The No Child Behind the Act 2001 ( NCLB ) is the US Congress Act authorizing the Basic and Intermediate Education Act; it includes provisions of Title I that apply to disadvantaged students. It supports standards-based education reform based on the premise that setting high standards and setting measurable goals can improve individual outcomes in education. The law requires states to develop assessments in basic skills. To receive federal school funding, the state must provide this assessment to all students at a certain grade level.
It does not affirm national performance standards - each country develops its own standards. NCLB expands the federal role in public education through further emphasis on annual testing, annual academic progress, report cards, and teacher qualifications, as well as significant changes in funding.
The bill was passed in Congress with bipartisan support. By 2015, critics from the right, left, and center have gathered so much that the bipartisan Congress disarmed the national features of No Child Left Behind. His successor, Act Act Every Student, converts his remains to the state.
Video No Child Left Behind Act
Legislative history
It was coauthored by Representatives of John Boehner (R-OH), George Miller (D-CA), and Senator Edward Kennedy (D-MA) and Judd Gregg (R-NH). The United States House of Representatives passed the bill on 13 December 2001 (election 381-41), and the US Senate passed it on December 18, 2001 (vote election 87-10). President Bush signed it into law on January 8, 2002.
Maps No Child Left Behind Act
Terms of action
No Left Children Behind requires all public schools receive federal funds to manage standard tests across the country each year for all students. Schools receiving Title I funding through the Basic and Secondary Education Act of 1965 should make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in the test scores (eg annually, fifth graders should perform better on standardized tests than in the fifth grade of the previous year).
If school outcomes are repeatedly poor, then steps are taken to improve schools.
- Schools that lost AYP for the second consecutive year were publicly labeled "Needs Improvement", and had to develop a two-year improvement plan for the subject that the school did not teach well. Students have the option to move to a better school in the school district, if any.
- Loss of AYP in the third year forces schools to offer free tutoring and other educational services to struggling students.
- If a school missed its AYP target for four consecutive years, the school is labeled as requiring "corrective action," which may involve massive staff replacement, introduction of a new curriculum, or extend the amount of time students spend in the classroom.
- Five years of failure resulted in planning to restructure the entire school; the plan is implemented if the school fails to achieve the AYP target for the sixth year in a row. Common options include closing schools, turning schools into charter schools, hiring private companies to run schools, or asking the state education office to run schools directly.
The State shall create the AYP goals consistent with the following legal requirements:
- Countries should develop measurable AYP statewide objectives for better achievement by all students and for specific groups: economically disadvantaged students, students with disabilities, and students with limited English language skills.
- Goals should be set with the goal of having all students at the advanced level or above in 12 years (ie at the end of 2013-14 academic year).
- AYP should be based on country appraisal, but should also include one additional academic indicator.
- AYP goals should be assessed at the school level. Schools that failed to meet their AYP goals for two consecutive years were identified for improvement.
- School AYP results should be reported separately for each group of students identified above so that it can be determined whether each group of students meets the AYP goals.
- At least 95% of each group must participate in country appraisals.
- Countries may collect up to three years of data in making AYP determinations.
The law requires states to provide "high-qualified" teachers for all students. Each country sets its own standards for what is considered "high quality." Likewise, the law requires states to set "a high standard and challenge" to their students. Each country decides on its own what is considered "a high standard, challenging," but curriculum standards should be applied to all students, rather than having different standards for students in different cities or other parts of the country.
The law also requires schools to allow military recruiters to have student contact information and other access to students, if the school provides that information to the university or employer, unless students choose not to grant access to military recruiters. This part of the law has invited a lot of criticism and has even led to political resistance. For example, in 2003 in Santa Cruz, California, student-led efforts forced school districts to make "vote" policies that required students to affirm that they wanted the military to have their information. This successful student organizing effort was copied in various cities across the United States.
Effects on teachers, schools, and school districts
Increased accountability
NCLB supporters claim one of the positive points of the bill is the increased accountability that schools and teachers need. By law, schools must pass annual tests that assess student upgrades during the fiscal year. This annual standard test is the primary means to determine whether the school meets the required standards. If the necessary improvements are not made, the school faces funding and other penalties that contribute to increased accountability. According to supporters, this goal helps teachers and schools realize the importance and importance of the education system and how it affects the nation. Opponents of this law say that punishment only hurts schools and does not contribute to improving student education.
In addition to and supporting the above points, proponents claim that No Child Left Behind:
- Associate the country's academic content standards with student results
- Measuring student performance: students' progress in reading and math should be measured annually in grades 3 through 8 and at least once during high school through standardized tests
- Provide information for parents by requiring state and school districts to provide parents with detailed report cards of schools and districts explaining the performance of school AYP; schools should notify parents when their children are taught by teachers or professionals who do not meet the "high-qualified" requirements
- Setting the foundation for schools and school districts to significantly increase parental involvement and improve administration through the use of assessment data to drive decisions about instruction, curricula and business practices
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has proposed binding teacher salaries to test scores. If a district student is doing poorly, the state cuts the district budget the following year and teachers get a pay cut. Critics point out that if schools are unsuccessful, reducing their budgets and cutting teacher salaries is likely to hamper the ability of schools to increase.
