The No Child Left behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) is an overwhelming educational policy in the US which is aimed at ensuring efficiency and standardization in the education system. The act is focused on the education of children in public schools. George W. Bush administration has been behind the establishment of the act.
Based on the anticipated efficiencies and benefits of the NCLB, it received bipartisan support in the congress. Basically, the NCLB supports standardization of education in the public sector by calling for the adoption of standards-based education reform. This act is based on the premise that the establishment of measurable and high standards and goals will improve individual performance in education.
The core requirement of the NCLB is that states should develop assessment in basic skills, which will be given to students in certain grades. This is a key requirement of the NCLB for qualification of the states in receiving funding for their schools. A point worth of consideration is that the NCLB has led to increase in educational funding from $42.2 billion to $54.4 billion in 2007 as compared to 2001.
Generally, the act has adequately improved efficiency and excellence in education thus calling for its support. It is also worth noting that critics of the act have also risen up thus challenging its efficiency. This paper will provide an in depth discussion and analysis of the NCLB with a special focus on its core aspects of support and critique.
As observed by Peterson and West (2003), the NCLB has been an efficient tool which has positively impacted on accountability in public schools. Peterson and West (2003) noted that the NCLB has positively impacted on schools, teachers and school districts. The act requires teachers to pass yearly tests which will assess the improvement and performance of students in each fiscal year.
This is achieved through the adoption of the yearly standardized tests which demonstrates that schools are living up to the standards. As noted in the act, schools which do not meet the required improvements face a decrease in funding.
With this in mind, the act has received substantial support based on its ability to ensure optimum accountability from all stakeholders, thus heightening the importance of the educational system (Peterson and West, 2003).
Proponents of the act have also acknowledged it for enhancing the link between state academic content standards and the student’s outcomes. The new requirements of the act have also enhanced measurement of student performance. This is achieved through the standardized tests which are executed annually across all grades.
Another key strength of NCLB is that it helps parents to acquire crucial information concerning their children’s performance. This is attained through the provision of detailed report cards explaining school’s AYP performance. NCLB builds the foundation for school districts and schools to enhance parental administration and involvement (Meier and Wood, 2004).
The NCLB has received overwhelming support across the US for its ability to ensure efficiency in student assessment. As depicted by Mitchell and Drasgow (2009), the systematic testing offers crucial data which help in provision of students support and intervention. The levels of test scores have also been identified to be in the increase.
Over the 10 years which the act has been in place, the overall performance of students and in particular math has been noted to be in a steady increase. Equity in provision and access of educational facilities has also been identified to be in the increase following the adoption of the act.
In this case, marginalized groups including students with disabilities and those from poor families have been recognized by the act. This has been demonstrated by the special and increased funding to schools with such students (Mitchell and Drasgow, 2009).
On the contrary, the act has also been criticized for being ineffective. In the case of the standardized tests, the act has led to unnecessary sanctions and punishments to schools which do not achieve the required improvements. Opponents of the act have argued that the punishments executed against the schools only end up hurting the schools rather than inducing any improvements.
Use of standardized tests has led teachers to focus on narrow research and teaching content. This limits the knowledge and skills acquisition by the students. With regards to the act’s push for quality teachers and increased admissions of students, the concept of funding has been impacted. Opponents of NCLB argue that the provision of the act lead to extra expenses thus calling for higher funding (Meier and Wood, 2004).
Based on the ranging critics of the NCLB, various proposals for reforms have been identified. To begin with, the issue for punishment and sanctions to schools which do not meet the required improvements should be scrapped. This has been adequately addressed by the Joint Organizational Statement which calls for systematic changes in the schools and districts which do not meet the stated improvements.
On the other hand, there has also been rising a concern to scrap the entire NCLB law for being unredeemable. This is in relation to the critics who have argued that it is a deliberate sentence for poor children.
Other key proposals for reforms to the act include; provision of funds for states for implementation of broader assessments, inclusion of student’s abilities to undertake research, increased use of technology, and increased engagement in scientific investigation (Hayes, 2008).
Conclusion
The discussion and analysis of the NCLB has clearly demonstrated its strengths in ensuring efficiency in the education system. The act has received overwhelming support from all stakeholders in the education system.
This is in relation to its potentiality in ensuring effectiveness, accountability and efficiency in the education system. On the contrary, there have also been substantial critiques on the act, which have challenged its efficiencies. In light with the critics on the act, adequate reforms have been called upon. This is aimed at ensuring optimum effectiveness and efficiency of the act.
References
Hayes, W. (2008). No Child Left Behind: Past, Present, and Future. New York: Wiley & Sons Press.
Meier, D. and Wood, G. (2004). Many Children Left Behind: How the No Child Left Behind Act is Damaging our Children and our Schools. New York: Routldge.
Mitchell, L. and Drasgow, E. (2009). No Child Left Behind: A Guide for Professionals. New York: McGraw Hill.
Peterson, P. and West, M. (2003). No Child Left Behind?: The Politics and Practice of School Accountability. New Jersey: McGraw Hill.