Analysis of “The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners…” After perusing through multiple databases in search of an interesting article, I finally came across one that discusses the issue of No Child Left Behind or NCLB and its flaws. The article is entitled, “The No Child Left Behind Act and English Language Learners: Assessment and Accountability Issues” by Jamal Abedi. The title itself practically says it all about the main purpose of the article. Abedi questions the credibility and points out the flaws of the NCLB Act, which I would agree with him on those flaws. This article analysis will be discussing the main idea of Abedi’s article and my thoughts and opinions about the article and idea itself. Jamal Abedi begins his article discussing what the NCLB Act is and why it was established in our country. Basically, the NCLB Act was the most recent version of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965; it affects the states that use federal funding and hold those states accountable for student achievement (Abedi, 2004, p. 4). After explaining the NCLB Act and its purpose, Abedi creates a numbered list of the flaws of NCLB. The flaws include, “Inconsistency in LEP classification across and within states….Sparse LEP population….Lack of LEP subgroup stability….Measurement quality of AYP instruments for LEP students….LEP baseline scores….LEP cutoff points” (Abedi, 2004, p. 4-5), which he gives a short paragraph about the flaw then continues to explicate later in
The NCLB was structured to place the responsibility of our children on the shoulders of each state individually. In addition, it is also beneficial to parents and students who are living in impoverished communities with little to no resources available resulting in low performing test scores. The NCLB also states that local educational agencies now have federal education funding in their disposal.
This policy pushes schools to achieve scores and enormous amounts of pressure on teachers to perform. Pressure also comes down from administrators, as in this situation, where administrators set target scores and if teachers failed, they would find other educators who could pass scores. This basically set a teacher to “Do it or else” mentality, when they knew that students would not be able to pass specific scoring benchmarks. The NCLB also requires set standards or face sanctions, and many of these are unrealistic. “Some students may need gain 50 pts of gain” or another student may be 2
While NCLB appears great in principle, it is failing in actuality. The main purpose of the Act was to close the achievement gap between White and minority students, especially Black and Latino students, by increasing educational equality. The differences in the achievement gap is to be measured yearly through the use of standardized testing. As each student is unique, the use of standardized tests to measure whether students reach 100% proficiency is unrealistic. Teachers, principals, and school boards are so worried about being “proficient” that teachers are now teaching for the test, not teaching a rounded curriculum. With schools afraid that they may possibly receive sanctions, schools are now cheating the system by finding ways to bolster their scores to improve state AYP rates. Paul D. Houston explains in his article “The 7 Deadly Sins of NCLB,” that the Act relies on fear and coercion (2007). Teachers, school boards, and states are so afraid of receiving a failing grade that they are willing to skew results in their favour. Not to mention that states are allowed to choose their own statistical method to analyze their scores. Due to many unforeseen variables, these differences make it almost impossible to imply causation that students are reaching proficiency due to the NCLB Act.
According to Klein (2015), NCLB was the result of a coordinated effort between civil rights and business groups, both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill, and the Bush Administration, which tried to advance American competitiveness and close the achievement gap between poor and minority children and their more privileged counterparts. Subsequent to 2002, NCLB has made a huge impact on teaching, learning, and school improvement. It has also become progressively debatable with teachers and the general public.
The no child left behind was a U.S Act of Congress that was create to reauthorize the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. The no child left behind was affects what students are taught, the tests they take, the training of the teachers, and the way money is spent on education. However it did not improve the education system since it was used to measure the student improvement in order to receive federal funding and if the school didn’t do good on these tests they lose their federal funding which means that the students from these school was not going to receive a good education. In addition, the no child left behind was not successful because teachers will focus more time on math, science, and English and annoy the other subject. Students
“The Essentials of a Good Education,” by Diane Ravitch, questions the current schooling system and acts surrounding the system.Imagine a world where everyone was the same, we all dressed, ate, and did the same thing everyday. That is basically what the, “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) act did. In the reading, ¨The Essentials of a Good Education,” it discusses how NCLB closes the academic gaps between economically advantaged students and students who are from different economic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds as well as students with disabilities and how this is not a good thing; but as you read you will start to question yourself if it is or not.
Abernathy, Scott Franklin. No Child Left Behind and the Public Schools. U of Michigan P, 2007. eBook Academic Collection (EBSCOhost). In this eBook, Scott Franklin Abernathy, an Associate Professor of Political Science and a Distinguished Teaching Professor at the University of Minnesota, presents a balanced critique of No Child Left Behind (NCLB). Abernathy argues that all policy makers must ask themselves “Can we ever really know if a child’s education is good?”, rather than assuming any test can accurately measure the elusive thing called a good education. Along with strengths and weakness of NCLB, Abernathy also presents many new models that law makers have been seeking to replace or use
This article in the Times newspaper, points out problems and flaws with the 2002 U.S. No Child Left Behind educational legislation, which was designed to improve education in the U.S. Topics that are discussed include, teachers complaints that No Child Left Behind policy sets impossible standards and forces teachers to teach based on the test material, and how the bill originally came to life by the proposal of former U.S. president George W. Bush. The other topic
The No Child Left Behind act is a nationwide legal system that is considered to improve our education system. The NCLB act improves our education system by setting a standard for each school to meet (a required academic standard), hire high quality teachers, improve communication with parents, and provide a safe environment for the students. However after the NCLB act took effect, not much was accomplished. Now many question whether the NCLB is really necessary.
The No child left behind act has been a big issues ever since its establishment in 2009 by President George Bush. There has been cry by some parents for the law to be repeal because they feel it is creating more problem for the educational system. However, critical analysis of the situation of the students grades by comparing the period before and after the establishment of No child left behind will show that the law has brought tremendous improvement in our education and need to stay.
Many educators find the purpose of the NCLB Act to be very confusing and disingenuous. According to Monty Neill, who works for the National Center for Fair and Open Testing, an organization which evaluates tests and exams for their impartiality, “NCLB is a fundamentally punitive law that uses flawed standardized tests to label schools as failures and punish them with counterproductive sanctions” (Neill, 1). Teachers will be of no use to educate their students according to the curriculum, if the only focus that both the teachers and students have is only to pass the imperative standardized test, just so their school district can acquire more
In what follows I first provide a history and explanation of the NCLB act. As well as the thinking behind this piece of legislation. Then, I show how the NCLB’s rules and standardized testing are destructive to teaching. Finally, I argue how the act is leading to the overall downfall of our educational system.
NCLB is a federal law that mandates a number of programs aimed at improving U.S. education in elementary, middle and high schools by increasing accountability standards. In 2002 there was a revision that, states must test more often to close the gap between minority students and those with disabilities.
With nearly 30 million immigrants crossing our borders in the last three decades, the United States education system has seen a dramatic increase in the number of English Language Learners (ELLs) entering the classroom (Migration Policy Institute website, n.d.). With this influx of non-native English speakers has come the need to find the best ways possible to meet them where they are academically and teach them accordingly. However, after years of research, education gurus are still divided on how to best meet the needs of ELLs. While there is no clear-cut approach, there are several strategies and programs that schools can implement in order to help immigrant learners and their families be successful in our school system.
Another major problem of NCLB is the people who create the tests. State senators across the country make different tests and decide what should be in the learning curriculum. To become a state senator you do not need a degree, and the senators that do have degrees are typically degrees of business or law. Why did senators make the tests and not teachers? Many of the state senators writing the tests do not have the educational background needed to write tests. And because every state senate makes a different test for every state, students who move out of state are supposed to be able to pass a test that they have not learned about.