School options
- Provide an option to students enrolled in schools that do not meet AYP. If schools fail to meet AYP targets for two or more years, schools should offer opportunities for eligible children to move to a high-performing local school, receive free tutoring, or attend a program after school.
- Provide school districts with the opportunity to demonstrate proficiency, even for subgroups that do not meet State Minimum Achievement standards, through a process called "safe harbor", the predecessor of growth-based or value-added valuations.
The narrow definition of research
This action requires schools to rely on scientific-based research for teaching programs and methods. This law defines this as "a study involving the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid and valid knowledge relevant to educational activities and programs." Scientific-based research produces "replicable and applicable findings" from research using appropriate methods to generate persuasive empirical conclusions.
Teacher quality and distribution
Prior to the NCLB action, new teachers are usually required to have a bachelor's degree, be fully certified, and demonstrate subject knowledge - generally through the test. It has been widely accepted that teacher knowledge has two components: specific subject knowledge (CK) such as mathematical understanding for mathematics teachers, and pedagogical knowledge (PCK), which is knowledge of the subject of teaching/learning itself. Both types of knowledge, as well as experience in guided student instruction, help shape the qualities needed by effective teachers.
Under NCLB, existing teachers - including those with a tenure - must also meet the standards. They can fulfill the same requirements set for new teachers or can meet the country's "high, objective, uniform" state, standard evaluation standard, aka HOUSSE. Falling requirements for the quality of NCLB legislation have received little research attention, in part because state regulations require some changes from pre-existing practices. There is also little evidence that the rules have changed trends in the observable nature of teachers. Over the years, American educators have struggled to identify the qualities of teachers who are important contributors to student achievement. Unfortunately, there is no consensus on what qualities are most important and most education policy experts agree that more research is needed.
Effects on student ratings
Some analysis of state accountability systems that existed prior to NCLB demonstrated that results accountability led to faster growth in achievement for the countries that introduced the system. Direct analysis of the state test scores before and after the enactment of NCLB also supports its positive impact. A major criticism confirms that NCLB reduces effective teaching and student learning by causing countries to achieve lower goals and motivate teachers to "teach for exams." The main support claims confirm that systematic testing provides data that explains which schools do not teach basic skills effectively, so that interventions can be made to improve outcomes for all students while reducing performance gaps for disadvantaged and disabled students.
Improved test scores
The Ministry of Education shows the results of the National Assessment of Progress of Education (NAEP), released in July 2005, showing improved student achievement in reading and math:
- More progress has been made by nine-year-olds reading in the last five years than the combined 28 years before.
- The nine-year-olds from America recorded the best scores in reading (since 1971) and mathematics (since 1973) in the history of the report. The 13-year-old boy in America earned the highest mathematical score ever recorded.
- The nine-year old black and Hispanic reading and math score reached the highest point of all time.
- The achievement gap in reading and math between black and white teenagers and nine-year-old black and white teens and nine-year-old Hispanics is at an all-time low.
- Forty-three states and the District of Columbia increase academically or remain stable in all categories (fourth and eighth grade readings and fourth and eighth grade maths).
These statistics compare 2005 to 2000 when No Child Left Behind did not even apply until 2003. They point out that the score increase between 2000 and 2005 was more or less the same as the increase between 2003 and 2005, which questioned how improvements could be attributed to No Child Left Behind. They also argue that some subgroups are cherry picked - that in other subgroup scores remains the same or decreases. Also, standardized test takers have been blamed for making the test easier making it easier for schools to simply improve.
Educational researchers Thomas Dee and Brian Jacob argue that NCLBs exhibit a statistically significant positive impact on student performance on fourth grade maths (equal to two-thirds of a year's growth), less statistically insignificant improvements in the 8th grade math test performance, and no improvement can be seen in reading performance.
Criticism of standard testing
Critics argue that focusing on standardized testing (all students in the state taking the same test under the same conditions) encourages teachers to teach a narrow subset of skills that school believes improves test performance, rather than achieving an in-depth understanding of the entire curriculum. For example, a teacher who knows that all the questions on a math test is a simple addition problem (eg, What is 2 3?) Probably not investing class time on additional practical apps, to leave more time for test grade material. This colloquial is referred to as "teaching for exams." "Teaching for exams" has been observed to increase test scores, although not as much as other teaching techniques.
Many teachers who practice "teaching for exams" misinterpret the results of test education designed to be measured. In two state tests, New York and Michigan, and the National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) nearly two thirds of eighth graders miss mathematical problems requiring Pythagorean theorem apps to calculate the distance between two points. The teachers correctly anticipate the content of the test, but incorrectly assume each test will present a simpler item than the higher item.
Another problem is that outside influences often affect student performance. Students who struggle to take the test can work well using other learning methods such as project-based learning. Sometimes, factors such as home life can affect test performance. Basing everything on one test does not accurately measure the student's overall success. No Disadvantaged Child fails to take into account all these factors. [5]
Those who oppose the use of testing to determine educational achievement prefer alternatives such as subjective teacher opinions, class assignments, and performance-based assessments.
