Introduction
Numerous changes have been introduced in the education system over the last few decades. One of the recent changes is the introduction of new legislation such as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), which has had a significant influence on the quality of education in schools. Some of people who are the most affected by this legislation are the teachers.
In this literature review, some pertinent questions about the act and its effect on teachers and their experience will be investigated through an analysis of relevant literature on the same. Do teachers feel that NCLB affects their abilities to infuse creative and engaging strategies in their classroom?
In what way does AYP ranking affect teachers’ instructional practices? The other question that will be answered in the literature review and the study is whether (and in what ways) the teachers’ instructional practices have been affected by NCLB accountability policies.
Do teachers feel NCLB affects their abilities to infuse creative and engaging strategies in their classroom?
Many studies have been conducted on the effects of NCLB on operations in schools and the effects on students and their achievements. However, few of these researches investigate the effects that the teachers have experienced because of the same.
In most of the researches that are done on the effect of NCLB, some of the findings depict positive effects on the achievements by the students, with the most significant being in math (Dee & Jacob, 2011).
Despite these findings, it is unlikely that the laws affect the students only. Rather, they also have significant effects on their learning environment, especially their teachers. For sure, the accountability logic in the law suggests that schools find ways of improving students’ performance including the changing of how teachers approach teaching (Manna, 2011).
In support of the above postulations, some researchers have concluded that the NCLB has led to teachers spending more of their class time in teaching the major subjects such as math and/or looking for improved instructional strategies, but with reduced productivity (Kinniburgh, & Shaw, 2009).
The changes in the teaching practices, though meant to introduce positive productivity in the system, have also had some other effects on the teaching staff in the institutions. One of the effects that the teachers have experienced because of the heightened responsibility that is enforced by the law is the amplified sense of performance demands.
Despite this aspect of NCLB being a positive and wanted effect of the policy, a sustained performance pressure on teachers may have other unwanted effects on their performance. Increased and sustained performance pressure on teachers may lead to overwhelming stress and burnout feelings, especially if they perceive the laid down goals to be unattainable.
Some authors also state that when the material provided under the NCLB tends to focus on one part or make teachers focus on specific students contrary to the teacher’s professional judgment, they may experience some form of internal conflict, emotional exhaustion, and frustration (Berryhill, Linney, & Fromewick, 2009).
When teachers are unable to control the knowledge they infuse into students, they also develop a feeling of failure, which may be embarrassing to them, thus serving to demoralize them further. Such has been the effect of NCLB on the performance of some of the teachers.
A combination of the effects of such feelings and the normal daily stresses of teaching may be significant enough to frustrate the teachers and reduce their professional output. Evidence suggests that the concern raised above is a significant cause of concern in the learning institutions. Researchers in the recent years have set to investigate the scope of the problem and the likely recommendations to alter it.
Some newspapers, magazines, and other print media sources have quoted some of the teachers frustrated by the laws in their teaching practice. NCLB is a major cause of the frustration. Some of the negative sentiments that teachers have expressed over the NCLB are evident, with some claiming that they are embittered and that they find their work joyless under the legislation.
Most of the teachers are familiar with the frustrations caused by the NCLB. Most of them are only compelled to work with it due to the frequent use and adaptation that they have had to go through with time.
Some of the researchers claimed that teachers’ frustration is based on the judgment they get under the act. According to them, this mode of judgment is unfair. They have frequently expressed concern that they are judged based on factors that are well out of their control, with this often taking an unfair path (Hefling, 2012).
Teachers’ unions across the country have also added their voice to the issue. They support the teaching staff over the matter. Their reasoning is similar to that of teachers. How does the NCLB affect teachers and their abilities to infuse creative and engaging strategies in their classroom, and what are their feelings on the same?
Surveys have been conducted in the past to find out the answers to this question, with teachers actively participating in them. In some of these surveys, findings have supported the view that teachers view the NCLB as a hindrance to maximum performance at their workplace.
Most of the teachers in the surveys have unfavorable views towards the NCLB, thus confirming the unfavorable views that they have constantly held about the legislation (Deniston & Gerrity, 2010).
Despite the numerous studies conducted in response to the expression of the teachers’ frustration over the legislation, most of the findings remain inconclusive. One of the major reasons for this and the unreliability that studies have been met with is the relatively small sample sizes that they have recruited in reaching their conclusion.
