Works Cited
Anderson, Nick. “Administration pushes to rework No Child Left Behind law.” The
Washington Post. N.p., 28 Jan. 2010. Web. 3 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com>.
This overview article of Obama’s initial changes to NCLB provides recent
information. The article states that the goal of Obama is to make the program more
flexible, however, major issues within the Act require much more than small changes,
and without making huge changes the public education system will continue to fail.
“Archived Information: December 2008.” US Department of Education. The Federal
Government of the United States of America, 19 Dec. 2008. Web. 24 Feb. 2010.
<http://www2.ed.gov>.
The archived information provides statistics published by the Bush Administration
which seek to explain the goals behind the system and outline its achievements. Many
of the programs which this page praises were very flawed, and with other articles
these statistics can be used to outline the negative effects of NCLB.
Blackburn, Bradley, and Mary Bruce. “States Develop National Set of Standards, Hope
to Improve U.S. Education.” ABC News. N.p., 10 Mar. 2010. Web. 10 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.abcnews.go.com>.
Reporting on the conferences and publications from March 10, 2010, Blackburn and
Bruce report on the push towards standardizing the national curriculum. In doing so,
the flaws of NCLB are being corrected, however, it is more of a replacement policy
then a minor fix, and with these changes a repeal of NCLB is likely once states agree
on these standards.
Bruce, Mary K. “Obama to Overhaul ‘No Child Left Behind.’” ABC News. ABC, 1 Feb.
2010. Web. 26 Feb. 2010. <http://blogs.abcnews.com>.
Bruce, a corespondent for ABC News, explains that the Obama administration plans
to help more students attend college with federal loans, grants, and tax credits. And
despite a possible replacement of the accountability system, the government is still
required to test students to make sure progress is being made.
Clay, Tracy-Elizabeth. “Changing the conversation: a perspective on the no Child Left
Behind Act.” Journal of Gender, Race & Justice (Fall 2008): 12. Opposing
Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 25 Feb. 2010. <http://find.galegroup.com>.
As an employee of Teach For America, Clay represents a favorable opinion of No
Child Left Behind, as she feels the national standards have united the country. This
provides a contrary opinion to many educational experts, allowing statistics to be
compared.
Dillon, Sam. “Administration Outlines Proposed Changes to ‘No Child’ Law.” The New
York Times. N.p., 1 Feb. 2010. Web. 4 Mar. 2010. <http://www.nytimes.com>.
Dillon, in his assessment of the Obama administration’s recent action on reforming
NCLB, reports various changes Obama plans to make. However, an extensive rewrite
of NCLB will not solve every problem caused by the law’s vague language and the
flawed system of Adequate Yearly Progress, revealing that NCLB should be
removed.
Fisanick, Christina. “Testing Is a Crucial Part of Measuring Educational Accountability.”
At Issue: Has No Child Left Behind Been Good for Education? Detroit: Greenhaven
Press, 2008. N. pag. Opposing Viewpoints Resource Center. Web. 26 Feb. 2010.
<http://find.galegroup.com>.
Fisanick defends No Child Left Behind’s standardized testing requirement, as she
feels it defends the student. By citing the accountability of standardized tests, she
provides a contrary opinion to many scholars and gives insight to the Bush’s
administration’s organization of NCLB.
Haerr, Catherine. “The First Day of School.” No Child Left Behind and the Illusion of
Reform. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. 77-90. Print.
By outlining a brief history of the public education system, Haerr reveals the federal
takeover of the public education system and its negative effects on curriculum.
Hollingworth, Liz. “Unintended Educational and Social Consequences of the No Child
Left Behind Act.” The Journal of Gender, Race & Justice (Dec. 2009): 311-327.
Print.
Hollingworth very accurately depicts the background to NCLB and explains that
history, music, physical education, art, and foreign language has all taken a hit in
classroom curricula as schools move towards math, reading, and science.
“How to Fix No Child Left Behind.” Time Magazine. Time, 24 May 2007. Web. 26 Feb.
2010. <http://www.time.com>.
This article provides basic background information to NCLB and explains the debate
in 2007 whether or not to renew the Act. By outlining the controversy behind the Act,
the article explains the problems being standardized testing and how the national
government’s regulation comes which providing less than 10% of public school
funding.
