No Child Left Behind Act Pros And Cons

The average person spends 13 years in school, just to acquire a high school degree and receive an education. However, in recent years, the U.S. Congress passed the No Child Left Behind Act: an act that requires states to administer assessments in order to receive funding from the federal government and to enable that all the states to have academically equivalent. In effect of this act, schools have now changed their entire curriculum to teach these standardized tests and pay their teachers based on the results. Nonetheless, the public school system needs reforming in a way that professors teach students more than what the test curriculums assesses them on by adding other essential information into their lessons, teachers need a just payment on how they teach in the classroom rather than on the test results, and the calculation of a school’s compensation shouldn’t be …show more content…
The government gives out federal funds based on how well the students do on the tests. But again, students don’t perform satisfactorily on these standardized tests because of certain reasons (as stated above). However, the schools should be funded on the tests but also on the overall average progression made throughout the year. If the students progressed in a positive manner and reached a certain percentage value, subsequently the funding for the school would increase by so much. Though, if there was little to no progress, then that would be reflected in the funding. The federal government would have two sources to rely on and thus increase or decrease the school’s bank for the next school year. The No Child Left Behind Act should have this facet adjusted so it could accommodate and use both data sources to figure out the amount of funds they would appoint each school. This needs to be reformed as it isn’t fair for the schools to be judged on one aspect (the