Critiques of No Child Left Behind?

[ad_1]

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is a controversial piece of legislation passed in the United States in 2001 to fulfill President George W. Bush’s promises of radical education reform. Many Americans agree that the public education system needs drastic changes so that America’s children can be better served. However, some Americans believe the legislation has not been a productive response to the problem. Many classroom teachers, educational activists, and alternative education advocates have spoken out against NCLB.

One of the more serious criticisms of No Child Left Behind is an issue of funding and unfunded mandates. Critics say education funding isn’t a top priority in the United States, with many schools finding their budgets slashed repeatedly year after year. This makes it difficult to purchase textbooks, let alone implement the required policies. Many teachers or potential teachers who can provide an excellent education are often reluctant to enter the public school system, known – especially in urban areas – for its run-down facilities and low teacher salaries. In particularly poor districts, teachers are sometimes forced to buy school supplies out of their own pocket if they want their students to have access to art supplies, paper and other educational tools. NCLB’s stringent requirements can be a financial drain on already cash-strapped schools and districts.

Many critics of No Child Left Behind also argue strongly against the use of standardized tests to assess academic progress. Studies have shown that some students simply perform better on standardized tests than others, and that high test performance does not necessarily reflect higher quality education, especially when many classroom teachers feel pressured to “teach the test” at the order to ensure good scores for their school district. Additionally, some school districts may feel tempted to stack the deck in their favor by excluding students they know will perform poorly, such as the SEN and learners of English as a second language. Also, because tests are set state by state, individual states have the ability to manipulate the material on them to make it easier for their students to take the tests, making them an invalid measure of progress and ability. NCLB opponents also point out that standardized tests are believed to have cultural and linguistic biases; including testing in English of recently immigrated non-English speaking students.

If a school is determined to “fail” by NCLB standards, penalties are imposed on the school. Many organizations, including the American Federation of Teachers, believe these penalties are not a useful way to address struggling schools, because they are seen as penalizing, rather than supportive. Some of the penalties are sensible; for example, when a school is identified as needing improvement, a school improvement plan is developed as a cooperative effort between parents, teachers, administrators, and the education department. This improvement plan must clearly address the ways in which the school intends to rectify the situation.

However, many of these penalties are perceived to be punitive and potentially harmful to the struggling school district. Parents with children in sanctioned schools can move them to another district, and the defaulting district is required to pay for transportation to the new school. Furthermore, while the penalties include measures such as providing extra assistance to students who need it, this assistance must fall within guidelines that some teachers find very narrow, because No Child Left Behind places a strong emphasis on specific scientific research. While some students may be well served by the services schools can offer them under this legislation, many teachers wish to be able to offer a wider range of assistance, even if this help includes unconventional educational approaches.

Some critics also believe that the corrective action requirements are too restrictive. These requirements include firing “school staff relevant to the failure,” according to the Department of Education, along with restructuring school management, hiring education professionals from outside the school district, and creating a new resume. If a school continues to struggle, it could be closed or reopened under new management, often under an umbrella company that offers education services to various states that have to close and reopen schools under No Child Left Behind sanctions. Some teachers believe these penalties ultimately hurt the school district and the children they are supposed to help. Critics of NCLB point out that this “restructuring” or “reconstruction” risks dismantling the school community, disrupting the workplace, learning environment, and community connections with schools.

[ad_2]