Thus, the impact of the NCLB on the attitudes that teachers hold on their jobs and working conditions is still a topic for research, with many gaps being left to be studied in the future research. The teacher turnover in the United States is relatively high. There is still no conclusive research relating the turnover to the strict NCLB that they have to contend with at the work place.
However, it is well known that the policy is driving good teachers from the teaching profession, with adverse effects of this being likely to hit the sector in the future. It is a well-known fact that teachers are a significant building block in the education sector.
As such, they also represent a formidable force in the formulation of policies in the area. It is because of their isolation from the policy making process that has led to policies that affect their careers such as NCLB to be implemented, with this causing the observed teacher turnover.
The accountability reforms introduced under NCLB have affected both students and teachers. It is only now that studies are being conducted on the NCLB’s effects on teachers’ attitudes. Some of the other effects of NCLB that have been studied include the resource reallocation and the achievements by students.
Most of the other studies have also focused on the effects of NCLB on the test scores in exams, which form a major measure of performance for the laws in the education sector (Hefling, 2012).With all these studies, the findings do not include the attitudes of teachers on the NCLB. Of interest is the satisfaction that they generate the job security and the resultant anxiety.
In the results of the limited studies conducted over these attitudes, there have been diverse findings, with most of the researches reporting a downbeat association between the responsibility enforced by the rules and the teachers’ feelings. An example of the findings is that the rules enforced by the authorities, with the NCLB being one of them, cause teachers to have a feeling of evaluation under standardized tests.
This case is a major cause of anxiety that could mean that most teachers prefer working under an environment with few if any rules, with the existing ones being about developing themselves and their careers.
In the findings above, the evidence supports the idea that the teachers are not satisfied under the NCLB. They feel that their abilities to infuse creative and engaging strategies in their classroom are being compromised.
Despite the introduction of accountability measures in the education sector in the Unites States and elsewhere, there is little observed change in the teaching and training of teachers despite them being the main parties affected by the legislation.
In the states where the laws are enforced and where the student populations are large, the average teacher experiences stress levels higher, with a marked breakdown from the unfortunate teachers. There are few motivators in the education sector.
The strict rules and accountability laws such as the NLCB have replaced this group. It remains to be seen concerning the negative long-term effects that these laws may have on the education sector.
Some of the other researchers with significant work on the topic include (Kinniburgh, & Shaw, 2009) whose research indicated that schools that did not manage to perform well as stipulated by the AYP had teachers who were frustrated by their work and/or were unwilling to make further contributions.
In general, a teacher is trained to make informed decisions on how to improve the performance of the students. This means that, whenever students are not performing as expected, the teacher adjusts the teaching practice to train pupils based on their weaknesses.
Those deemed weaker are given more time and practice to improve. With the introduction of the NCLB, teachers are limited in their decision-making and have to rely on the set guidelines to ensure they are followed to the letter.
Most of the reports that have internally been conducted in the education sector also indicate the burnout experienced by teachers under the NCLB, with this being a negative effect of the pressure they are subjected to.
In the research conducted both before and after the NCLB, teachers indicate a progressive loss of interest with the education sector, with the large number of them interviewed stating that their experiences have been different compared to when NCLB was inexistent.
These findings are also supported by literature detailing the effects of NCLB on teachers’ attitudes. They found a change in the teachers’ perception of the student and school cultures such as absenteeism.
The above literature supports the negative effects of NCLB on the ability of teachers to infuse creative and engaging strategies in their classrooms. However, other findings indicate that some of the teachers found the NCLB useful to them and schools in which they worked.
Some of the researchers include Dee and Jacob (2010) who reported that the teachers they interviewed believed that the NCLB had contributed to autonomy in their workplace and/or resulted in improved school performance.
In another study, teachers reported that the introduction of the NCLB has led to the improvement of their working conditions, with more and more students becoming involved in the class work working as a unit towards the attainment of common goals (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010, p. 461).
Across the United States, there has been increased school enrollment, with the performance being relatively constant over a period. However, proponents of the introduction of the NCLB state that the regulations originally in the education sector were more in the facilitation of completion of school rather than in the quality of students being trained by the institutions.
