Introduction
The legislation under consideration is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act. It was passed in 2001, and has stirred a lot of controversy in educational circles.
In order to place this debate in context, one must understand the history behind the policy as well as the relative effectiveness of the goals.
The social concern and problem to be addressed
The social concern to be addressed is low educational quality. In the United States, this problem is defined in terms of time, content, expectations and teaching methods used.
Time in the field of education centers on how students use their school day or year. This parameter can become a problem when schools use it ineffectively or when students fail to spend adequate time doing school work. Content revolves around the curriculum.
A curriculum that lacks a main goal or one that is easily diluted is a serious problem. Expectations revolve around the skills and knowledge that students ought to have after completion of their education.
Lastly, concerns in teaching involve teacher shortages and inadequate teacher preparation (US Department of Education, 2003b).
One may define and frame the education problem in several alternative ways; for instance, its ability to make market-oriented products. An education system may be deemed unsuccessful if it does not nurture the creativity of its participants.
Stakeholders expect tertiary institutions to yield innovative solutions to society’s problems. Conversely, one may frame this problem on the basis of research and development from tertiary education institutions.
Examples include development in AIDS treatment drugs, genetic engineering or space travel. One may also define the educational problem on the basis of the number of students who graduate or reach a certain level of education such as college.
Other people can think of this issue in terms of its affordability hence its accessibility to the masses. Furthermore, education quality may also be analyzed through its ability to promote equality or reduce marginalization of students from low income households.
In the United States, the challenge of education quality can be seen through content issues. Several students lack foundational knowledge in the curriculum. Additionally, problems in expectations exist as seen through the lack of challenging materials in academics.
Time-related problems include the ineffective use of school days as well as poor management of time at home when doing homework. With regard to teaching, the US has a shortage of teachers in science-related fields. Those who exist are not as fully prepared as they should be.
This social problem is expressed differently in a third world country like Nigeria. In this country, the curriculum does not address man power or market needs adequately.
As a result, many of these individuals may complete university education but fail to secure jobs (Adeyinka, 2002). Additionally, the nation has unstable teaching staff as many consider the profession a stepping stone to other careers.
The latter state lacks funding for curriculum development or training of professionals. Issues of low standards in certain educational institutions are pervasive in Nigeria. The issue of ill-equipped classrooms, laboratories and libraries is also a serious matter there.
Inadequate classroom capacity may also be seen as another way in which low educational quality is manifested there. Lastly, the prohibitive cost of academic materials or books is another hurdle in Nigeria.
How the US has responded to this problem
In the past, the US has responded through a series of educational reforms. Initially, this was manifested through an increase in funding of educational programs.
However, in subsequent times, the country tried to establish academic standards. During the 1980s, authorities gave all states the mandate of establishing academic standards for schools (Jogernsen, 2005). Later on, in the 90s, legislators introduced the notion of performance standards in schools as seen through the 1994 IASA Act (Improving America’s Schools Act).
Schools would be held accountable for the performance of the students. They needed to demonstrate yearly progress among the participants.
Perhaps one of the most significant moves in the education industry is the instatement of a unitary assessment system in the country. Changes have also been made in content standards for core subjects such as mathematics and the languages.
Legislation
The primary piece of legislation that provides federal and state funding to address this problem is the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The legislation was passed during former President George Bush’s tenure as president.
He regarded education as one of the priority issues in his policy agenda. Many legislators welcomed the Act and demonstrated bipartisan support for it.
Although there were some differences during its passing, most members of congress and the senate went beyond their differences in order to pass this bill into law. By December 2001, legislators had completed the final version of the report.
NCLB is a policy whose goal is to increase achievement or proficiency in education by 2013 to 2014. Five major parameters will assist schools to achieve this goal.
These include standards and assessment, parental involvement, adequate yearly progress (AYP), corrective action, and staff qualifications. Standards and assessments require schools to adopt universal academic standards that must be challenging in nature.
Schools must also have concrete standards about what children should be able to carry out at the end of their education. Here, an institution ought to describe the various levels of achievement that children should attain; they may be advanced, basic and proficient.
Curriculum content standards should be placed in three particular subjects: math, language and reading. Schools were given only 6 months from the passing of the legislation to achieve this. They also got 3-4 years to make standards for science subjects.
In the area of assessments, schools were expected to have yearly assessments in language arts, reading, mathematics and science. However, schools were given a window period of three to five years from the instatement of the legislation to make these assessments.
