Two schools disagree on whether operating under the new No Child Left Behind Act is best for their student's growth or not. The first school has students take less tests and teaches many subjects equally, however, certain students seem to excel more than others. The second school, although more focused on helping all students reach proficiency, limits time on subjects other than math and reading. These schools represent the old school systems versus the new systems which are under the No Child Left Behind Act, a policy affecting schools across the nation, undetermined if it's for the better or the worse. In an effort to appease both sides of the policy, a bill, called the Miller Bill, was passed in 2013; this bill reformed the most objected points of NCLB while keeping the main goal the same ("No Child"). All in all, the No Child Left Behind Act has a history that both supporters and critics of the policy consider in their debate over its effectiveness. The No Child Left Behind Act is frequently debated policy in the school systems of the United States.
…show more content…
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an educational program designed to help all students succeed. In order to ensure that every student meets “the same goals” and is “prepared for the challenges of higher education”, NCLB sets strict education standards for schools to enforce (Rich and Geier 4). These targets that schools reach toward help students of all backgrounds grow and reach toward goals themselves, aiding them in their success. Although public opinion differs on the Act, the government was less divided when voting. In fact, the Act passed by a vote of 87-10 of the Senate and by a vote of 381-41 from the House of Representatives ("No Child"). Because the Act passed with little disagreement, the government must see obvious benefits that would come into the education system as a result of NCLB. Additionally, to satisfy the needs of different schools, revisions to the Act have been made since its introduction. Some changes that have been made include creating special tests for students with limited English or learning disabilities and eases the penalties that schools may face for not reaching their goals ("No Child"). Revising the policy in these ways makes NCLB more personalized on a school to school basis and settles arguments around its flaws. Nevertheless, problems with the NCLB policy have been used to debate its effectiveness despite the benefits it provides. Supporters of NCLB reason that the education system succeeds under the policy. For instance, all students seem to improve under NCLB regardless of their race or background, both qualities that previously constrained them. In fact, Rich and Geier state in their book, "The performance of Hispanic, African American, and white students are more equal than they have ever been before" (2). Because students of all races are reaching proficiency, the Act can be claimed to help our schools reach equal improvement. In addition, NCLB is said to hold teachers to a higher degree of accountability. Karen Chenoweth, an author of Academic Success, believes that teachers "were able to get away with such low levels of instruction because no outside assessment held them responsible" ("No Child"). The NCLB Act succeeds because testing holds teachers more accountable for what they are doing in their classroom. Another argument commonly made by backers is that emphasizing math, reading, and standardized tests is effective. According to a study of 28 countries, stopping standardized testing caused worse study habits and lower quality academic standards (Rich and Geier 3). By stressing standardized tests, which commonly test on math and reading, scores and educational standards avoid decline and instead improve. Concluding that students, teachers, and schools overall improve by NCLB, supporters make a strong case for the continuation of the Act. On the other side of the NCLB debate, critics say the Act overshadows other efforts made by schools. These opponents believe that by paying more attention to other minority groups, students with learning disabilities are being neglected by the schools. Not only are they neglected, but "a reduction in the identification of students with disabilities" occurs with the program's success (Mehaffey 2). This neglect would cause
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is an educational program designed to help all students succeed. In order to ensure that every student meets “the same goals” and is “prepared for the challenges of higher education”, NCLB sets strict education standards for schools to enforce (Rich and Geier 4). These targets that schools reach toward help students of all backgrounds grow and reach toward goals themselves, aiding them in their success. Although public opinion differs on the Act, the government was less divided when voting. In fact, the Act passed by a vote of 87-10 of the Senate and by a vote of 381-41 from the House of Representatives ("No Child"). Because the Act passed with little disagreement, the government must see obvious benefits that would come into the education system as a result of NCLB. Additionally, to satisfy the needs of different schools, revisions to the Act have been made since its introduction. Some changes that have been made include creating special tests for students with limited English or learning disabilities and eases the penalties that schools may face for not reaching their goals ("No Child"). Revising the policy in these ways makes NCLB more personalized on a school to school basis and settles arguments around its flaws. Nevertheless, problems with the NCLB policy have been used to debate its effectiveness despite the benefits it provides. Supporters of NCLB reason that the education system succeeds under the policy. For instance, all students seem to improve under NCLB regardless of their race or background, both qualities that previously constrained them. In fact, Rich and Geier state in their book, "The performance of Hispanic, African American, and white students are more equal than they have ever been before" (2). Because students of all races are reaching proficiency, the Act can be claimed to help our schools reach equal improvement. In addition, NCLB is said to hold teachers to a higher degree of accountability. Karen Chenoweth, an author of Academic Success, believes that teachers "were able to get away with such low levels of instruction because no outside assessment held them responsible" ("No Child"). The NCLB Act succeeds because testing holds teachers more accountable for what they are doing in their classroom. Another argument commonly made by backers is that emphasizing math, reading, and standardized tests is effective. According to a study of 28 countries, stopping standardized testing caused worse study habits and lower quality academic standards (Rich and Geier 3). By stressing standardized tests, which commonly test on math and reading, scores and educational standards avoid decline and instead improve. Concluding that students, teachers, and schools overall improve by NCLB, supporters make a strong case for the continuation of the Act. On the other side of the NCLB debate, critics say the Act overshadows other efforts made by schools. These opponents believe that by paying more attention to other minority groups, students with learning disabilities are being neglected by the schools. Not only are they neglected, but "a reduction in the identification of students with disabilities" occurs with the program's success (Mehaffey 2). This neglect would cause