No Child Left Behind - Research Paper Example

Politics and Social Welfare Policy-No Child Left Behind Introduction Political and social welfare policies ofthe state are critical issues studied in political research. The social warfare policies of the state affect millions of people living in it and they are useful in protecting the needy from experiencing the harsh realities of poverty. Social welfare policies refer to goals of collective responsibilities as well as methods on how to conduct such responsibilities. The social welfare policies affect issues such as responsibilities between government and societies, arrangements that make different institutions carryout their responsibilities as well as an extent to which formal organizations carry out their functions. In addition, these policies address the relationship between formal and informal structures besides how private, public, profit and non-profit agencies deliver political and social welfare responsibilities. One of the political social welfare is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) policy. It is the most significant enacted educational initiative over the past ten years (Sunderman, 2008). The No Child Left Behind Act President George Bush is behind the NCLB Act of 2001 that he signed into law in January 2002. The act aims at reforming education at the elementary level as well as the secondary level (Hayes, 2008). Critical elements of the initiative demand that all students should have qualified teachers and the opportunity to attend schools that provide high quality education besides other educational services. The policy also aims at ensuring high academic achievements for all students including those with disabilities. Students undergo evaluation annually using the standardised state academic assessment tests to rate their academic achievement. The assertively stated goal for the NCBL is to ensure that all children have an equal and important opportunity to obtain high quality education (Abernathy, 2007). The efficiency of the programme is evaluated using challenging state academic achievement standards and assessment tests. The force behind the enactment of NCLB originated from a research conducted by selected high-ranked staff of President Bush’s administration. The findings from the research indicated that many educational systems at that time were attempting to provide educational services to a population that had not existed since the 1950s. Dating back to the 1950s, the working population consisted of 20% professionals as well as 20% skilled casual labours. The remaining 60% represented unskilled labour. These finding showed that 60% could not attribute their life success to academic success. This is because they were doing jobs that did not require academic knowledge (Hayes, 2008). It was evident that school dropouts or those who failed to achieve elementary basics, could still get employment and have a good way of living. Over years up to 2000, 20% of the work force constituted professionals. However, 60% composed of skilled labourers whereas only 20% composed unskilled labourers. Due to the increased number of immigrants, there was competition and hence low pay for unskilled jobs (Hayes, 2008). This then forced students to ensure they achieved their diplomas and degrees before leaving schools. In schools, the students could not get promotion to higher grades without showing academic success or improvement. Education and success therefore linked officially because success was necessary to move to the next academic grade (Chubb & Hoover, 2009). The schools retained more students in schools because they could not pass the tests that could allow them to graduate and move to higher education levels. The government together with other relevant academic institutions questioned the situation and analysed it. It therefore led to the introduction of the NCLB act, which would ensure that schools provided high quality education and that the students enjoyed equal educational opportunities (Chubb & Hoover, 2009). Moreover, the government wanted to ensure that the students pass assessment tests annually so that the schools do not retain them in ninth grade. NCLB Historical negotiations The No Child Behind Act faced many controversies when the government first introduced it. Over time, controversy surrounding it has not changed much. At first, the act did not seem to have any impact on career and technical education. Over time however, the legislation has shown to have significant impact in mathematics and science doctrines (Chubb & Hoover, 2009). A review of the literature revealed compelling arguments on both sides of this issue. One of the major controversies involved the standardization testing that was major requirement in the act. According to the act, every state was to test students in grades 3-8 annually and in the subjects of reading and mathematics in high school. A group of people rejected the policy and claimed that excessive emphasis of testing was an attempt to centralize American education past the practicality point (Sunderman, 2008). This way, the test scores will define schools. The act also required schools to show progress from one year to the next using the standardization tests. This expectation was evident in the adequate yearly progress and it raised negotiations because schools had to raise their satisfactory learning expectations. If students do well on the tests, they encounter harder tests. It is however, logic that harder tests do not imply better (Sunderman, 2008). Emphasis on testing compromises the quality of teaching in the class room because teachers end up aiming at teaching students on how tackle the exams instead of ensuring they students understand their curricula they are taught (Sunderman, 2008). The teaching to the test habit is termed as a corruption to education. Groups supporting NCLB In the process of enacting the NCLB act, different opinion rose from educational, business, state and local governance and legislative