Annual English proficiency assessments must also be administered to students with limited English proficiency (US Department of Education, 2003a).
The second aspect of the legislation was accountability as seen through the adequate yearly progress (AYP) system. Institutions are expected to follow universal minimum improvement level.
Percentages were determined for proficiency in math and language arts for various years. Students who fall under the AYP program are special needs children, those with limited English proficiency, the economically disadvantaged as well as ethnic minorities
Corrective actions emanate from failures in AYP; institutions that record failures for two consecutive years will be eligible for corrective action. Families have the option of transferring their children to another public school in their chosen district.
Districts have the responsibility of paying for transport with priorities given to low income groups. If failures are recorded for three consecutive years, then one can use supplemental services.
Schools that consistently fail to meet the AYP criteria, that is, those that demonstrate poor results for a period of five tears will be restructured.
Staff qualification is yet another area that the NCLB Act covers. Teachers are expected to get state certification for core subjects. Alternatively, they can receive qualifying scores on content tests.
Paraprofessionals need two years worth of higher education, an associate degree or a state assessment. They must also engage in professional development.
Parental involvement in the Act encompasses getting information about children’s or school performance. Parents have the right to ask for teachers’ credentials. They should receive notice when their children are placed in language instructions programs.
If they wish, most of them can opt out of a language instruction class. Families have the right to know about unqualified teachers if their children have been taught for a period of four weeks or more by them.
Program
The AYP program is the main manifestation of the NCLB Act. Its goal is to make all public schools accountable by providing a minimum improvement level for schools annually.
The program has boosted federal education funding by different states substantially. In fact, statistics demonstrate that these numbers have increased from the time the legislation was passed.
Schools must also contend with greater sanctions or penalties. Institutions are now held to account for their actions. Additionally, they are expected to increase their level of testing. Those who fail to engage in the above may be penalized through closure or reopening as a private entity.
Alternatively, schools may be required to change their curriculum or lengthen school years. They may also be subjected to restructures if they fail to produce satisfactory results. Institutions must ensure that their teachers are well qualified. Failure to meet these criteria can lead to the replacement of school personnel.
How the services are organized and delivered
The services in NCLB are organized on the basis of assessment. This was designed to boost America’s international rankings in particular subjects such as math and science.
Schools are expected to administer these tests and an analysis of their improvement done on an annual basis. These tests are organized on a state by state basis since states are responsible for establishment of standards.
States also determine the minimum requirements for skills and knowledge when developing curriculum content. Teachers must abide by these requirements if they want their students to succeed.
The Act also places high stakes for failing to meet certain criteria. Teachers play a vital role in this policy because they are responsible for constantly improving their capabilities.
Educators must learn about curriculum content and the effects of failing to implement them. Poor professional development can lead to severe consequences to teachers and schools, as well.
Therefore, state panels determine whether a school will be restructured or punished after continual underperformance.
How eligibility is determined
In order to qualify for AYP under the No Child Left Behind Act, a child should belong to the four sub groups mentioned in the policy description phase. The subgroups include special needs, racial minorities, economically disadvantaged and limited English proficiency students.
All states reserve the right to establish the number of students who will be eligible as a subgroup. In order for a family to qualify as a low income group, it must provide information about all its sources of income.
Some of these may be formal such as salaries or wages. Alternatively, they may be unconventional like insurance, alimony, pensions or child support.
School eligibility is determined through administration of the assessments among at least 95% of the student population. States have been mandated to develop measurable objectives for math and reading. Most of them require 35% p in math and 45% p in reading.
Additionally, states must establish another factor for eligibility and this may include high school graduation rates or attendance rates in middle school.
Schools may also be eligible for AYP if they demonstrate a 10% improvement in non proficiency and meet the requirements for the state-specific requirements.
Evidence that the policy has been effective in achieving the social welfare goals
The NCLB policy places a lot of emphasis on standardized student testing scores. Analyses indicate that personal human judgment is prone to error in test development.
Therefore, large scale tests are more rigorous and make their administration more dependable than other types of assessments. An international study done among 29 developed nations found that when standardized tests were dropped, academic standards diminished.
Furthermore, students were less motivated to study while curriculum content became incomprehensible. In the United States, test scores have improved dramatically since 2002 when the Act became effective.
Additionally, minority students’ performance in these scores has gone up substantially. It is essential for test scores to improve as American students have demonstrated mediocre results in international analyses in the past.