This position is however true for the NCLB. It is leading to the production of students and graduates who are ill equipped to serve in the current job market despite having high qualifications as per the educational standards. Teachers on the other hand manage to produce the right students as per the system, but get exhausted along the way because of the repetition that they have to encounter.
In most of the studies that have reported an increased positive performance in the country, the number of teachers who had worked before and after the introduction of NCLB seems higher than that of the first-time workers. This means that they may have a better experience than the latter. A factor of the NCLB that cannot be ignored is the significant relationship that has been shown with the job satisfaction and stress.
These are mainly in the teaching staff as indicated above. However, students have also displayed the same in the course of their learning under NCLB. The satisfaction of the teachers and students as well as the stress that teachers go through can be attributed to the NCLB in one way or the other, and hence a negative factor in the performance of pupils.
The literature therefore suggests that the introduction of the NCLB has had negative impacts on the teaching staff, with most of them being unable to discharge their duties to the maximum. Some of the negative effects that are mentioned include the increased pressure that they are expected to work in and the little motivation they get.
The few benefits of the NCLB that have been highlighted include the facilitation of autonomy and independence of teachers. Students have also experienced improved performance in their coursework. They have a better understanding of the major subjects such as math.
There is however, a lot to be researched to allow adequate answering of the question. Ample research should go towards the area. The next question that the research looks at is the effects that AYP ranking has on the instructional practices for teachers.
In what way does AYP ranking affect teachers’ instructional practices?
The act that brought into existence the NCLB stipulates that every state in the US should make plans for adequate yearly progress. The act also stipulates actions against the institutions and teachers who do not demonstrate progress towards the achievement of the above.
It has affected teachers and their practice. Some of the characteristics in the AYP include the emphasis on math and reading, with each of the students being proficient in them in the school year of 2013-14.
The requirements also entail teachers grouping the students into their respective demographic groups and/or ensuring that they achieve the targeted AYP, and hence the expected level by the year 2014. As stated above, the institutions that did not meet the requirements of the NCLB in the form of AYP were liable to corrective action if this exceeded the year 2014.
Since teachers have to work with the AYP in mind, this has various effects on their teaching, especially on their instructional practices. The measure applied in the AYP estimation uses the major subjects and student performance in these subjects.
Teachers are made to spend more time in them while ignoring other subjects. An example is mathematics where the NCLB has had a significant effect on its teaching and performance. Teachers from schools that do not make the AYP are increasingly under pressure to make students perform. Most of them end up using unconventional methods of teaching and instructional practices.
The use of AYP in NCLB was meant to make it a means of measuring the performance of institutions and the teaching staff. Despite the teachers experiencing increased pressure under the act, they also have an easy way of measuring their performance and using it to rank themselves in the country (Byrd-Blake et al., 2010, p. 461).
It was also expected that parents would use the AYP to put pressure on learning institutions where their children were in to ensure they got improved services. The proportion of parents who are aware of the existence of AYP is however not large. This means that it has not attracted them to make the institutions accountable.
The few parents with awareness however have made the teachers work extra harder, thus contributing to more pressure for them and their instructional practices (Chughati, & Perveen, 2013). The AYP ranking, despite being a wonderful way of quantifying the success in the implementation of the NCLB is increasingly making teachers change their instructional practices. This situation is affecting institutions in a negative way.
Some of the teachers have also opted to change schools or resign from the teaching practice based on the performance as per the AYP. The rest who have decided to stick to the system often encounter problems with compliance since it is harder to adjust their instructional practices.
The education system has benefited from the introduction of the AYP in a number of ways. Many states have set the expected AYP levels for the different cohorts of students. Despite these advances in the sector, little has been done on the side of the teaching staff, with the teaching instruments remaining stagnant.
The accountability measure, therefore, causes distress to teachers as they try to meet the standards in an area in which they are not trained (Chughati, & Perveen, 2013). The remuneration for the teaching staff is also not commensurate with the pressure that they get from working under the new accountability measures.
There is little motivation for them. A combination of these factors makes teaching under the NCLB less interesting, with the AYP having significant effects on the teachers’ instructional practices.
Has teachers’ instructional practices been affected by NCLB accountability policies?
