The widening achievement gap seen between student subgroups in education has resulted in race-neutral policies formulated to address the underperformance in schools. In the last decade, significant steps have been taken by the government to warrant equal education and opportunities for students nationwide, regardless of race. On January 8, 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. The NCLB is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that President Lyndon B. Johnson passed in 1965 as part of his “War on Poverty.” The new bill tackles the performance gap between the “traditionally underserved and vulnerable students and their peers” (Elementary and Secondary Education
…show more content…
Through standardized testing, NCLB holds states responsible for their quality of education by requiring each state to set academic targets in public schools. Math and reading are tested every year and those scores are compared to an independent national standard, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (The New Rules). In addition, schools must also meet statewide objectives called the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which they set themselves and need full proficiency within twelve years. However, failure to meet these benchmarks within two years results in mandated steps to improve how the lower-scored subject is taught. Underperformance for six sequential years consequently results in the shutting down of the school (Ponton). By coining schools as failing, the education system does not provide them with the hope of improving, which is adversely projected onto the performance of the …show more content…
The 2013 proposal originated from Iowa U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D), who is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He proposed a reform to the bill, issuing that states and districts formulate their own plan of action for failing schools and set their own objectives, contrary to the current decree in which schools must meet the target scale set by the national government. This subsequently provides states more freedom to tackle the achievement gaps of their students, while getting “the federal government out of the business of micromanaging schools” (Elliott). By having the federal government loosen their fingers on public education, states and districts are able to set standards they feel are appropriate to their students’ achievement levels, which then can foster academic growth if
Through standardized testing, NCLB holds states responsible for their quality of education by requiring each state to set academic targets in public schools. Math and reading are tested every year and those scores are compared to an independent national standard, known as the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) (The New Rules). In addition, schools must also meet statewide objectives called the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), which they set themselves and need full proficiency within twelve years. However, failure to meet these benchmarks within two years results in mandated steps to improve how the lower-scored subject is taught. Underperformance for six sequential years consequently results in the shutting down of the school (Ponton). By coining schools as failing, the education system does not provide them with the hope of improving, which is adversely projected onto the performance of the …show more content…
The 2013 proposal originated from Iowa U.S. Senator Tom Harkin (D), who is the chairman of the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. He proposed a reform to the bill, issuing that states and districts formulate their own plan of action for failing schools and set their own objectives, contrary to the current decree in which schools must meet the target scale set by the national government. This subsequently provides states more freedom to tackle the achievement gaps of their students, while getting “the federal government out of the business of micromanaging schools” (Elliott). By having the federal government loosen their fingers on public education, states and districts are able to set standards they feel are appropriate to their students’ achievement levels, which then can foster academic growth if