Aside from improvement of test scores, the Act has bridged the gap between minority students and the white majority. Achievement gaps between 2001 and 2005 have improved dramatically.
This stems directly from the creation of subgroups, which include minorities and students with limited English proficiency. It also emanates from the fact low income groups are given precedence when transferring their children to another public school.
No Child Left Behind has also improved the quality of teaching in public schools. Statistics indicate that the number of students taught by qualified personnel has increased to 90%.
Teachers are required by the Act to pursue professional development so this has improved their quality. Furthermore, the involvement of parents in their children’s education has also brought about these results.
Parents who demand to know about the credentials of teachers who handle their children have also caused many of them to improve.
Since schools have a lot to lose when they keep engaging unqualified teachers, then many of them choose not to compromise on this parameter.
Given that the policy also leaves room for supplemental educational services, then a number of students have been able to access them. Educational experts realize that student capabilities can never be equal, but when minimal test requirements exist, then educators can work out a way of improving these outcomes.
Those children who appear to be falling behind have the right to access free tutors, and thus meet the national criteria. Children from low income households who may not have afforded tutoring services can now boast of significant outcomes. Regular testing causes schools to know those students that need extra assistance.
Schools have also been improving their educational strategies time after time. Following the increase of school options for parents within certain districts, schools have a lot more to loose if they apply ineffective strategies.
As a result, many of them have opted to alter strategies that may make them loose students. All schools that require improvement have been identified promptly and restructured accordingly.
Lastly, estimates indicate that the numbers of schools that meet AYP requirements have increased dramatically; this means that the nation is well on its way to achieve proficiency in reading and mathematics.
In fact, funding in these crucial subjects has increased drastically. Although other subjects such as social studies are receiving less attention, it is generally agreed upon that science and math performance directly affects a nation’s innovativeness.
Innovative proposal
The policy or program that can respond effectively to the needs of the population is the Academic Partnerships Lead Us to Success Act or A-PLUS act. Unlike the NCLB Act which increases the role of the federal government in the educational setting, this piece of legislation places power back in the hands of parents.
The Act gives states the mandate to get funding for educational problems. However, their role is restricted to consolidation rather than direct involvement in school matters.
The Act will be organized and delivered by states, teachers and parents. States will redirect resources in order to increase accountability as well as raise standards.
Although the NCLB Act was initially instated in order to increase accountability in education, this is no longer a tenable goal among the groups concerned. Most of the funds provided in NCLB were controlled by the central authority (Department of Education).
Schools could only spend them on the programs that the central authority selected. However, in the A-PLUS Act, local leaders will decide how to distribute funds. They will consider local needs in various institutions so as to make them accountable.
Furthermore, student progress will be measured by state bodies, so no focus will be given to the national large scale assessment program. The biggest difference between A-PLUS and NCLB is that it moves away from the one size fits all approach advocated for in NCLB (Wang et al., 2006).
State officials have the responsibility of deciding the transparency of fund use in simple implementation processes.
Teachers and parents will have the responsibility of determining the educational path that a particular child will follow as each student is unique.
This would minimize bureaucracy from Washington DC. Teachers would be accountable to those individuals who relate directly to students.
They would administer tests and submit results to taxpayers annually. Instead of dwelling on a national pass mark, this policy will cause teachers to focus on progress and meeting parental expectations.
The evaluation process will be twofold. First, it will consider college admissions. Since tertiary education is the culmination of the education process, then favorable results reported in college should indicate success in A-PLUS.
Additionally, evaluation will be done through improvements in science and aptitude tests. These will be tailor-made by teachers and focus will be on improvement rather than test scores.
The main idea in instating A-PLUS is to create lifelong learning through local leaders. Its aim would be to foster cooperation between teachers and parents, and also to reduce bureaucracy in education.
Emphasis should not be on paperwork or passing tests in educational policy; it should foster continual progress instead.
References
Adeyinka, A. (2002). Current problems of educational development in Nigeria. Web.
Jogernsen, M. (2005). History of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. NY: Pearson Education Publishers.
US Department of Education (2003a). No Child Left Behind: A parent’s guide. Washington DC: Department of Education.
US Department of Education (2003b). A nation at risk. Web.
Wang, L., Beckett, G. & Brown, L. (2006). Controversies of standardized assessment in school accountability reform. Applied Measurement in Education, 19(4), 305-328.