Accountability policies in the teaching institutions and in the education sector in general have their roots several decades ago. They are described as having significant influence on the education sector over this period. Their role can be as old as over 50 years.
The introduction of tests as one of the means of measuring the performance of the various parts of the education sector and processes has ensured that the strategy is able to pick and assess students with special abilities with the aim of placing them in line with the vision of the country over the years (Sawchuk, 2010).
Some of the earliest of the tests used to compare and investigate the performance of the educational programs, the different schools, and the teaching staff include the Stanford Achievement Test that was set up in 1923.
The use of tests was later succeeded by the use of assessments as a measure of different elements of the education system, with the most historic one being the National Assessment of Educational Progress or (NEAP).
Some of the programs that followed include Title I, with the more recent being the NCLB Act, which came into being in 2001. All these accountability policies have had significant effects on teaching in the institutions of learning, and undoubtedly on the instructional practices for teachers.
Significant work has been conducted relating to the impact of accountability policies on the instructional practices. Earlier in the days, there was an advanced use of testing in the educational sector, and hence one of the reasons why researchers got interested on the effects it may have had on the instructional practices for teachers.
What effects does the use of accountability policies and especially testing and NCLB have on teaching? This question remains the pertinent concerning most of the works that were published during this period on the same topic. Some of the researchers documented positive effects of the policies on teaching, with some of the other researchers observing only negative effects.
In the positive findings, the researchers stated that the accountability measures put in place were helpful for teachers in aiding them to make positive changes to their instructional practices. With the initial studies done on the effects of the use of tests as accountability measures, teachers were able to influence their students based on the results of the tests.
This strategy also helped teachers to alter positively their instructional practices. Based on these tests too, they had access to the weaknesses and strengths of students. This means that they could influence this to make them better in the particular subjects.
The testing also allowed the teaching staff to establish the areas where students did not understand. The strategy allowed more time on the same. It also allowed them to adjust the curriculum according to the benefits of students, thus paving a way for more time for the important and difficult sections.
Teachers could also use these to give feedback to the policy makers and the effectiveness of the measures on the ground together with the changes that needed to be effected as a matter of urgency. Teachers were instrumental in the improvement of instruction in the education sector. This was only possible through the various accountability measures put in place in the sector.
Another positive influence that the accountability policies have had on the teaching instructions is the continued contribution from both the teacher and students to the sector. The testing used as a measure of accountability and policy was also useful in measuring the performance of students and therefore a means of establishing the success of the teaching system used.
In his work, he reports how teachers in the state of Washington used test results to model the instructions. Teachers got it from the new curriculum, which had been brought about by the same kind of work (1998).
Despite the above number of positive findings, several research publications highlight the negative impacts that accountability policies have on the teachers’ instructional practices. Few research studies exist that have detailed the impact of NCLB on the teaching instructional practices in schools that are originally classified as Title I (Spohn, 2008).
However, the selected studies in this area are resourceful as per the instructional practices in these schools. In most of these studies, the major findings are the negative effects of the accountability measures on teachers’ instructional practices (Spohn, 2008).
With the introduction of NCLB, most of the schools in the United States have devoted most of their time to the important subjects and the technical ones, with some of the rest being victims of the change in policy. This case has therefore generated a lot of criticism from various actors in the educational sector and elsewhere within and without the country.
An example of the suggested several negative effects of the accountability include a reduction in the instructional creativity, reduced coverage depth, and some students being unfairly suited in the system.
Some of the other negative findings associated with the accountability policies include the use of materials in the teaching process that were not adequately developmental to the students, a pace of learning that was also not appropriate, and the curriculum also suffered decreased flexibility and decreased scope.
Despite the curriculum being narrow as indicated above, it contained many topics, which resulted in overcrowding, with some of the topics being given a greater priority than others and being overemphasized.
Most of the teachers therefore spend most of time dealing with topics that they regard as being more important in relation to others. Hence, some of the subjects are ignored. This has an overall negative effect on students, as they are not mounded into all-rounded people that the education system ironically demands.
Most of the teachers also experienced reduced pleasure in teaching because of the introduction of these accountability measures. In the selection of courses, many of the people who chose to study education science to become teachers did it because of family tradition, the opportunities in this sector, or because of satisfaction that they would get out of this career.
