No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind Yellow polka dotted blankets of green grass, birds chirping and green leafs on the trees, these are the ways most identify with the return of spring. However, many third through eighth grade students become aware of spring with extra math and reading classes. These students take practice tests, learn about the proper amount of sleep, and breakfast one needs prior to taking the annual standardized achievement test. Once again it is time to test what children have learned this school year, so that state and federal government can decide if children, teachers, and schools measure up to government standards. While achievement and standardized test are meant to improve the quality of education by measuring the performance of students, teachers, and schools; they hinder our children’s education. “The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, signed into law by (former) President Bush on January 8, 2002, is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, the central federal law in pre-collegiate education” (Education week, 2004, Para. 1). The NCLB was put into place to enhance the public education system in America. NCLB stipulates criteria to improve the performance of students, schools, and teachers by evaluation through annual achievement tests. Determined by the results of the standardized achievement tests, schools are rewarded money from the federal government to implement and improve their curriculum. While NCLB is essentially for every publicly educated child, this law targets student groups with low level test scores such as: minority, English language learning students, poverty stricken students, learning disabled, or any student with a disadvantage that effects his education. The NCLB law required annual testing of all third through eighth grades in mathematics and reading by school year 2005-06, and testing in science once in elementary, middle, and high school by school year 2007-08. The test must meet state academic goals and be standardized for students in that state. Some fourth and eighth grade students must also take test in reading and math every other year to provide a comparison point for state test results. 2013-14 school year is the deadline for poorly performing schools to bring their students’ scores to state proficient level (Education Week, 2004). Another requirement for schools within a state is to show “adequate yearly progress” (AYP) which is defined within the law All the above-mentioned progress is to be measured by standardized achievement tests, designed and distributed by the individual state(107th Congress, 2002). An achievement test is “a standardized test for the measurement and comparison of knowledge or proficiency in various fields of academic study” (Mosby’s Medical Dictionary, 2009, Para. 1). Standardized test is “a test that is given and scored in a uniform manner” (Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, 2006, Para. 30). Most of these tests are comprised of multiple-choice questions, which reduce cost and time for grading purposes (Winerip, 2006). Many individuals support NCLB, and believe that this law will succeed, in reforming America’s public education system, especially for disadvantaged children. However, there are many issues with this law that do not suggest improved education. The biggest of many problems is the “test” being used to evaluate schools, teachers, and students’ performances. These tests, with their multiple-choice questions do not require children to do more than recall facts. The tests do not provide opportunity for children to solve problems, or explain their thought processes. The next problem associated with these test is how the results of the test are being used. The results are being used to determine school readiness, detainment or promotion of a student, a teacher’s ability to teach, the quality of a school, and defects in a child instead of strengths and weakness to be built upon (Fairtest, 2007). There are many strategies taking place in America’s schools to show “proficiency" in tested areas. “Most school districts are cutting back on social studies, science, art, or other subjects to make more time for reading and math, the subjects that are tested” (Greatschools staff, 2008, pg. 5). Personal experience has proven true, the aforementioned quote for the past 3 years. Some states are lowering their academic standards in order to comply with NCLB’s stipulations and are “dumbing down” their tests. Illinois is not the only state guilty of “changing” the state standards, making test questions easier, and extending time limits for testing. Therefore, the “scientific” measure of the performance of students, teachers, and schools is inaccurate (Illinoisloop, 2008). Our children’s teachers are creating lesson plans around “only” the material that is on the achievement test. This is evident, in a few different personal situations regarding three individual children. The first personal experience involves developing an Individual Education Plan (IEP) for Caitlyn, a special needs female child age 10 in April 2009. While working on developing the IEP with Caitlyn’s teacher, principal, and Intervention Specialist, the teacher, Mrs. Penny explained, “the IEP must be written as mandated by state regulations to reflect the material that will be included on the Alternative Assessment Test (AAT). The AAT replaces the Ohio Achievement Test (OAT) for learning disabled children.” This means that Caitlyn’s school curriculum is mandated by the state to be developed around the AAT that she must take in order to comply with the NCLB law. Mrs. Penny will spend the year drilling the information that Caitlyn needs to show “AYP”, instead of teaching her the skills she will need in order to live independently as an adult. The second personal experience