Blog Summary: NCLB

Blog Summary: NCLB
Pat H., Rachel R., Allison P. & Laurel

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) was implemented to increase the accountability of states, school districts and schools, thus improving the performance of students in primary and secondary schools nationwide. This was in fact a federal intervention, implying that the local authorities had failed the students. The act also gives parents the option to choose which school they want their children to attend. Embedded in the Act is the belief that “high expectations and setting of goals will result in success for all students”. Therefore, greater emphasis is placed on standardized testing, the need for “highly qualified” teachers and the use of “scientifically based research” strategies in classrooms.

Alison’s blog focuses on the pros of the NCLB Act. She states that, NCLB “supports early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.” She reiterates that the importance of teaching reading at a young age is supported by many theories. Another one of the pros is that NCLB requires schools and districts to focus their attention on the academic achievement of traditionally under-served groups of children, such as those from low socio-economic backgrounds, students with disabilities, and Blacks and Latinos. She stresses that it is important that all students receive the same quality education regardless of the state, county, or town in which they live.

Although NCLB, as proposed, is a laudable program, it has many cons. The federal government has failed to allocate enough money to fund the program; however, is holding the local authorities accountable for producing successful results. Schools that fail to meet the testing targets are penalized. The pressure generated by the NCLB mandate creates a domino effect in the entire school system. The school district places pressure on to the local schools and they in turn pressure the teachers. The teachers are then forced to “teach to the test” rather than expose the students to broad based learning experiences. Also, the instructional time dedicated to reading, writing and mathematics has increased considerably to the detriment of the other subject areas. Another con has to do with the fairness, validity and reliability of the state tests mandated by NCLB. All students sit the same tests however; they are not all exposed to similar levels and quality of educational experiences. For example, ESL students in most states are tested in the English Language in spite of the Act’s provision for them to be tested in their native language for the first three years. Research has shown that it takes approximately eight years for individuals to become proficient in another language; therefore an English Language assessment, even after three years, cannot produce results that are valid or reliable.

Pat’s blog gives a synopsis of the way NCLB is played out at her school. She writes, “What I have seen of this law in action has caused me to be concerned for the students it is intended to help, then relief that NCLB exists. To be specific, the existence of this law has never been discussed in my presences, by administrators, as something positive. Instead it is referred to with annoyance. The testing, which is supposed to measure the progress of students, which the government sees as reflective of teaching skills, has taken center stage to education. Teaching the test is a reality. Teaching the test undermines constructive learning. For exceptional children, the test produces even greater stress than it does for general education students. Standardized testing is not authentic testing and not necessarily suitable for students that have already proven to be below grade level. What it has done is to validate what they do not know; instead of measuring what they do know.”

I will conclude this summery with some of Rachel’s thoughts. She too believes that the NCLB concept is a good one. It forces teachers to upgrade their skills and become highly qualified. It is also responsible for the creation of a number of alternate route teacher certification programs, of which some of us are a part. However, she thinks that NCLB could benefit from some fine tuning. Special provisions ought to be made re the testing requirements for the population of students who are classified as having special needs. Also, the choice of reading programs should be geared to the students’ best interests rather than filling the coffers of the bookmaking industry. Presently it seems like many of our children are still being left behind despite the NCLB Act.