The introduction of the accountability policies such as NCLB however means that they can no longer enjoy the career they once cared for. This claim is one of the reasons for the high turnover rate in the profession, with teachers getting increasingly frustrated with the terms of engagement. In the near future, this case is likely to create a crisis as the number of teachers being trained reduces while those in practice quit their jobs.
Some of the teachers, if not most of them, had developed effective and innovative methods of teaching before the introduction of accountability policies. The introduction of accountability policies such as the NCLB means that these teachers cannot use these methods any more. They have to adapt to the new curriculum, which they describe as lockset only relying on improved tested skills.
There are also costs incurred in the above policies, which have contributed towards making the cost of education higher than expected. Teachers’ instructional practices have therefore been affected both positively and negatively by the NCLB accountability policies.
Positive effects of NCLB
A number of studies have been conducted detailing the positive and negative effects of NCLB, with some being stated above. In this section, a detailed account of some of the studies done on the positive effects of the same will be made. Researchers focused on different parts of the Act in their studies. An example of the said studies is the one by Jennings and Corcoran, (2009), and Dee and Jacob (2010).
Jennings and Corcoran (2009) used the common method to demonstrate the purpose of their study, which was to evaluate the effect of the policy using students from various schools as participants. Test scores from the participating students were used in this study as a measure and proof of the changes in the respective subjects brought about by the policy changes.
A major finding especially in the subject of Math is that NCLB has had significant improvement among the concerned students. The observed improvement in the subjects was considerable, with the researchers stating that the Act ensured the technical subjects are allocated more time in school and that the teaching staff members give adequate time for the same.
The other study done by Dee and Jacob (2011) also used test scores in the various subjects to prove the changes that have been brought about by the NCLB. In the study, they stated their main purpose of doing the study was to evaluate the impact of No Child Left Behind on students’ achievement in the various institutions around the different regions of the country. The study also used students from the said institutions as participants.
Test scores in Math were the main means of measuring these effects (Dee & Jacob, 2011). Compared to the finding by Jennings and Corcoran, Dee and Jacob established that the act had recorded a significant improvement in majorly the technical subjects with math recording the highest benefit of the policy (2011).
A combination of these studies proves that the application of the NCLB policy was a timely and important measure that the government and other stakeholders implemented in the education sector. Among other effects that the two studies focused on as a measure of success of the policy is the mean time spent in the various units and subjects before and after the policy.
Another of the studies that found a positive utility of the NCLB policy in schools assessed was by Ravitch (2009). The purpose of the study was to analyze NCLB policy in the form of productivity of schools both in the form of the teaching staff and the students’ achievement. As suggested, the participants in this study were teaching staff and the students.
Despite this study applying different means of measuring the success of the policy compared to the above listed studies, the researchers proved that the NCLB had resulted to improved accountability for the teaching staff and improved success in the side of the students. Teachers were found to have devoted more time allocated to the various subjects in the teaching of the technical subjects, and hence the recorded improvement.
The above studies positively criticize the NCLB policy and the effects it has had on the teaching and learning in institutions. The similarity is that they all base their measures of success on students’ output, with most of them disregarding other factors such as the staff turnover associated with the policy.
Some other studies, however, focused on the negative effects that the NCLB has had on the learning institutions, the staff, as well as students. Most of them had negative criticism, with most concluding the negative utility of the same. Studies done depicting the negative effects of the NCLB have mainly been focused on the teaching staff and the effects that the policies have had on them.
One such example is the study by Berryhill, Linney, and Fromewick (2009) whose purpose was to spell out some of the effects that teachers have had to deal with since the inception of NCLB. The authors used teachers as the participants.
These researchers proved that teachers had an increased level of stress associated directly to the policy. They reported exhaustion from working under the conditions provided in it. They also had an increased frustration with a resultant high turnover of these pillars of the education system.
The same negative effects of the NCLB were also observed by Santoro (2011) whose purpose was to investigate the teaching practices under the NCLB and the effects that it had on the teaching staff. As Santoro proved, the Act provided for the labeling of schools as either successful or failing based on the expected performance under NCLB. Teachers and students were the participants. The author focused on schools that were labeled as failing.
