Education Policy and No Child Left Behind Act - Research Paper Example

? Education Policy and No Child Left Behind Act Introduction ‘No Child Left Behind Act of 2001’ (NCLB) was enacted under the behest of President George W. Bush and Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts for raising the standards of public education for the US children. The act was a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act that was first legislated in 1965 and then reauthorized in 1994. The state of education has been a matter of grave concern since last several years and the NCLB Act was promulgated to expand the federal role at improving the educational standards of disadvantaged students. The sole purpose of this act was to devise a series of measures to enhance student achievement and make states and schools more accountable for student development. The paper attempts to explore the various pros and cons of NCLB – its achievements and its failures, funding aspects and cost economics. Education in the US in Crisis Mode The education in the US schools has been passing through crisis and that is what has been opined by the experts time to time. When Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) is already active since 1965, what is the need to enact a new legislation under the name and style of the NCLB Act of 2001? In order to get an appropriate reply to this basic question, it will be most pertinent to scrutinize the prevailing state of educational affairs in the US schools. Some of them are worth pondering as being listed in the ensuing paragraph. It may be disheartening to note the fact that only 30 percent of students entering high school are able to read at grade level. This simply means that only one-third of the students are ready for college education. Only 50 percent of students of color go for higher studies after finishing their high school. The dropout rates are fairly high at nearly 7,000 high school students on every school day. In the highly competitive job market, the high school dropouts are at odds to get a good-paying job. They are more at risk of turning less healthy and die earlier. They are likely to become parents relatively at young age and need social welfare assistance in their life impacting society at large. Students' performance highly depends upon the teachers and their skills. Schools who cater to poor students find it most difficult to recruit certified and experienced teachers; moreover, almost 50 percent of the teachers leave the profession in five years and 33 percent within 3 years of their joining. Surprisingly, the US schools spend over $ 2.6 billion every year just to replace the teachers who have left the profession. It is astonishing to note that about 70 percent of all eighth-grade students are unable to read at their grade level; this is what has been reported by the National Assessment of Educational Progress in their report card (Alliance for Excellent Education, 2012). The shortcoming comes in the way of the students especially, the students of color and English language learners to pass high school diploma. Research indicates that students drop out due to their weak performances in Math and English. It is quite obvious that students cannot master higher courses at graduate level when they find difficulty in reading and comprehending the content offered in their textbooks. They remain weak in Math because they are unable to understand the theories explaining Math. Arguments against NCLB Some of the major arguments that have been proposed against NCLB can be described as per the following (Carleton, 2012). 1. The program has not been funded adequately by the federal government ever since its inception. 2. How students perform on math and multiple-choice reading tests could be the sole basis of their achievements. 3. All efforts of the teachers are directed and focused toward 'test' because of the fear that in the event of students failing the test their own jobs may be in jeopardy. Experts argue that due to this narrow approach creativity has been lost in the education. 4. A special emphasis has been given to math and reading proficiency; this ignores other subjects of equal importance. 5. Each state has its own proficiency standards for assessment and therefore it is impossible to compare the data on a common platform nationally. 6. Achievement standards set by states for the students do not differentiate among students of different socioeconomic status and their inherent ability levels (Carleton, 2012). Funding and State Issues The government has spent between $12 billion and $14 billion in each year starting from 2006 to 2012 toward title I grants to local educational agencies; however, states consider this funding inadequate to meet their objectives. Many of the states have sought exemption from the implementation of the program due to insufficient funds allocated to them (New America Foundation, 2012). Dropouts Impact National Economy The cost of high school dropouts is huge to the nation because high school dropouts will earn less throughout their life impacting the GDP of the country. While a high school dropout earned $ 23,452 as median income in a year in 2011, a high school diploma holder earned $ 33,176 during the same time (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012). Had all the students graduated instead of dropping out, its impact on nation's economy would have been staggering running into hundreds of billions of dollars over their lifetimes. This simply implies that the money spent under NSLB in improving the education levels brings in its wake much higher returns to the national economy apart raising living standards of an individual. It is pertinent to note here that with the increase in education levels unemployment rate also falls substantially. Unemployment Rates Have Strong Linkages with Education Levels The unemployment rate in high school dropouts is as high as 14.1 percent but the same is found only 4.9 percent in those who possess bachelor's degree (U.S. Bureau of the Census, 2012). Needless to say that NCLB can help reduce unemployment rate in the country that is bothering the nation since long boosting the GDP of the country enormously. Levin (2005) argues that the cost of each dropout is around $260,000 over his or her entire lifetime. Even with conservative estimates of 10 million dropouts in next decade the cost would be staggering $2.6 trillion. Outcomes of NCLB It has been almost a decade since the NCLB Act has come into effect and it will be most appropriate to evaluate its contribution in the US education system. In a study done by Northwestern University researchers, a link has been established between NCLB ACT and improvements in student performance. The study states that a statistically significant positive effect has been found on 4th and 8th grade math achievement of students (Leopold, 2010). Dee and Jacob (2010) argue that NCLB accountability has created mixed consequences. The improvement has been significant in the math achievement of 4th graders but at the same time smaller gains have been noticed for 8th graders. Results further suggest that NCLB accountability has failed to create any impact on reading achievement in any of the groups. This needs to be addressed by reauthorization process and modifying the program suitably so that students show proficiency in reading achievements. The intensive follow up process and monitoring is needed by state administration and schools to mitigate this shortcoming. Conclusion The sufficient evidence is now available that improved education levels can solve host of economic issues such as high unemployment rate and stagnating income levels of individuals and nation (GDP). Higher education also impacts the health of individuals giving them a longer life. The motive behind enacting NCLB Act was to improve the education levels of children who are not endowed with adequate resources and come from lower income groups and ethnicity. Though the positive impact of NCLB act has been felt in some quarters yet it has not yet shown a remarkable turnaround in the education levels across all sections of the society. It will be appropriate to make necessary modifications to make it more effective so that every dollar spent on its program is fully utilized and long-term objectives of NCLB are achieved. Bibliography Alliance for Excellent Education. “About the Crisis.” all4ed.org. Accessed October 29, 2012. http://www.all4ed.org/about_the_crisis Carleton College. "The Controversy: Has NCLB Been Successful or Has It Failed?" Carleto.edu Accessed October 29, 2012. http://www.carleton.edu/departments/educ/vote/pages/Pros_and-Cons.html Dee, Thomas and Brian Jacob. "Evaluating NCLB."Educationnext. Summer 2010 / Vol. 10,No.3 http://educationnext.org/evaluating-nclb/ Levin, H. M. “The Social Costs of Inadequate Education.” Teachers College, Columbia University. October 24 2005. http://mea.org/tef/pdf/social_costs_of_inadequate.pdf Leopold, Wendy. "Study Finds No Child Left Behind Raises Math Achievement." Northwestern University. January 4 2010. http://www.northwestern.edu/newscenter/stories/2010/01/nclb.html New America Foundation. “ No Child Left Behind Funding.” febp.newamerica.net. Apr 4 2012. http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-behind-funding U.S. Bureau of the Census. "Education Pays." Washington, DC. March 23 2012. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_chart_001.htm Read More