involves Shaylan, a third grade female child age nine. Shaylan only received a handful of graded material in science class. When the teacher, Mrs. Whiting was asked why, she explained, “science time was being used to work on math since the OAT tested math and not science.” This reflects schools restricting learning to areas that are being tested. The third personal experience involves Skylar, a sixth grade female child age 11. Skylar kept insisting she needed a scientific calculator in order to complete her math homework. When the teacher was asked if a calculator was indeed needed by Skylar’s mother the teacher, Mrs. Frazier said, “Since the OAT requires sixth graders to know “how” to use a scientific calculator, Skylar did need one to complete her homework. I would like to teach the process of the calculations but do not have time to teach both.” America’s children are being cheated out of a full education. The children no longer have the luxury of exploring, questioning, and thinking through problems in order to learn. Attitudes have changed towards school and learning for all involved and are directly related to NCLB and Achievement test. There are both negative and positive attitudes towards NCLB and achievement test among schools, teachers, parents, and students. Some believe that the principals and ideas of NCLB are good and on the right track of improving America’s public education system. Standard requirements for learning to unify what is taught in all schools at the same grade level will eliminate teacher-centered curriculum. While some believe that NCLB has invaded the classroom, and began dictating what is important, and what is not. Teachers feel the need to teach “to the test” in order to get the results needed to further finance the school and keep their job. Teachers and students alike deal with stress and pressure centered on the annual test. Some parents believe that their children’s education is being minimized to passing the annual test (Deulbel, 2008). The question that is left to answer is whether or not NCLB and standardized testing is hindering or helping the education of our children. According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP), statistics show that among all 17 year-old students nationally, the average math score varies by10 points from 1978 through 2008, and the average reading score varies by seven points for the same group of students for the same time span (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2009). The NAEP is essentially the equivalent to the “test” and “report” card of the standardized testing progress being made by NCLB. The aforementioned statistics show neither progress nor hindrance to America’s public education system, but instead show a consistent stand still. NCLB, and standardized testing are not achieving the main goal, which is to reform and “raise the bar” on educational “standards” in this nation (107th Congress, 2002). Quite contrary to the goals of NCLB the standards of education have been lowered by only focusing on mathematics, reading, language arts, and three times in a students’ school career science. While, other subjects are being minimized or eliminated to concentrate on the subjects that are tested. This leaves America with students that are not well rounded individuals. NCLB does not deliver our children better teachers or schools, but instead delivers individuals who are driven to focus on the tested necessities of math, reading and language arts. Even though science is a tested subject, many times it is also put behind, because it is only tested three times throughout students’ school years. The money promised in NCLB is not being delivered to help improve the schools that need improving. As a matter of fact, if the children in a low performing school do not show “AYP” their schools will be sanctioned, and lose precious resources like teachers and funds, and will only slip further behind the next year. Therefore, NCLB and standardized testing only hinders our children’s education, which puts the future of our country on shaky ground.

References
Deulbel, P. Ph.D. (2008). Accountability, Yes. Teaching to the Test, No. Retrieved June 12, 2009 from http://www.thejournal.com/articles/22417_5
Education week. (2004). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved June 4, 2009 from http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/ Fairtest. (2007). How standardized testing Damages Education. Retrieved June 8, 2009 from http://www.fairtest.org/how-standardized-testing-damages-education-pdf Fairtest. (2007). What’s Wrong with Standardized Testing. Retrieved June 8, 2009 from http://www.fairtest.org/whats-wrong-standardized-tests Greatschools staff. (2008). what no child left behind means for your child. Retrieved May 21, 2009 from http://www.greatschools.net/cgi-bin/showarticle/205
Illinoisloop. (2008). Test and Assessments. Retrieved June 8, 2009 from http://www.illinoisloop.org/test.html Mosby's Medical Dictionary. (2009) The Free Dictionary. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/achievement+test
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2009). National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved June 18, 2009 from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/lttdata/

Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges. (2006). Assessment Glossary. Retrieved June 23, 2009 from http://www.sbctc.ctc.edu/college/_e-assessglossary.aspx
Winerip, M. (2006) Standardized Test Face a Crisis Over Standards. Retrieved June 16, 2009 from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/22/education/22education.html?sq=standardized testing&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print
107th Congress. (2002). Public Law 107-110. Retrieved May 21, 2009 from
http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf