Speaks 1
Amanda Speaks
Professor Sansing
English 1001
1 November 2015
NCLB: Our Children’s Status 13 Years Later
The No Child Left Behind Act is a bill that was introduced to legislation January 23,
2001, passed as a Bill on June 14, 2001, and signed as a law on January 8, 2002. The Bill was
passed to create standard-based education reform, with the ideology that setting high standards
can improve individual outcomes in education. States then create assessments in basic skills and,
in order to receive federal school funding, states must give the assessments to all students in
select grade levels. There has been a great deal of controversy on whether the bill has been
beneficial when it comes to educating our children or if it has created a giant monopoly of our
education system.
The NCLB bill is designed to hold public schools accountable for failing to provide
students with an adequate education. States have established ramifications for schools that
perform poorly, which include allowing students to transfer to schools in the area that are
performing better, offering free tutoring after hours to students, changing staff, pulling back
federal funds from failing schools, and potentially a state takeover. Teaching qualifications have
new requirements under the NCLB Act as well; educators must now meet the license and
certification requirements specified by the state in which they are teaching. For example, in the
state of Ohio, teachers must possess a bachelor’s degree, a certification in the subject area of
their expertise, and they must be able to demonstrate their subject area of expertise.
Speaks 2
Controversy is always prevalent when it comes to politics and education. In an article
published by John Papey and Richard Murnane, "Journal of Economic Perspectives," they
conducted focus groups with teachers who argued that using more instruction time preparing
students for state test does not provide students with enough time for other subject areas (156).
Test prepping for mathematics and language arts increases knowledge in those specific areas, but
does not allow students to properly gain knowledge that they can apply to other subject areas like
history and science. The teachers reported that they were able to find ways to improve student
test scores, but there was no improvement in the students underlying proficiency in that subject
area.
An upside to changes that were made when the NCLB Act was implemented for
educators was that they could do more planning. The teachers in the focus groups that Papey and
Murnane conducted expressed that they could not properly plan a curriculum for students based
upon standards that align with testing standards (155). The teachers discussed how they were
able to identify skill deficiency in children that performed low in areas of mathematics and
language arts, and develop a plan to enhance in that area. Overall, in this case study, teachers
expressed they were happy with the changes presented with the NCLB act as it allowed more
focus to be placed on achievement for all students.
There is a considerable amount of opposition toward the NCLB Act. Charles Lawrence
III argues in “Who Is The Child Left Behind? The Racial Meaning of the New School of
Reform,” that the act limits the amount of information teachers can share because it forces
educators to focus only on information pertaining to receiving high test scores instead of
encouraging students to be thinkers and make sense of what they are learning (705). The Act is
rewarding schools for compliance instead of good academic standing and fostering creativity.
Speaks 3
Lawrence states that a student’s future should not be dependent upon single high stake testing,
but rather students should have many opportunities to exhibit their knowledge. Lawrence argues
the NCLB Act fails to give all students an equal opportunity to get an education due to lack of
well-trained teachers, up to date learning material, and, most importantly, a lack of funding.
Some feel that the NCLB act has created a monopoly of our education system in the
sense that money is being poured into the public school system with little or no change in
educational achievement. David Flinders argued in his article “NCLB: A Look at Provisions,
Philosophies, and Compromises,” that public school systems are creating a “have and have not”
issue. School districts that perform well and have resources for children to excel in their
academics are rewarded with additional funding, whereas school districts that perform poorly
already have limited access to educational material and funding needed for students.
Additionally, these districts also risk losing their Title 1 funds due to lack of performance.
Students that are enrolled in schools that perform poorly are sometimes given the opportunity to
transfer into another school, however this is not always the best option; families that are facing
economic hardships possibly lack transportation preventing students from getting a better
education.
Another significant issue that was brought to light due to the NCLB Act is the issue of
repetitive testing. In an article written by Denisa Superville, “Students Take Too Many
Redundant Tests,” argues that redundant tests are unable to prove a student's mastery in a
specific subject, rather these tests highlights their ability to memorize certain information instead
proficiency. After a study of sixty six schools was conducted, it was shown that eighth grade
students in an urban district spent an average of 4.22 school days taking mandatory tests,
equivalent to 401 tests that proved no correlation to any improvement in math or reading for the
Speaks 4
students. This study also showed that the test scores and results were not only being used to
evaluate the students, but rather evaluating the school educators as well.
Throughout my research, I have been able to identify some benefits of the NCLB Act.
The changes made to the qualifications that teachers are required to meet means that students are
getting instruction from highly qualified teachers, who have exhibited skill in their subject area.
