NCLB sanctions require stricter curricula oversight, thereby eliminating much of teachers' discretion over individual teaching styles and schedules. Sanctions intended to force gains in test scores, such as in-district transfers, tutoring, and school restructuring, will do the opposite. They will pit parent against teacher, parent against parent, and school against school. Already some parents have protested against having their schools accept students from schools with lower test scores ( Neill, 2003). Since low-income schools will tend to be burdened with sanctions much more often than wealthier schools, teachers who have excellent credentials will generally choose to teach in schools that assure them job stability and the freedom to teach as they choose (McKenzie, 2003). Schools "in need of improvement" must use 20% of their Title I funds for tutoring and, if students elect to transfer, transportation to other schools. Since only small percentages of eligible

8 children will receive tutoring, diverting the funds in this fashion will prevent schools from serving all students in need (Gardiner , 2009). The System of Federal Oversight In support of the goal of leaving no child behind. Federal oversight of how states approach the task of educating its student population has greatly increased. Each state must submit an annual performance report and a biannual evaluation report. States are required to set and reach benchmarks for annual yearly progress (AYP) toward English proficiency and state educational standards. Schools failing to meet AYP are required to craft and submit an improvement plan. Should a school miss the AYP benchmark for four years, the state must ensure that there is a modification in the curriculum and the manner in which it is being delivered (Mayers, 2006 ). The state may withhold Title III funds and replace the educational personnel at the school, currently Philadelphia School District is converting school and replacing personnel. Title I, Improving the Achievement of the Economically Disadvantaged, is another component which was crafted to ensure that every child has access to a fair and significant opportunity to attain a high quality education and to reach minimum proficiency on state academic standards and assessment. Title I requires that students are tested in grades 3 through 8 and one time in High School. Annual tests in Math, Reading and Language Arts are administered and Science is tested three times between grades 3 and 12. In the Academic Year 2002/2003 report cards, wherein a cumulative state report, school and district reports as well as a report card for each child, were mandated. Test data must be disaggregated into "subgroups" including: gender, race, ethnicity, migrant status, disabilities (Mayers, 2006 ). Annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAO) must be identified for each subgroup and it is by meeting or exceeding these objectives that a

9 state may demonstrate that they are moving forward. Should a single subgroup within a district, school, or state, fail to make AYP, the school, district, or state, is deemed to be a failure. The community is notified that it has a failing. Parents are required to be notified and given the chance to transfer their children to another non-failing public school or to a charter school. Should the school fail to meet AYP a second year, the Federal government requires that the state take corrective action, currently the school which I am employed in under Corrective Action II which might include taking authority away from management, replacement of school staff, and/or hiring consultants (Mayers, 2006 ). Students are required to be given supplemental educational services from outside private organizations such as the Sylvan Learning Center. Should a school fail a third year; the state has the option of taking over the school, firing the staff, converting the school to a charter school or privatization. Holding No Child Left Behind Accountable NCLB focuses on large-scale testing, which is both useless for diagnosing the needs of students and a poor tool for assessing the higher-order learning they need. The law must change from one that relies primarily on standardized tests to one that encourages high-quality assessments. A number of states are implementing assessment systems that are not limited to standardized tests. These include the use of classroom-based information as evidence of what students are learning ( Neill, 2003) . Unfortunately, most states are not following this lead. While the U.S. Department of Education appears to be doing nothing to ensure that state assessments meet the NCLB requirements for assessing higher-order thinking or providing useful diagnostic information, it does seem intent on ensuring that local assessments meet narrow technical criteria (Bohjanen, 2009).

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

10 NCLB must press to develop genuine accountability that supports improved student learning and better schools and provides rich information to parents and communities. The federal law should be transformed from one based on threats and punishment to one that supports teachers, students, parents, and communities in their efforts to improve schools ( Neill, 2003) . NCLB should use other methods to improve the academic gap between low income student and the standard student. Instruments such as the Learning Record, banks of performance tasks, and the rich literature on using portfolios, exhibitions, and other forms of assessment indicate that the knowledge is available to ensure that rich assessment information is produced and used in every classroom. Classroom-based, formative assessments have been proven to be powerful tools for improving learning for all students, even as they help lower-achieving students the most. Information from such assessments also can be accumulated and organized for public reporting and accountability. Taking steps would admittedly pose a problem: for justifiable reasons, some supporters of improved education for low-income and minority-group children fear that, if stringent goals are relaxed or accountability simply handed back to the states, many children will continue to be ignored (Bohjanen, 2009). . Parents, students, and teachers those most directly involved in education are rendered relatively powerless and irrelevant. Actual accountability requires that those most involved play a central role. The Massachusetts Coalition for Authentic Reform in Education (CARE), a FairTest Assessment Reform Network affiliate, has developed an assessment and accountability plan in which each school would use diverse data about academic outcomes and other attributes to evaluate itself (Bohjanen, 2009). This information would be reported to the community and used as a basis for a dialogue about how well a school is doing,