Under No Child Left Behind, schools are held almost exclusively responsible for the absolute level of student performance. But that means that even schools that make big strides with students are still labeled as "failing" simply because students have not yet reached an "advanced" level of achievement. Since 2005, the US Department of Education has approved 15 states to implement a pilot growth model. Each country adopts one of four different growth models: Trajectory, Transition Table, Percentage of Student Growth, and Projection.
Incentives for improvement can also cause the state to lower their official standards. Since each country can produce its own standardized tests, a country can make statewide tests easier to improve scores. Missouri, for example, increased the test scores but publicly admitted that they lowered the standards. A 2007 study by the US Department of Education showed that the differences observed in state reported scores were largely due to differences in their standard stiffness.
Effects that are meant for the curriculum and standards
Upgrade to local standards
Many argue that local governments have failed students, requiring federal intervention to correct problems such as teachers teaching outside of their field of expertise, and complacency in the face of failing schools. Some local governments, notably the state of New York, have supported the NCLB provision, as local standards fail to provide adequate supervision of special education, and NCLB will let them use more effective longitudinal data to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Countries across the United States have shown an improvement in their progress as a tangible outcome of NCLB. For example, Wisconsin ranks first in fifty states plus the District of Columbia, with ninety-eight percent of its schools achieving the No Child Left Behind standard.
Education quality
- Improving the quality of education by requiring schools to improve their performance
- Improving the quality of teaching by requiring schools to implement "scientifically based" research practices in the classroom, parent involvement programs, and professional development activities for students who are not encouraged or expected to attend college.
- Support early literacy through the Early Reading First initiative.
- Emphasizing reading, language art, math, and science achievement as "core academic subjects."
Students' achievements in other subjects (other than reading and math) will be measured as part of the overall progress.
Effect on art and choice
NCLB's main focus is on reading, writing, and math skills, which are areas related to economic success. Combined with the budget crisis at the end of 2000 recession, some schools have cut or eliminated classes and resources for many subject areas that are not part of NCLB accountability standards. Since 2007, nearly 71% of schools have reduced instruction time in subjects such as history, art, language, and music to provide more time and resources for math and English.
In some schools, classes are still available, but individual students who are not proficient in basic skills are sent to reading or math reading classes rather than arts, sports, or other elective subjects.
According to Paul Reville, author of "Stop Narrowing the Curriculum with the Right School Time," teachers are learning that students need more time to excel in "needed" subjects. The students need more time to achieve the basic goal that should come with somewhat relevant to a student.
Physical education, on the other hand, is one of the most unaffected subjects. Some may find this confusing because like many choices and non-core classes, No Child Left Behind does not discuss Physical Education directly. Two reasons why Physical Education is not affected include the obesity crisis in the United States that the federal government tries to reverse through programs such as Let's Move Campaign First Lady Michelle Obama, which among others looks at improving the quantity and quality of physical education. Secondly, there is research, including a 2005 study by Dr. Charles H. Hillmam of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign who concluded that fitness globally is associated with academic achievement.
Opportunities, challenges, and risks No Left Child Behind posing for science education in primary and secondary schools - competitions around the world insist on improving science education quickly. Adding a science assessment to NCLB requirements can ultimately result in the science taught in more elementary schools and by more teachers than ever before. 2/3 elementary school teachers show that they are not familiar with national science standards. Most worries circulate around the result, spending too much time on language arts and math can limit the children's experience - and curiosity and interest - in science.
Limitations on local control
Both US conservative and liberal critics argue that the new NCLB standard in federalizing education sets a negative precedent for further erosion of state and local control. Libertarian further argues that the federal government has no constitutional authority in education, which is why participation in NCLB is technically optional. They believe that countries do not have to comply with NCLB as long as they cancel federal funding that comes with it.
Effects in schools and students
Gifted students
NCLB is pressuring schools to ensure that almost all students meet the minimum skill level (defined by each state) in reading, writing, and arithmetic - but require nothing beyond this minima. There is no incentive to improve student achievement beyond the minimum. Programs that are not essential to achieving a minimum skill mandate are ignored or canceled by the district.
In particular, NCLB does not require a program for gifted, talented, and other high performing students. The federal funding of gifted education decreased by one-third during the first five years of law. There is only one program, which helps improve talent, they receive $ 9.6 million. In the 2007 budget, President George W. Bush focused on this. While NCLB is silent on the education of gifted academic students, some countries (such as Arizona, California, Virginia, and Pennsylvania) require schools to identify gifted students and provide them with appropriate education, including classroom upgrading. Research tells us that IQ 120 is needed. In other states, such as Michigan, state funding for gifted and talented programs is cut by 90% in the year after the law becomes law.
