Introduction
Since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) in 2001, the standards-based curriculum has taken on a whole new meaning. While the specifics of the act can get rather complicated, the effects have been quite clear. The federal government’s involvement in state-run education has developed a disconnect within the classroom due to the idea that broader spectrum policies can easily be established. Students, such as those in urban and socio-economic disadvantaged areas remain at a standstill due to the procedures of the NCLB. However, other students, especially those will disabilities have been dealt a significant blow to their progress through standards-based accountability. The results of these issues have been more frequent calls for a revision to, if not the entire removal of, the NCLB.
Education policy’s issues
Foremost, the issue of the federal government’s involvement in state education policy has taken on a different life all its own. Scholars and other concerned parties to this problem have been split mostly down the middle on this subject. Some want reform, no matter what the future implications are or the politics behind the actions, and believe big government is the answer. Others would rather revert to state-mandated education policies, although they also call for reform to the system. (Vaughn & Everhart, 2005). Just as in all cases, a moderate solution would be best for this situation. The federal government could maintain some levels of influence in education standards, yet individual states account for the rises or pitfalls. (Crawford & Tindal, 2006). People say that the NCLB is designed to do just that. However, the intended design and the actual outcomes are skewed, to say the least.
Secondly, students from urban and socioeconomic disadvantaged backgrounds have an even more difficult case when it comes to accountability. Many educators refuse to teach at schools in these areas because of the conditions. The budgets are not commensurate with the needs of the educators, or students. (Bainbridge & Sundre, 2005). Therefore, the incentive to become more polished in their skills as an educator fades. Crowded classrooms and an insufficient amount of classroom materials place the students in these areas at a disadvantage before they even begin. (Hickock & Ladner, 2007). Yet, they are expected to meet and exceed the minimum requirements without the minimum materials.
Furthermore, students with disabilities are another population in need of support from the NCLB outcomes. Although there have been upgrades in research and facilities to this population of students, the idea that a standards-based curriculum should be applied to these special needs students is hard to understand. (Freund, Ohlson, Browne, & Kavulic, 2006). Many schools simply do not have the budgets to support the demands that these programs require. Then, the government decides they will take away more funding if the schools do meet the requirements. The schools come to a dead end, where they cannot move forward to provide more opportunities and soon find themselves behind the curve. Lost in the mix, unfortunately, is the family, wondering why adequate education needs cannot be met for their students with special needs. (Riddle & Skinner, 2007).
Conclusion
The NCLB, as it currently stands, has tied the hands of states to support the programs that are needed for the advancement of accountability and standards-based curriculum. New systems are needed if the current demands are to be met and future pitfalls are avoided. State control of education is a policy that, both publicly and privately, needs to be maintained to provide efficient and effective learning environments. Urban and socioeconomic disadvantaged areas need to be closely monitored to ensure adequate educators and materials are being provided to students. Special needs programs must also be examined to guarantee these students are not deprived of opportunities.
References
Bainbridge, W. L., & Sundre, S. M. (2005). Testing To Improve or To Punish? School Administrator, 62 (1), 42-42.
Crawford, L. & Tindal, G. (2006). Policy and practice: knowledge and beliefs of education professionals related to the inclusion of students with disabilities in a state assessment. Remedial & Special Education, 27(4), 208-217.
Freund, M., Ohlson, C., Browne, B., & Kavulic, C. (2006). Emerging Accountability Systems within Part C and Section 619 Programs. Teacher Education & Special Education, 29(3), 168-178.
Hickock, E. & Ladner, M. (2007). Reauthorization of NCLB: Federal Management or Citizen Ownership of K-12 Education? USA Today, 136(2720), 64-66.
Riddle, W. C., & Skinner, R. (2007). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act: A Primer: RL33960. Congressional Research Service: Report, 1-22. Washington, DC: Congressional Research Service.
Vaughn, M., & Everhart, B. (2005). A Process of Analysis of Predictors on an Assessment Continuum of Licensure Candidates’ Success in K-12 Classrooms. Research for Educational Reform, 2005, 10(1), 3-15.