Once test scores are received by the schools, administration is able to identify students who need
extra help. Facing federal funding cuts, schools are more willing to give extra help needed to
struggling students by providing free tutoring and other free programs to strengthen their
knowledge. Test scores also give more understanding to parents, not only on how their child is
performing in school, but also how well the school that their child is attending is doing. Test
scores and school report cards give parents the opportunity to make decisions on whether
transferring their child into another local school would be helpful or choosing other alternatives,
such as private or charter schools, would be beneficial to fit their child’s educational needs.
The last thirteen years under the NCLB Act has been a tough ride for school
administrators, teachers, students, and parents. In the past five years, talks of an overhaul of the
NCLB Act have been proposed. Sam Dillon discusses the possible changes that will be made in
the article “Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law.” Changes in determining
whether a school is succeeding or failing will be addressed. Elimination of every American child
being proficient by 2014 will be recommended. Instead of this deadline, the new goal will be to
prepare every student to leave high school “college or career” ready. Under this proposal, new
standards will be defined to determine what students will need to learn in earlier grades to
advance toward high school graduation.
Speaks 5
Under the NCLB Act, the Federal Government played a significant role in education. The
new proposal would work toward handing control back to the states. Alia Wong discusses in
“One Step Closer to Life After No Child Left Behind,” state level officials will create guidelines
on how to assess academic performance, what factors play into failing schools, and who should
be held accountable. Wong implies in the article that some Senate members and Civil Rights
Groups argue that if accountability provisions in the final bill aren’t strengthened they will not
support what will be called the Every Child Achieves Act. The issue of standardized testing
won’t lessen under this new act; students in grades three through eight will still take reading and
math assessments and, sometimes, science. However, states would be responsible to come up
with new guidelines on how to utilize these test scores.
It seems that everyone is not in agreement that the proposed Every Child Achieves Act
will fix our torn down education system. On December 2, 2015, Senate Bill 1177 passed The
House with an overwhelming 359 to 64 vote; the Bill is now under revision to be passed on to
the President. Claudio Sanchez writes in “No Child Left Behind,” the agreement will still require
children to take annual tests and a standardized test at least once in high school. However, the
U.S. Secretary will no longer push for academic standards or require that teachers be evaluated
based upon student test scores. Sanchez conducted an interview with Daria Hill, an advocate for
a group called ‘The Education Trust,’ who argues putting control back in the hands of the states
leaves vulnerable, low income, black, and latino children at risk of continuing to receive poor
quality education.
Educators who have committed their time to getting a college education to make a
difference in children’s lives seem to be extremely torn and discouraged with the dealings of our
education system. During my research, I came across an article written by a teacher that seemed
Speaks 6
overwhelmed and hurt that she technically is not able to provide her students with the education
she feels she can provide and that the students deserve. Susan Horbart pours out in “One
Teacher’s Cry: Why I Hate No Child Left Behind" the difficulty she experiences as an educator.
At the beginning of her career, she was both excited and anxious to teach her students and share
with them all of the things she had learned; she wanted to challenge her students with her crafted
curriculum and, even at the end of a full work week, Horbart would be energized and ready for
more. These days, she feels more demoralized than anything else. She compares mandatory
testing to one size fits all--every student, no matter the disability or background, must take the
same test, and they are expected to be proficient. Most recently, Horbart and other staff members
have been told they can no longer “buddy up” with first grade classes during core literacy time
because it does not fit the definition of core literacy, according to the NCLB Act. It is
heartbreaking for her to know that literacy improvement with younger children, and children that
are new English speakers, can no longer happen due to stipulations of an education law.
In “States Must Take Lead on Improving NCLB,” Michael Cohen argues that we have
learned some clear lessons under the NCLB Act. More focus needs to be given to students and
teachers to provide them with the tools necessary to succeed in an engaging curriculum. He goes
on to argue that teachers cannot produce better results in schools if they don’t have the training,
support, and tools needed to get the job done. Standards, testing, and accountability are necessary
in education, but are not sufficient enough for improving the public school system.
I conducted an interview with two friends who have teaching degrees, one of which is no
longer an active teacher because of the power that had been ripped away from her. Both have
requested that I keep their names confidential. In my first interview with teacher A, she
discussed how she works for a public school here in Cincinnati, Ohio for children with
Speaks 7
behavioral issues. She feels the NCLB Act allows students who are not prepared to move on to
the next grade level a pass according to test scores that a student may have had assistance with.
This particular student missed sixty-six days of school and was allowed to move on to the next
grade level. She feels there was no accountability held on this student’s behalf for the lack of
attendance, and there was no way he/she could have been prepared for the next grade level.
Teacher B stopped teaching because she felt that all of her years spent earning a degree
and learning teaching techniques were stripped away, and she was forced to take on a required
teaching style. She feels that the NCLB Act failed to consider children who don’t fit the “norm.”