Unrealistic destination
"There's a mistake in the law and everybody knows that," said Alabama State Superintendent Joe Morton on Wednesday, August 11, 2010. According to Law No Child Left Behind, in 2014, every child should test grade levels in reading and math. "That's impossible," said Morton. "You have too many variables and you have too many scenarios, and everyone knows it will never happen." Alabama State Council Member Mary Jane Caylor said, "I do not think that No Child Left Behind has benefited this country." He argues that the goal of 100 percent proficiency can not be achieved. Charles Murray wrote the law: "The United States Congress, acting with a large majority of bipartisan, at the insistence of the President, is enacted as a state law that all children are above average."
Play the system
The incentive and penalty systems form a strong motivation for schools, districts, and states to manipulate test results. For example, schools have been shown to use "creative reclassification" of high school dropouts (to reduce unfavorable statistics). For example, at Sharpstown High School in Houston, Texas, more than 1,000 students start high school as freshmen, and four years later, fewer than 300 students are enrolled in the senior class. However, no "missing" students from Sharpstown High were reported as dropping out of school.
Variability in student potential and 100% compliance
This action is promoted because it requires 100% of students (including disadvantaged and special education students) in schools to achieve the same state standards in reading and math by 2014; critics allege that a 100% goal can not be achieved, and criticism of NCLB's requirements for "one standard, high-challenge" claims that some students simply can not perform at a given level for their age, no matter how effective teachers are. While statewide standards reduce education inequality between privileged and disadvantaged districts in a state, they still apply a "one size fits all" standard to each student. Particularly in high-standard states, schools may be penalized for not being able to dramatically improve student achievement that may have below average skills.
In fact, "all" in NCLB only means 95% of students, because states must report 95% student ratings when calculating an Adequate Yearly Advancement score (AYP). Students who have an Individual Education Plan (IEP) and who are assessed must receive the accommodation specified in the IEP during the assessment; if this accommodation does not change the nature of the assessment, then this student's score is calculated the same as the other student's score. Acceptable general changes include extended test times, quieter room testing, translation of mathematical problems into the student's native language, or allowing students to type in answers rather than writing them by hand.
Sufficiently classified as having special educational needs does not automatically relieve students of judgment. Most students with minor or physical disabilities take the same tests as non-disabled students.
In addition to not requiring 5% of students to be assessed at all, the rules let the school use an alternative assessment to state up to 1% of all students proficient for the purposes of the Act. The state is given wide discretion in choosing alternative judgments. For example, schools may receive an Advanced Placement test for English in place of state-written tests of English, and simplified tests for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Virginia VA Alternative Study Program (VAAP) and Virginia Level Level Alternatives (VGLA), for example, are portfolio assessments.
Organizations that support the NCLB assessment of disabled or limited English language proficiency students (LEP) say that inclusion ensures that shortcomings in the education of these disadvantaged students are identified and addressed. Opponents say that testing students with disabilities violates Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) by making students with disabilities learn the same material with non-disabled students.
Children with disabilities
NCLBs include incentives to reward schools that show progress for students with disabilities and other measures to improve or provide students with alternative options than schools that do not meet the needs of the disabled population. This law is written so that the score of students with IEP (Individual Educational Plan) and 504 plans are calculated just as other student scores are calculated. Schools argue against disabled populations who are involved in their AYP measurements because they claim that there are too many variables involved.
Syncing Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
Beginning with the Education for All Children Disability Act (EAHCA) 1975, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) were enacted in the first form in 1997, and then revived with new education aspects in 2006 (although still referred to as IDEA 2004). It keeps the EAHCA requirements of education free and accessible to all children. The official IDEA 2004 formula provides state grants and discretionary grants for research, technology and training. It also requires schools to use research-based interventions to help students with disabilities.
The amount of funds each school will receive from the "Local Education Service" for each year will be divided by the number of children with disabilities and multiplied by the number of students with disabilities participating in the school program.
Particularly since 2004, policymakers sought to align IDEA with NCLB. The most obvious alignment points include mutual requirements for High Qualified Teachers, for goal setting for students with special needs, and for the level of assessment for these students. In 2004, George Bush signed a decree that would determine for both of these actions what he considered a "highly qualified teacher."
Positive effects for students with disabilities
The National Council for Disability (NCD) looks at how NCLB and IDEA improve results for students with Down syndrome. The effects they investigate include reducing the number of students dropping out, increasing graduation rates, and effective strategies for the transition of students into post-secondary education. Their study has reported that NCLB and IDEA have changed attitudes and expectations for students with disabilities. They are glad that students are finally included in the state appraisal and accountability system. The NCLB assessment was made "seriously," they found, because now assessments and accommodation are being reviewed by administrators.