11 what it should do better, and how it can make those things happen. Community engagement through participatory democracy should be at the heart of accountability. High-quality learning does not require exactly the same curriculum and assessments for every student, but different cannot be lesser (Bohjanen, 2009). The means of verification can include independent reviews of randomly selected student portfolios, visits by school quality assessment teams, and limited standardized testing. Each school could also produce an opportunity-to-learn index, including such factors as per-pupil funding, class size, number of books in libraries, teacher qualifications, and school climate and satisfaction surveys (Bohjanen, 2009). States should investigate discrepancies in results. When schools have adequate resources but fail to provide a good education, the district or state should intervene recognizing this must be done with great care, as the majority of such interventions have not succeeded. Across the nation, high-quality schools serving low-income children do exist, however, they are not cookie-cutter programs focused on boosting test scores. Creating thousands more schools of similarly high quality will take far more thought and effort than imposing accountability exams and standardized interventions (Bohjanen, 2009). Accountability must mean support first not punishment first. Socioeconomic Status and Race The argument against high-stakes testing goes beyond student and teacher anxiety. Tracking, sorting, and labeling students has been educational standard modus operandi since the nation decided to educate the masses. Using standardized tests gives administrations the numbers that allow for this type of practice to take place. However, as recognized by many researchers, standardized testing has biases in relation to socioeconomic

12 status and race. Researchers argues that a “colorblind racism” ensues under the NCLB mandate, which disregards the realities of racial disparities. Researcher Jimerson observes that rural schools are disadvantaged by NCLB’s school choice plan because traveling from a failing school in a rural area to a top rated school could take up to four hours; in the state of Hawaii it could necessitate a plane trip (Lagana-Riordan , 2009). No Child Left Behind and Families The nations' schools are not uniform in social or fiduciary capital yet the No Child Left Behind act has been largely formulated as if they were. The more a family in America makes, the higher the likelihood that the family is a two parent household and that said parents have a high school diploma and a college education . Said parents tend to reside in middle and upper class neighborhoods which have good schools that are populated with English speaking students and teachers. The closer a family comes to fitting the aforementioned profile, the higher the probability that it is White, and that the previous generation of this family was middle or upper class (Mayers, 2006 ). The less a family makes, the higher the probability that its children come from a single or "No parent" home .live in a financially challenged neighborhood, and attend its school. In intergenerational poverty, it is likely that the parents have a grade school or general equivalence degree . The school in this neighborhood has a high chance of having a large percentage of English as second language learners in attendance. Students in settings such as these are typically taught by individuals who come from, middle to upper class backgrounds (Mayers, 2006 ).

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

13 NCLB primary affects low income black children in comparison to white children; black children are three times as likely to grow up in poverty as white children. Many people wondered whether focusing on race was in fact a useful approach. There had, in fact, been evidence for a long time that poor children fell behind rich and middle-class children early, and stayed behind. But researchers had been unable to isolate the reasons for the divergence. Did rich parents have better genes? Did they value education more? Was it that rich parents bought more books and educational toys for their children? Was it because they were more likely to stay married than poor parents? Or was it that rich children ate more nutritious food? Moved less often? Watched less TV? Got more sleep? Without being able to identify the important factors and eliminate the irrelevant ones, there was no way even to begin to find a strategy to shrink the gap. Evidence is becoming difficult to ignore: when educators do succeed at educating poor minority students up to national standards of proficiency, they invariably use methods that are radically different and more intensive than those employed in most American public schools. So as the No Child Left Behind law comes up for reauthorization next year, we as educator must bridge the achievement gap between white kids and minority students is closing, for the good of their future. If the promise of No Child Left Behind is going to be kept, the performances of white and black students have to be indistinguishable. No Child Left Behind Today The School Board voted 7-1 Tuesday to support reform of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, also known as the No Child Left Behind Act. The act supports standards-based education reform, which is based on the belief that setting high standards and establishing measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education (Brookbank,2011).