organizations. The groups that support the NCLB act include the Business coalition of Excellence in Education, a group Bush that was involved in the planning and endorsement of the law in addition to the Education Trust organization, which aimed at involving higher education institutions in K-12 educational reform (Hayes, 2008). The Educational Associations that supported the bill included the American Federation of Teachers and the Council of Child State School Officers (CCSSO). This two association joined hands with the administration and congress in supporting the bill. CCSSO advocated for the state education agencies to administer the authority over NCLB provisions. The group however disagrees with the requirement for every-grade testing and the rigid-provisions for 100% performance as well as the AYP (Hayes, 2008). Another major complaint that raised negotiations claimed that the act required 95% of all students in the school to take the state standardization test. The No child Left Behind act demanded that 95% of the students in a school must take the state standardised test. Before this requirement, schools could not test students who they knew they could do poorly. The better performing students were the only ones who did the tests so that the school emerged as a top performer. On the testing day, the principles of these schools could say that the weak students were either absent or on a trip (Abernathy, 2007). President Bush promoted such behaviour because he could award principles of top performing schools with cash bonuses in return of their good results. Moreover, before the enactment of the law, students with disabilities and with learning problems could not participate in boosting the test scores through exams because they were unlikely to perform as well as the other normal general education students. With the enactment of the law however, there were provisions to make alternative sets for academically challenged students. It is however, unfortunate that few states managed to implement alternative test for their students because the costs and expertise needed was more than what the schools could afford. Teachers also had to undergo additional training to implement the alternative tests (Chubb & Hoover, 2009). Groups Opposing NCLB There are groups that however opposed the requirements of the NCLB act. The opponents include the National Schools Board Association, the National Educational Assertion, and the National Conference of State Legislatures besides the American association of School Administrators. Those who opposed the law based the arguments on the fact that meeting the demands of the policy was costly. Even though the government has promised federal aid provisions, it would still contribute to financial crisis for both the state and local educational agencies (Provost & Teske, 2009). Despite their opposition, the Bush administration claimed that the NCLB provisions were the only way to ensure accountability and assessment provisions in addition to ensuring equal educational opportunities for all( Provos & Teske, 2009). According to them, the federal compulsory testing was the only way to ensure that the states will avoid leaving behind the poor, minority and disadvantaged students. Those on the opposition claimed that although the government was adding more funds, the resources were still not enough to implement the acts fully. School districts in several states as well as the National Educational Association have sued the federal government over the not fully funded provisions (Provost & Teske, 2009). The state of Connecticut for example challenged the act claiming that it could cost the state millions of dollars annually hence preventing the states from implementing other essential policies. Other states chose to avoid the federal funding to prevent implementation of the NCLB policies. It is also evident that low-performing schools annually operate at lower funding’s rate compared to many white suburb districts, this way, it is unfair to expect the two schools to achieve the same academic success despite the funding disparities (Abernathy, 2007). Scientists have also opposed the provisions of the NCLB because improving scores does not necessarily reflect success (Jehlen, 2009). According to them, an increase of scores is achievable through putting emphasis on particular test and does not mean that the students have acquired more knowledge. If children learn how to answer particular question formats, they will do better but once asked the same thing in different way, they will not be able to answer the same questions appropriately (Jehlen, 2009). Conclusion It is logic, one test cannot cover all the skills form the whole syllabus that the student may cover, all that the test does, is sampling. Years of rising scores therefore do not reflect real achievement. NCLB policy therefore seems to mould children for examinations instead of letting children absorb skills that will help them in their careers. References Abernathy, S. F. (2007). No child left behind and the public schools. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. Chubb, J. E., & Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace. (2009). Learning from no child left behind: How and why the nations most important but controversial education law should be renewed. Stanford, Calif: Hoover Institution Press, Stanford University. Hayes, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind. Past, present, and future. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Education. Jehlen, A. (2009). NCLB: Is it Working? The ‘scientifically-based’ answer. National Education Association Magazine. 1/2009 Provost, C., & Teske, P. (2009). President George W. Bushs influence over bureaucracy and policy: Extraordinary times, extraordinary powers. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan. Sunderman, G. L. (2008). Holding NCLB accountable : achieving accountability, equity, & school reform / Gail L. Sunderman, editor. Thousand Oaks, CA : Corwin Press. Read More