Another organization that found a positive correlation between NCLB and IDEA is the National Center for Educational Outcomes. It publishes brochures for parents of students with disabilities on how both (NCLB & IDEA) work well together because they "provide individualized instruction and school accountability for students and disabled." They specifically highlighted the new focus on "shared responsibility of general and special education teachers," forcing schools to have more disabled students on their radar. "They acknowledge, however, that for each student to" participate in the general curriculum [high standards for all students] and make progress toward proficiency, "additional time and effort for coordination is required.The National Center for Educational Results reports that now students with disabilities will receive "... the academic attention and the resources they deserve. "
Special research has been done about how the law affects students who are deaf or deaf. First, the law makes schools accountable for how students with disability scores - emphasizing "... student outcomes instead of placements." It also places the public eye on how external programs can be utilized to improve the outcomes for these underserved populations, and thus encourages more research on the effectiveness of specific off-site and off-school interventions. For example, the NCLB requirement has made the researchers begin to study the effects of reading aloud or translators on both the reading and math scores, and on having students sign the responses which are then recorded by scribes.
However, research so far on the positive effects of NCLB/IDEA is limited. It is aimed at young students in an effort to find strategies to help them learn to read. The evaluation also includes a limited number of students, which makes it very difficult to draw conclusions to a wider group. Evaluation also focuses only on one type of disability.
Negative effects for students with disabilities
The National Council for Persons with Disabilities has reservations about how the NCLB regulations comply with the IDEA provisions. One concern is how schools can effectively intervene and develop strategies when NCLB demands group accountability rather than individual student attention. IDEA Individual Properties "is inconsistent with the nature of the NCLB group." They fear that NCLB is too focused on testing standards and not enough on the work-based experience necessary to get jobs in the future. Also, NCLB is measured basically by a single test score, but IDEA calls for different measures of student success.
IDEA's focus on various sizes comes from its foundation in Individual Educational Plans for students with disabilities (IEP). The IEP is designed to provide students with defective target individuals who are often not at their grade level. The IEP is intended to "develop goals and objectives that meet the needs of students, and ultimately choose placements in the least possible environments for students." Under the IEP, students may legally have lower success criteria for academic success.
The 2006 report by the Center for Evaluation and Policy Education (CEEP) and the Indiana Institute of Disability and Community shows that most states do not make AYPs because of the special education sub-group even though progress has been made to achieve that goal. This basically encourages schools to abandon inclusion models and make special education students separate. "IDEA calls for individual curricula and assessments that determine success based on growth and improvement each year.The NCLB, by contrast, measures all students with the same markers, which are not based on individual enhancement but by proficiency in mathematics and reading," the study states. When interviewed with Indiana University Newsroom, CEEP report writer Sandi Cole said, "This system needs to be reasonable Do we not want to know how much a child is progressing toward the standards?... We need systems that value learning and growth over time, in addition to helping students achieve high standards. "Cole found in his survey that NCLB encourages teachers to teach for tests, limit curriculum choices/options, and use special education students as" scapegoats "for their schools do not make AYP. In addition, Indiana administrators who responded to the survey showed that NCLB testing has led to a higher number of students with disabilities dropping out of school.
The legal journals also comment on the discrepancies of IDEA and NCLB; some people say that the act should not be reconciled with each other. They point out that the IEP is specifically designed for individual student achievement, which entitles parents to ensure that schools follow the required protocols of FAPE. They worry that not enough emphasis is placed on the child's IEP with this arrangement. In the Board of Education for Ottawa Township High School District 140 v. Spelling, two Illinois school districts and disabled students' parents challenge the legality of the NCLB testing requirements in light of IDEA's mandate to provide students with individualized education. Although students there are in line with "proficiency" for state standards, students do not meet their IEP requirements. Their parents fear that students are not given the right to FAPE. This case asks which progress is better: standard measurement, or IEP steps? It concludes that since some students may never test at class level, all students with disabilities should be given more options and accommodation with standardized testing than they currently receive.
Effects on racial and ethnic minority students
Attention to minority population
- Strives to narrow the class gap and race gap in the United States by creating a common hope for all. NCLB has shown mixed success in eliminating racial attachment gaps. Although the test scores increased, they did not increase equally for all races, which meant that minority students were still left behind.
- Need schools and districts to focus their attention on academically achieving traditionally under-served children groups, such as low-income students, disabled students, and students of "major racial and ethnic subgroups". Each country is responsible for defining the major racial and ethnic subgroups themselves. Many state-made accountability systems only measure average school performance - so schools can be highly valued even if they have large achievement gaps between rich and disadvantaged students.
Country disclaimer to generate non-English assessment
All students who are studying English will have an automatic three-year window to take judgments in their native language, after which they usually have to demonstrate proficiency in an English assessment. However, local education authorities may make exceptions for each individual English learner for a two year test in his native language on a case-by-case basis.
In practice, however, only 10 countries choose to test every English learner in their native language (almost all Spanish speakers). Most English learners are given an English grade assessment.
Many schools test or grade students with limited English skills even when students are released from NCLB-mandated reporting, as tests can provide useful information to teachers and schools. In certain schools with large immigrant populations, this exclusion consists of the majority of young students.
Testing of NCLB under-study reports in immersion schools that do not speak English, especially those immersing students in Native American languages. NCLB requires some Native American students to take standardized tests in English. In other cases, students may be legally tested in their native language, except that the state has not paid for the test to be translated.