14 However, the current act is widely criticized as being flawed and in need of improvement. But the act's reauthorization by the federal government has been delayed for more than three years. Without changes, America is close to having more than three-quarters of its public schools being labeled as "failing" because the act's requirements are deemed unrealistic. Since Congress doesn't appear to be making efforts to reform the act, the American Association of School Administrators, of which Loudoun Superintendent Edgar Hartick is president, the National School Boards Association and various state school board associations, including Virginia's, have joined in an effort to encourage the United States Secretary of Education and Congress to provide immediate regulatory relief until reauthorization is completed. The board voted to sign on to the "Resolution Concerning Regulatory Relief for America's Schools." Among other statements, the resolution says "such a drastic misrepresentation of the accomplishments of America's public schools does more harm than good and undermines the hard work of millions of educators and students across the nation every day." Tom Marshall said he thinks the act is currently placing "unfair burdens on kids and creating unfair burdens on school systems." He also noted that if the act were not reformed, Loudoun County Public Schools would be labeled as a failing system, an unjust misrepresentation of the quality of the county's education system. Robert F. DuPree (Dulles) added that the act "needs to be updated to reflect what we have learned as a country," and until it is, the school system will face sanctions, regardless of its improving test scores. Thomas E. Reed (At-Large) said he has been traveling to Washington, DC, for seven years to work with Congress and Senators to make changes to the act. He also recalled the impact of

15 Catoctin Elementary School in Leesburg being labeled as "failing" two years in a row. "It is a train wreck," Reed said of the current act. "It is coming." Joseph M. Guzm was the only board member who did not vote to support the resolution. He mainly had an issue with what the resolution didn't state. Guzman listed the improvements in the school system since the act was put in place, for example, the number of students who did not graduate has been cut by about half. "There is nothing in this language that acknowledges the benefits and the huge strides since No Child Left Behind," he said (Brookbank,2011). President Barack Obama insists that unless a re- authorization bill reaches his desk by the fall, the executive branch will be forced to act. He is right: With just two years remaining on the proficiency mandate, 800,000 at-risk schools can’t be left in limbo, wondering what consequences they will face for falling short of the mandates. Granting waivers on this one issue doesn’t mean letting underperforming schools and states off the hook. Progress won’t come through blind adherence to outdated rules but by encouraging innovation that works at the state and local level. About 40 states pledged new reforms in the past year, many of which will necessitate new (and better) standardized tests. NCLB was never perfect. But its guiding concept that all children can learn if given adequate schooling put the U.S. on the right path. Whether the Education Department or Congress takes the lead in loosening NCLB’s strictures, the federal approach to school reform must keep advancing, with its focus on three primary goals: creating incentives for states to find their own ways to reach high national standards, improving teacher performance and administrative

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

16 leadership, and insisting on more transparency so that parents and communities truly know what kind of progress their schools are making. Conclusion Overall , no one is addressing the poverty that makes it difficult for so many children to learn in school. Housing, nutrition, and medical programs are being cut at both the state and federal levels. Combined with the failure to adequately fund schools, this means that many children will be left behind even with a rational accountability structure instead of test-based AYP. Across the nation, parents, educators, students, community activists, school board members, and state legislators are beginning to recognize and denounce the misguided approach and damaging consequences of NCLB. All these people and more must unite to push Congress to amend ESEA into a law that will leave fewer, not more, children behind.

17 References Bohjanen, S., Humphrey, M., & Ryan, S. M. (2009). Left Behind: Lack of Research-Based Interventions for Children and Youth with Fetal Alcohol Spectrum Disorders. Rural Special Education Quarterly , 28(2), 32-38. Brookbank, Lindsey; (June 17, 2011) School Board Supports No Child Left Behind Act Reform:http://www.leesburg2day.com/news/article_e6f2f382-9907-11e0-aea1- 001cc4c03286.html Lagana-Riordan, C., & Aguilar, J. P. (2009). What's Missing from No Child Left Behind? A Policy Analysis from a Social Work Perspective. Children & Schools , 31(3), 135-144. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Gardiner, M., Canfield-Davis, K., & Anderson, K. (2009). Urban School Principals and the ‘No Child Left Behind’ Act. Urban Review , 41(2), 141-160. doi:10.1007/s11256-008-0102-1 Krieg, J. M. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial impacts of the No Child Left Behind Act.Economics of Education Review, 30(4), 654-664. doi:10.1016/j.econedurev.2011.02.004 Mayers, C. M. (2006). PUBLIC LAW 107-110 NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT OF 2001: SUPPORT OR THREAT TO EDUCATION AS A FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT?. Education , 126(3), 449-461. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

18 MALEYKO, G., & GAWLIK, M. A. (2011). NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND: WHAT WE KNOW AND WHAT WE NEED TO KNOW. Education, 131(3), 600-624. McKenzie, J (2003). Gambling with the children. Retrieved 4/20/07, from http://nochildleft.com/2003/jan03.html#3 Neill, M. (2003). Leaving Children Behind: How No Child Left Behind Will Fail Our Children. Phi Delta Kappan , 85(3), 225-228. Retrieved from EBSCO host . Schroeder, K. (2001). Education news in brief. Education Digest, 67(2), 71. Retrieved from EBSCOhost Smyth, T. (2008). Who Is No Child Left Behind Leaving Behind?. Clearing House , 81(3), 133- 137. Retrieved from EBSCO host .

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

NoChildleftbehind

Related Documents