These schools were reported to have higher levels of stress, with this outcome negatively affecting their performance and studies respectively (Santoro, 2011). This study also demonstrates the negative effects of the policy and the negative perception that teachers have on it.
Ladd conducted a study whose purpose was to present the effects of NCLB and the perception of teachers. He managed to get some negative effects of the policy on the teaching staff (Ladd, 2011). The study that used teachers from government institutions as participants proved that the teachers working for the government and hence under the policy demonstrated impatience and lack of satisfaction and self-fulfillment (Ladd, 2011).
The study suggested that the implementation of the policy had influenced studying in the learning institutions. This revelation was also a negative effect of the output compared to the private institutions.
Winstead (2011) conducted a cross-sectional study with the purpose of finding out the effect of NCLB and responsibility of social studies. “A group of teachers—eight females and one male—participated in this study at a large urban university in southern California” (Winstead, 2011, p. 223).
Their findings included the conclusion that the effects were less in relation to the expectations in the states where NCLB is under strict application. Winstead proved, “NCLB-dictated subject matter focus and dominance in schools” (2011, p.223). The training of teachers and instructors in the emphasized subjects took place before the implementation of the Act.
Once it came into effect, most of them were unable to integrate this useful tool into the daily learning of students. The result is the poor efficacy of the tools. The Act has also been misused in the past, thus creating a negative attitude among people who are responsible for its implementation.
Bloxham and Boyd (2012) also conducted a similar study on the development and implementation of curriculum in the presence of the NCLB. The study’s purpose was to investigate how the education sector is accountable when handling students’ marks. The study used “12 academic tutors from two post-1992 universities in England” (Bloxham & Boyd, 2012, p. 622).
The findings proved the aspect of accountability in terms of implementing NCLB hence putting blame on the policies that contribute to the withering of gains in the education sector. As Bloxham and Boyd prove, “Accountability appears to be viewed by some in a competitive or anxious way” (2012, p. 623). A number of schools were sampled in this study, with most of them being useful in the conclusion making.
A similar study conducted on job stress also stated that a major contributor of the work-related stress for teachers is the implementation of the NCLB that enables them to work at more pressure (Noblett, & Rodwell, 2009). The strain on teachers may be attributable to a number of policies in the education sector. Some of the more commonly attributed ones include the NCLB and the Common Core.
Common Core
Common Core State Standards were meant to improve the performance of students in schools around the country in the scientific subjects, and in mathematics in particular. The implementation of the standards had a close effect to that of the NCLB policy. There are studies done detailing the performance of the measure against the expected results and the purpose for which it was created.
One of the literatures detailing the success of the Common Core standards in the local classrooms is the work of Kinniburgh, and Shaw (2009) whose purpose was to establish whether there was any relationship between the performance of students and the Common Core standards.
The study consisting of over 50-student participants used the test scores and evaluated the performance in science subjects against the benchmark. Among the policies under study were the Common Core principles.
The authors proved that these principles were found to have a significant contribution to the performance of these students. In their work, the researchers came across some recorded improvement in the subject of Math that was attributable to the Common Core principles.
Other researchers also found a direct relationship between the positive and improved performance of the listed subjects and the Common Core. Ewing conducted a survey whose purpose was to test the effectiveness of the Common Core standards in the learning and teaching of math in schools in and around the state (2010) using both teachers and students as participants.
The author proved that the implementation of Common Core has added advantages for both the teaching fraternity and students in that it ensures that they are able to plan and form objectives for their study. Teachers had the challenge of effective study methods. With the implementation of the Common Core, the output was recorded to increase with subsequent better performance.
Manos (2009) on the other hand used a different assessment criterion for the Common Core principles with the purpose of showing their effect on the curriculum, especially on higher education around the country with the utilization of teaching staff.
Upon using staff members from various institutions as participants, his findings, however, proved those of the previous two studies indicating a positive effect of the policy on students’ performance. The result of the study was a recommendation to the use of the policies in institutions of learning as they were found to be beneficial.
Therefore, the serious follow-up and implementation of all the aspect that it constitutes are likely to have positive effects on the education system. The major effect will be improved performance and a resultant general improvement in the level of population qualification.