Demographic study of AYP failure rates and requirements for failed schools
One study found that schools in California and Illinois who have not met the AYP serve 75-85% of minority students while schools that meet AYP have less than 40% minority students. Schools that do not meet the AYP are required to offer their students parents the opportunity to transfer their students to schools that do not fail within the district, but it is not necessary that other schools accept students. NCLB controls part of the federal Title I funding based on each standard set of standard school meetings. Any participating school that does not make sufficient Yearly Progress (AYP) for two years should offer the chosen parent to send their child to a non-failing school in the district, and after three years, must provide additional services, such as free tutoring or assistance after school. After five years of not meeting the AYP, schools must make dramatic changes to how schools are run, which could mean a state takeover.
Funding
As part of their support for NCLB, administration and Congress support a major increase in funding for primary and secondary education. Total federal education funding increased from $ 42.2 billion to $ 55.7 billion from 2001, the fiscal year before the legal section, until fiscal year 2004. A First $ 1 billion First Reading Program has been created, distributing funds to local schools for improve reading instruction, and more than $ 100 million for his companion, Early Reading First. Many other formula programs receive large increases as well. This is consistent with the government's position to fund the formula program, which distributes money to local schools for use, and provides programs, where specific schools or groups apply directly to the federal government for funding. In total, federal funding for education increased 59.8% from 2000 to 2003. The action created a new competitive grant program called Reading First, funded at $ 1.02 billion in 2004, to help states and districts prepare for a reading of " scientific, research-based "program for children in K-3 classes (with priority given to areas with high poverty). Smaller early reading programs seek to help better state how to prepare 3-5 year olds in disadvantaged areas to read. Program funding is then cut drastically by Congress amid budget talks.
Funding Changes: Through a change in the Title I funding formula, the No Left Child Act is expected to better target resources to school districts with high concentrations of poor children. The law also includes provisions intended to provide greater flexibility to states and districts in the way they spend part of their federal allotment.
Funding for school technology used in the classroom as part of the NCLB is managed by the Technology Improvement Program (EETT). Funding sources are used for equipment, professional development and training for educators, and recent research. EETT allocates funds by formula to country. The state, in turn, allocates 50% of the funds to the local districts with Title I and 50% formulas on a competitive basis. Although the district must reserve a minimum of 25% of all EETT funds for professional development, recent studies show that most EETT recipients use more than 25% of their EETT funds to train teachers to use technology and integrate it into their curriculum. In fact, EETT recipients committed more than $ 159 million in EETT funds to professional development during the 2004-05 school year alone. In addition, although EETT recipients are given widespread discretion in the use of EETT funds, surveys show that they target EETT dollars to improve student achievement in reading and math, engaging in data-driven decision-making, and launching online assessment programs.
In addition, the NCLB provision allows increased flexibility for state and local agencies in the use of federal education money.
The increase in NCLB was a fellow for a major increase in federal education funding at that time. The Bush administration and congress passed huge increases in funding for Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) at the same time as NCLB increases. IDEA Part B, the state-funded formula program that distributes money to local districts for students with disabilities education, increased from $ 6.3 billion in 2001 to $ 10.1 billion in 2004. As the performance of districts and countries on NCLB's action depends on improving performance by students with disabilities, in particular, students with learning disabilities, a 60 percent increase in funding is also an important part of the overall approach to NCLB implementation.
Funding rate critic
Some critics claim that the additional costs are not completely replaced by the increased level of NCLB federal funding. Others note that funding for the law has increased massively after the trip and that the billions of funds previously allocated for certain uses can be reallocated for new uses. Even before the legal section, Education Secretary Rod Paige noted ensuring that educated children remain the responsibility of the state regardless of federal support:
Washington was willing to help [at an additional cost of federal terms], as we had helped before, even before [NCLB proposed]. But this is part of the responsibility of teaching which is owned by each country.... Washington has offered help now. In law, we have... some support to pay for test development. But even if it should be seen as a gift, it is the responsibility of the state to do this.
Various early supporters of the NCLB Democratic Party criticized its implementation, claiming it was not adequately funded by the federal or state government. Ted Kennedy, the initial sponsor of the law, once stated: "The tragedy is that this long delayed reform is finally there, but no funding." Susan B. Neuman, former Assistant Secretary of the US Department of Primary and Secondary Education, commented on her concerns about NCLB at the International Association of Reading meetings:
In the most disadvantaged schools in America, even the most serious teachers often give up because they lack any available resources that might make a difference.... When we say all children can reach and then do not give them any extra resources... we create fantasy.
The organization specifically criticized the unwillingness of the federal government to "fully fund" the action. Noting that the allocation bill always comes from the People's Legislative Assembly, it is true that during the Bush Administration both the Senate and the White House have even requested federal funds to the appropriate level for some key provisions of such action. For example, President Bush requested only $ 13.3 billion from a possible $ 22.75 billion in 2006. Advocacy groups noted that President Bush's 2008 budget proposal allocated $ 61 billion to the Department of Education, by cutting funding by $ 1.3 billion from the previous year. 44 of the 50 states will receive a reduction in federal funding if the budget passes as before. In particular, funding for Improved Education Through Technology Program (EETT) continues to decline while demand for technology in schools has increased (Technology and Learning, 2006). However, this claim focuses on reallocated funds, as each President Bush's proposed budget raises funding for major NCLB formula programs such as Title I, including its latest 2009 budget proposal.