Hunt, John W. “The Modification of School Improvement and Staff Development Efforts
In Response to the Failure to Make Adequate Yearly Progress.” The Myth and Reality
of No Child Left Behind. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 119-129. Print.
Hunt’s survey of Illinois public school superintendents from February to March of
2006 provides various statistics about the community reactions and state of educators
following the introduction of NCLB, which do not provide evidence that NCLB has
been successful.
“Improving Public Schools.” Pittsburgh’s Future. N.p., 2009. Web. 22 Feb. 2010.
<http://www.pittsburghfuture.com>.
This article assessed the current state of Southwestern PA’s public education system,
where at least half of the 18-year olds are unable to read and/or do math at grade
level. This reflects that “teaching to the test” is not an adequate way of instruction.
Janesick, Valerie J. “Chapter 3: The Standards Movement and Assessment.” The
Assessment Debate. Ed. Danny Weil. Santa Barbara, California: ABC-CLIO, 2001.
95-117. Print.
Janesick seeks to explain the problems behind standardized testing, which she feels
leaves many urban students behind as funds are cut. Additionally, she points out that
NCLB causes many states to threaten states with funding based on one test’s results,
only hurting the failing school districts.
Karaba, Robert. “No Cartesian Left Behind.” No Child Left Behind and the Illusion of
Reform. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham,
Maryland: University Press of America, 2006. 29-40. Print.
Noting that NCLB is too concerned with content and not process, Karaba points out
the easy passage of the Act and how necessary changes have not been completed.
Kohn, Alfie. “Standardized Testing and Its Victims.” Education Week (Sept. 2000): n.
pag. Web. 23 Feb. 2010. <http://www.alfiekohn.org>.
Kohn explains the issues with standardized testing, most importantly that preparation
for state tests resulted in program cuts, and that was before the passing of NCLB.
Additionally, Kohn points out that a student’s background has much more effect on
test scores then the school’s curriculum.
Peterson, Elizabeth. “Drop Out or Pushed Out? Who’s Counted Out in High Stakes
Testing?” The Myth and Reality of No Child Left Behind. Ed. Todd Alan Price and
Elizabeth Peterson. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 47-63.
Print.
Peterson explains how graduation statistics also account for AYP, however, she
elaborates to note that they do not count for nearly as much as standardized tests,
which hurt teacher morale and limit curricula.
Poetter, Thomas S. “The Impact of NCLB on Curriculm, Teaching, and Assessment.” No
Child Left Behind and the Illusion of Reform. Ed. Thomas S Poetter, Joseph C
Wegwert, and Catherine Haerr. Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America,
2006. 1-14. Print.
Poetter explains that educators have no choice but to teach to the test, as their jobs
rely on test results. He explains that the public education system has become so
concerned with results that the curriculum ignores creativity. This reveals that NCLB
has hurt the public education system.
Ravitch, Diane. “Time to Kill ‘No Child Left Behind.’” The Education Digest
(Sept. 2009): 4-6. Print.
Ravitch, who is a research professor of education at New York University and served
as an assistant US secretary of education from 1991 to 1993, outlines that NCLB has
not resulted in gains, and scores have not improved on average sine 1988. She
believes trying to savor the Act is a waste, and the only possible solution is to start
from scratch.
Reichel, Anne Grall. “Unintended Consequences: The Teacher’s Story.” The Myth and
Reality of No Child Left Behind. Ed. Todd Alan Price and Elizabeth Peterson.
Lanham, Maryland: University Press of America, 2009. 131-150. Print.
Reichel interviewed many teachers of all levels and reports on the problems of
NCLB, explaining why it should not receive minor changes but should instead be
replaced by another system. She explains that teachers and students are void of proper
support.
Shear, Michael D, and Nick Anderson. “a $4 Billion Push for Better Schools.” The
Washington Post. N.p., 24 Jan. 2009. Web. 3 Mar. 2010.
<http://www.washingtonpost.com>.
Anderson and Shear capture the President’s initial attempts at reforming NCLB after
entering the White House, and in doing so outline the Race to the Top program in
place currently. This program shows a new policy that is helping the public school
system, and new programs like this cannot coexist with NCLB’s system of AYP and
Title I mandates.