Despite the researchers above indicating the positive effects of the Common Core, there are those who observed other detrimental effects and unwanted interference with students’ performance. They explored in details the effects of the policies on the average student’s performance using students as participants by involving the comparison of their expected results with the available output.
Phillips and Wong were some of the researchers who did studies with the purpose of establishing the effects of common Core principles on learning, only to deduce negative impacts of the same on the education system (2010).
In their work, they were able to prove that even with the considerable time that the standards have been in place in most of the states, difficulties were evident in their implementation and follow-through, with the bulk of the institutions recording some poor results in the main subjects as compared to what is expected.
The study utilized various schools as participants. The main aim was to establish the utility of Common Core standards in learning institutions.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the policies applied in the education sector have both a positive and negative side. Although they are implemented to oversee improved performance in some of the technical subjects, these policies have eroded some of the gains that had been realized in other subjects and in education as a whole.
NCLB principle has been a source of improved performance for students, just as it has been witnessed with the Common Core. However, these principles have several weaknesses as detailed in the paper based on the works of various researchers.
Reference List
Berryhill, J., Linney, A., & Fromewick, J. (2009). The effects of education accountability on teachers: Are policies too stress provoking for their own good? International Journal of Education Policy & Leadership, 4(5), 1-14.
Bloxham, S., & Boyd, P. (2012). Accountability in grading student work: securing academic standards in a twenty-first century quality assurance context. British Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 615-634. Web.
Byrd-Blake, M., Afolayan, O., Hunt, W., Fabunmi, M., Pryor, W., & Leander, R. (2010). Morale of teachers in high poverty schools: A post-NCLB mixed methods analysis. Education and Urban Society, 42(4), 450-472.
Chughati, D., & Perveen, U. (2013).A study of Teachers’ Workload and job Satisfaction in Public and Private Schools at Secondary Level in Lahore City Pakistan. Asian Journal of Social Sciences & Humanities, 2(1), 1-13.
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2010). The impact of no child left behind on students, teachers, and schools. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 41(2), 149-207.
Dee, T., & Jacob, B. (2011). The impact of no child left behind on student achievement. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446.
Deniston, D., & Gerrity, W. (2010). Elementary school teachers’ perceptions of no child left behind and its effect on morale. Scholarly Partnerships, 5(2), 4.
Ewing, J. (2010). The Common Core Math Standards: Implications for Teacher Preparation. Web.
Hefling, K. (2012). Education law’s promise falls short after 10years. New York: Associated Press.
Jennings, L., & Corcoran, P. (2009). Beware of geeks bearing formulas. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 635-640. Web.
Kinniburgh, L., & Shaw, L. (2009). Using question-answer relationships to build: Reading comprehension in science. Science Activities, 45(4), 19 -28. Web.
Ladd, F. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of their working conditions: How predictive of planned and actual teacher movement? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(2), 235-261.
Manna, P. (2011).Education: Federal government programs and issues. Oxford Bibliographies. New York: Oxford University Press.
Manos, A. (2009). Opt to take an active role in your child’s education. Phi Kappa Phi Forum, 89(1), 22-23. Web.
Nichols, S. L. & Berliner, D.C. (2008, March).Testing the joy out of learning. Educational Leadership, 65(6), 14-18.
Noblett, J. & Rodwell, J. (2009). Integrating job stress and social exchange theories to predict employee strain in reformed public sector contexts. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(3), 555-578.
Phillips, V., & Wong, C. (2010). Tying together the common core of standards, instruction and assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 91(5), 37-42. Web.
Ravitch, D. (2009). Time to kill ‘no child left behind. Education Digest, 75(1), 4-6. Web.
Santoro, A. (2011). Good teaching in difficult times: Demoralization in the pursuit of good work. American Journal of Education, 118(1), 1-23.
Sawchuk, S. (2010). Teaching, curricular challenges looming; Quality Counts 2010. Education Week, 29(17), 19. Web.
Spohn, C. (2008). Teacher perspectives on No Child Left Behind and arts education: A case study. Arts Education Policy Review, 109(4), 3-12.
Winstead, L. (2011). The Impact of NCLB and Accountability on Social Studies: Teacher Experiences and Perceptions about Teaching Social Studies. The Social Science, 182(1), 221-7. Web.