Members of Congress have seen this authorized level as spending cap, not spending the promise. Some opponents argue that this lack of funding means that schools faced with increasing penalty systems for failing to meet the test targets are denied the resources needed to correct the problems detected by testing. However, federal NCLB formula funding increased by billions during this period and state and local funding increased by more than $ 100 billion from the 2001-02 school year to 2006-07.
In fiscal year 2007, $ 75 billion in expenses were diverted from NCLB, adding further pressure on the state budget. This decline resulted in schools cutting programs that serve to educate children, which then impact on the ability to meet the goals of NCLB. The decrease in funding comes at a time when there is an increase in expectations for school performance. To meet the needs, many schools reallocate funds that have been intended for other purposes (eg, arts, sports, etc.) to achieve the national educational goals set by NCLB. Congress acknowledges that the funding is declining and retro provides funds to cover the shortfall, but without the guarantee of permanent assistance.
The number one area where funding is cut from the national budget is in Title I funding for disadvantaged students and schools.
state education budget
According to the book NCLB Meets School Realities , the act was implemented during the period of fiscal crisis for most states. While countries are forced to make budget cuts, including in education, they must incur additional costs to meet the requirements of the NCLB Act. The funds they receive from the federal government to support NCLB are not enough to cover the additional costs required to comply with the new law.
Proposals for reform
Statement of the Joint Organization on No Child Behind Behind is a proposal by more than 135 national civil rights, education, disability advocacy, citizenship, workers and religious groups who have signed statements calling for major changes to federal education legislation. National Center for Exhibition & amp; Open Test (FairTest) initiates and leads a statement-producing meeting, which was originally released in October 2004. The main message of the statement is that "legal emphasis needs to shift from imposing sanctions for failing to increase test scores to hold back the countries and regions responsible for making systemic changes that improve student achievement. "The number of organizations that signed the statement nearly quadrupled since it was launched in late 2004 and continues to grow. The goal is to influence Congress, and the broader public, such as the re-authorization approach scheduled by law.
Educational critic Alfie Kohn argues that NCLB law "can not be redeemed" and must be removed. He was quoted as saying "[I] ts main effect has been punishing poor children into an endless test preparation practice regimen".
In February 2007, former Minister of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson and Georgian Governor Roy Barnes, Co-Chairs of the Aspen Commission on No Child Left Behind, announced the release of the Commission's final recommendation to re-authorize the No Child Left Behind Act. The Commission is an independent bipartisan effort to improve NCLB and ensure it is a more useful force in closing the achievement gap that separates disadvantaged children and their peers. After a year of hearings, analysis, and research, the Commission disclosed the success of NCLB, as well as the provisions to be changed significantly.
The objectives of the Commission are:
- Have an effective teacher for all students, an effective principal for all communities
- Accelerate progress and achievement gaps that are closed through increased accountability
- Moves beyond the status quo for effective school upgrades and student preferences
- Obtain fair and accurate student progress assessments
- Has a high standard for every student in every state
- Make sure high school prepares students for college and work
- Encourage progress through reliable and accurate data
- Encourage parent involvement and empowerment
The Education Accountability Forum (FEA), the signatory working group of the Joint Organization Statement on the NCLB has offered an alternative proposal. It proposes to change the NCLB from imposing sanctions for failing to increase test scores to support the state and society and to hold them accountable because they make systemic changes that enhance student learning.
While many critics and policymakers believe that NCLB legislation has major disadvantages, it seems that the policy will be applicable for the long term, though not without major modifications.
President Barack Obama released a blueprint for the reform of the Basic and Intermediate Education Act, the successor of No Child Left Behind, in March 2010. The special revision includes providing funds for states to apply broader assessments to evaluate advanced academic skills, including student abilities to conduct research, use technology, engage in scientific investigation, solve problems, and communicate effectively.
In addition, Obama proposes that NCLB legislation reduces his strict liability penalty against states by focusing more on improving students. Improvement measures will include appropriate assessment of all children, including English, minority, and special needs students. The school system will be redesigned to consider measurements beyond the reading and math tests; and will promote incentives to keep students enrolled in school through graduation, rather than encouraging drop out students to improve AYP scores.
Obama's goal also means lowering the achievement gap between black and white students and also raising the $ 3 billion federal budget to help schools meet the strict mandate of the bill. There is also a proposal, put forward by the Obama administration, which states upgrading their academic standards after the dumbing down period, focusing on re-classing labeled schools as failing, and developing new evaluation processes for teachers and educators.
The gradual investment of the federal government in public social provisions provides the NCLB Act a forum to fulfill its promise to improve achievement for all its students. Educational critics argue that although the law is marked as an improvement on ESEA in separating the quality of education in schools, it is actually dangerous. Legislation has become the only federal social policy intended to address large-scale social injustice, and its policy features must stigmatize both schools attended by children of the poor and children in general.
Moreover, critics further argue that the country's current political landscape, which supports a market-based solution to social and economic problems, has eroded trust in public institutions and has undermined political support for the broad concept of social responsibility, which then resulted in disinvestment in the education of the poor and the privatization of American schools.
Skeptics argue that NCLB gives a different political advantage to the Democrats, whose focus on accountability offers a way for them to talk about equal opportunities and avoid being classified as major government parties, special interests, and minority groups - a general charge of Republicans who want to discredit what which they see as a traditional Democratic agenda. Opponents state that NCLB has inadvertently diverted debate on education and racial inequalities into traditional political alliances. As a result, major political disputes remain between those who oppose state federal oversight and local practices and those who see NCLB in terms of civil rights and educational equality.
Under the plan, the Obama Administration responded to criticism that standardized tests failed to capture higher-level thinking by outlining a new evaluation system to capture more in-depth assessment of student achievement. The plan came on the heels of the announcement of the Race to the Top initiative, a $ 4.35 billion reform program funded by the Department of Education through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009.
Obama said that an accurate assessment "... can be used to accurately measure student growth, to better measure how countries, districts, schools, principals, and teachers educate students, to help teachers adjust and focus their teaching, and to provide information which is better for students and their families. "He has promised to support the state government in their efforts to improve the standardized test provisions by raising the standards set to be measured. To do this, the federal government provides state grants to help develop and implement assessments based on higher standards so that they can measure school progress more accurately. This reflects the provisions of the Race to the Top program that require states to measure individual achievement through advanced data collection from kindergartens to higher education.
While Obama plans to improve the quality of standardized testing, he does not plan to eliminate the testing requirements and accountability measures generated by standardized tests. Instead, it provides additional resources and flexibility to meet new goals. Critics of Obama's reform efforts maintain that high-risk testing is detrimental to school success across the country, as it encourages teachers to "teach for exams" and put undue pressure on teachers and schools if they fail to meet benchmarks.
The reauthorization process has become a bit of a controversy, as lawmakers and politicians continue to argue about changes that must be made to the bill to make it work best for the education system.
Exemptions
In 2012, President Obama provides relief from NCLB requirements to several states. "In return for that flexibility, the countries" have agreed to raise standards, improve accountability, and undertake important reforms to improve teachers' effectiveness, "the White House said in a statement.
- February 9, 2012 - Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Jersey, Oklahoma, and Tennessee
- February 15, 2012 - New Mexico
- May 29, 2012 - Connecticut, Delaware, Louisiana, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, Ohio, and Rhode Island
- June 29, 2012 - Arkansas, Missouri, South Dakota, Utah, and Virginia
- July 6, 2012 - Washington and Wisconsin
Eight of the 32 NCLB waivers granted to the state are conditional, meaning they do not fully meet administrative requirements and part of their plan is being reviewed.
The waiver of Arizona, Oregon, and Kansas is conditional, according to Assistant Principal Secretary for Primary and Secondary Education Michael Yudin. Arizona has not received state council approval for teacher evaluation, and Kansas and Oregon both still develop evaluation guidelines for teachers and principals.
In addition, five states that did not complete the waiver process - and one app rejected - got a one-year freeze on increasing targets for standard test scores: Alabama, Alaska, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, and West Virginia.
Substitution
On April 30, 2015, a bill was introduced to Congress to replace Act No Child Left Behind, Act Every Student Succeeds, passed by Parliament on December 2 and Senate on December 9, before being signed into law by the President. Obama on December 10, 2015. This bill provides a more flexible statement in terms of setting their own standards for measuring school and student performance.
See also
- Annenberg Foundation through the Annenberg School Reform Institute's Main Support Program
- Campbell's Law
- Edison School
- Education policy
- English immersion resources for immigrant students
- FairTest
- Learning difficulties
- List of standard tests in the United States
- Mental health provisions in Title V of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
- Ohio Passing Test
- Prairie State Achievement Exam
- Race Up
- School Enhancement Grant
- Stanford Performance Test Series
References
Further reading
- Mcguinn, Patrick J. No Child Left Behind And Transformation of Federal Education Policy, 1965-2005 (2006) search text and quotes
- Rhodes, Jesse H.
in Politics: The Origin and Evolution of No Child Left Behind (Cornell University Press, 2012) 264 pages; explores the role of civil rights activists, business leaders, and education experts in passing legislation.
External links
- Lewis, T. (2010). The Obama Administration will Encourage NCLB Reorientation this Year. Retrieved 7 July 2010.
- Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind: Overview. Education Week. Retrieved on July 16, 2015.
- Klein, A. (2015). 50 Years of ESEA Heritage, Idealism Blend, Policy Tension. Education Week. Retrieved on July 16, 2015.
- Klein, A. (2015). Main Law of K-12 Nation: ESEA Timeline. Education Week. Retrieved on July 16, 2015.
- No Children Left behind the news. Education Week.
Source of the article : Wikipedia
0 Comments