The law essentially forces students to fit into a defined set of standards and achievements, taking
away a student’s uniqueness and ability to learn in their own way. She went on to discuss that the
mandated test are dry and oversimplified, and that these tests do not allow students to apply
complex thought processes. There was no way to keep students engaged with a “teach to test”
mentality. She was unable to remain in a career where she could not utilize the skill and training
she had received while pursuing her degree of over four years, eventually stepped down to
pursue other interest.
My own experience with my seven year old son’s education has not been a good one. He
attends a public Montessori school at this time, and since the moment he started pre-school I
have tried to keep him in a school that I felt he would benefit from considering that I cannot
afford private school. As it has been explained under the NCLB Act, Magnet schools in our area
are supposed to provide children with a better education than neighborhood public schools, and
as a parent you can take initiative to enroll your child into a Magnet school of your choice; I
enrolled him in a magnet school with a focus on foreign language. After looking over the school
work my son was doing, which were repetitive worksheets for the most part, and then looking at
Speaks 8
how well the school was performing as a whole I decided that it was definitely not the school for
us. This particular Magnet school was performing worse than its surrounding public schools
according to its report card, but was much more focused on the children’s behavior rather than
on how improvements could be made to help the children succeed. Along with complaints from
my son’s teacher concerning his behavior, and what I felt would best fit his needs I decided to
stand in line for a few hours to enroll him into the Montessori school he now attends.
I decided to go with the Montessori style of learning because the concept of allowing
children to learn under a more hands on approach, and letting them identify their own unique
style of learning is so ideal for my son’s personality. He has struggled some since starting at this
school in the first grade, but every day he is progressing toward being a more responsible
student. The Montessori style of learning doesn’t mean standardized testing went away. The
NCLB Act taken away some of the best benefits of the Montessori learning style. Students in
these schools are not able to use their creative thinking caps, and be truly unique because the
teachers are forced to create a lesson plan that will prepare students for testing. This year alone,
my son has already take the Tera Nova test which he will be required to take again in May. The
Tera Nova test is taken by children to identify giftedness. For five straights days, children sit and
listen to a teacher read off information and after each lesson the children test to identify if they
can remember the information the teacher had given them. Now call me crazy, but how can this
identify if a child is gifted? I can drive around all day memorizing license plates numbers on
cars, does this categorize me as being gifted? I feel this is an unfair way of labeling some
children, and making other children feel left out or not smart enough. He was also required to
take a comprehensive reading test on a computer the third week of school. In what way was this
fair to children who may not understand how to use computers, or that don’t have computer
Speaks 9
access outside of school? Yet they are expected to come in and take mandatory test, and show
proficiency.
In conclusion, it is clear to see is that the NCLB Act has failed our children, and it
doesn’t seem that we will be out of the clear anytime soon. It will take more effort from the
Government, The State, Education Administrators, Teachers, and Parents to fix this broken
system. As a parent of a young child, the scariest thing to me is that my son may not be receiving
the best education that I can afford him. Giving freedom back to teachers is the most important
goal that we need to reach. Allowing teachers to share the knowledge they have acquired while
seeking their degree is the best way for our children to learn real world ideas and thought process
and prepare our children for the future. Teachers cannot continue to be neglected and then
blamed for the failing school system. The Every Child Achieves Act could be a start, but changes
must be made continuously and not every ten years. Teachers deserve the support, and tools
necessary to provide our children with an education that will prepare them to be productive in
society. Children deserve to receive the best education that teachers can provide them through an
enriched, engaging curriculum. No child deserves to be left behind.
Speaks 10
Works Cited
Cohen, Michael States Must Take Lead on Improving NCLB, U.S. News, January 12, 2010
Dillon, Sam Obama to Seek Sweeping Change in ‘No Child’ Law, NY Times, January 31, 2010
Flinders, David The No Child Left Behind Act: A Look at Provisions, Philosophies, and
Compromises – Volume 41, Number 2- Summer 2004
Horbart, Susan One Teacher’s Cry: Why I Hate No Child Left Behind, The Progressive,
August 9, 2008
Lawrence III, Charles R. Who Is the Child Left Behind? The Racial Meaning of the New School
Reform 39 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 699-718 (2006) 705. Print
Murnane, Richard and Papey, John Journal of Economic Perspectives—Volume 24, Number
Summer 2010 155-156. Print.
Sanchez, Claudio Goodbye, No Child Left Behind, nprED, December 1, 2015
Superville, Denisa Students Take Too Many Redundant Tests, Study Finds, Education WeekVol.35, Issue 10, October 24, 2015
Wong, Alia One Step Closer to Life After No Child Left Behind, The Atlantic, July 16, 2015