Introduction
The United States was the first country in the Western World to make public education free and mandatory. Billions of dollars are needed to build schools, pay teachers, buy books and supplies, and provide for underprivileged students. Unfortunately that money isn’t there. Both the national and state governments are diverting money from education to pay for other programs and fill budget downfalls. There is also a lack of national standards for all fifty states. States have to set a standard that at a minimum meets the criteria of No Child Left Behind. States can also opt out of No Child Left behind by proving that they have higher standards or who decline federal funds for No Child .
History
Education policy affects the national, state and local levels of government. Since President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965, the federal government has attempted to give more money to the states to combat education gaps, and to make American students competitive with students from around the world. This was among the first times that all three levels of government, federal, state, and local took a joint approach to education.
ESEA was part of the Johnson Administrations war on poverty and came on the heels of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The original purpose of ESEA was to provide states with the necessary dollars to provide for underprivileged children and underprivileged schools. To receive the money states had to prove that they were adhering to the desegregation laws set forth in the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Four billion dollars was authorized for ESEA and was split among five entities: Title I, which will be touched upon later, school libraries, supplemental services, research and state departments of education. The law further stated that it would have to be renewed every five years by Congress. Major changes were not made through subsequent votes until the 1990’s.
In 1993 The Clinton Administration signed into law, Goals 2000: Educate America Act. The purpose of Goals 2000 was to set minimum standards of education for students by grades 4, 8, and 12. The law stated among other things, that students will reach certain levels in reading, writing, science, foreign language, civics and government, art, economics, history and geography. Goals 2000 also wanted to increase the graduation rate for high school seniors to above ninety percent and completely eliminate the education gap among minority students. $105 million dollars was set aside for states to apply for these grants by submitting action plans on how they would meet these criteria. For the first time states would be held accountable in regards to a national education standard. They would be required to submit there action plans as well as a report card on state effort to an independent board.
In 1999 EASA was not reauthorized by Congress. No action would be taken again until 2002 when the Bush Administration signed into law the reauthorization of EASA as the No Child Left Behind Act(NLCB) . More standards were put in place and teachers were going to be held accountable as well for the failure and success of the students. The NLCB Act expired in 2008 and has yet to be renewed. The United States Department of Education still enforces the standards of NLCB, but has relaxed some requirements while awaiting reauthorization of NLCB. The Obama Administration has sent bills to Congress to consider and vote on to revamp NCLB. The Obama administration believes that the purpose of NLCB was correct but needs to be more structured. The three biggest changes proposed to NLCB include: defining student proficiency, evaluating and turning around struggling schools and adding more competition for federal dollars for unique programs that focus on improving schools and student performance.
The NCLB act was designed to hold teachers and schools accountable and set standards for student testing to gauge performance particularly in areas of reading and math. Major provisions of the act were increased accountability, more choices for parents and students, greater flexibility for states, school districts and schools, putting reading first, class size reduction, improving teacher quality state grants, help for limited English speaking children and drug and violence programs.
Increased accountability was the requirement of NLCB. Under NLCB states were required to submit plans to the U.S. Department of Education that showed how they would implement a statewide plan of accountability for all schools and school districts. There were three major factors of NCLB when it cam to accountability in that all states had to: 1) develop content standards to determine what students should know, 2) administer assessments to measure whether students are meeting those standards, and 3) institute accountability mechanisms to ensure all students attain the proficiency standards. Challenging state standards were to be set up for reading and mathematics and annual testing would be required for students from third to eighth grade. Assessment results were to be reported by poverty, race, ethnicity, disability, and limited English proficiency to ensure that all goals were met and “no child was left behind.
The second point of NCLB was greater choice for students and parents. This gave parents and students the ability to transfer out of schools that were rated as schools that need improvement or need to take corrective action under the 1994 ESEA reauthorization. This is to include the option of attending another public school or public charter school at the expense of the school district to include expenses associated with transportation. Another point of this clause was that schools that failed, needed corrective action or designated as needs improvement in 3 of the 4 proceeding assessment years were required to notify parents and obtain help for the student in either the public or private sector. This was to include tutors and mentors, and the option to attend other schools. A final provision of this clause was incentive awards for school grants to improve schools that were listed as failing, needed corrective action or designated as needs improvement in an attempt to give schools the opportunity to still improve though they lost the money associated with the students who transferred out because of the school listing. Schools that failed to meet improvement and standards criteria for five years would be designated for restructuring and possible closure.
The next major provision of NCLB is greater flexibility for states, school districts and schools. This gave states and school districts greater flexibility in how they would use and implement Federal dollars on education in exchange for stronger accountability and increased results. States were able to transfer up to fifty percent of their funds under one of four new major categories, Teacher Quality State Grants, Educational Technology, Innovative Programs, and Safe and Drug-Free Schools, or into Title I programs. As an experiment up to seven states would be able to consolidate all of their Federal funding for Title I and Title V funding if they would enter into up to 10 performance agreements with local school boards and develop a contract with the Secretary of Education.
The fourth critical point of NCLB is putting reading first. The initiative requires all students to have the ability to read by the third grade as part of the Early Reading First program. States were given six year grants to distribute grants to school districts to administer screening and diagnostic assessments of students in grades kindergarten through third grade to identify kids who are at risk of failure and to give teachers the education they need to implement reading enhancement programs.
Other initiatives were to decrease the size of classrooms by construction of new schools and higher better and more quality teachers. Improving Teacher Quality State Grants were set up to help states prepare train and recruit higher quality teachers. States were also given flexibility to develop strategies that best met their individual needs to develop teaching curriculums that increased or improved the quality of education in the core subject areas. Previously states that needed bilingual education assistance received funding directly from the U.S. Department of Education. Under NCLB the money was given to the states to develop statewide initiatives to address the problem of English as a Second Language due to increased immigrant youths in school who do not speak English outside of the school setting. This was designed to ensure that immigrant youths would still be able to meet the high standards for assessment in place with NCLB.
Finally money was to be spent on violence and drug education and prevention programs in schools. Students who go to schools labeled as persistently dangerous schools, or students who are victims of violent action in schools are permitted to transfer out to safer schools, again at the expense of the school districts.
The Obama administration has outlined a nine-point plan for revamping No Child Left Behind. The first step is to reform NCLB. To do this he wants to improve student assessment and focus on accountability. The second point is to invest in zero to five early child education, including directing more funds to Head Start. Point three is to recruit, prepare, retain, and reward America’s teachers. Point four is supporting quality school leaders focusing on principals. Point five is making science and math education a national priority. Point six is helping our most at risk children succeed in school. Point seven is to invest in what works. The eighth point is one of the most important, enlisting parents and communities to support teaching and learning. Point nine is a commitment to fiscal responsibility.
Problem
The first problem with NCLB is there is no national standard scoring index. The law states that students need to be able to read and do math by the third grade and that students will be assessed from the third to the eighth grade. It doesn’t address what scores they need to have to be considered at the appropriate level, or define what the appropriate level is other then at grade level.
Another problem with NCLB is that each state sets its own criteria for minimum grades to meet the students proficiency in reading and mathematics and sets up its own assessment system for testing their students. For example, North Carolina allows local education agencies, or LEA’s to set the requirements for testing scores and reported assessments. North Carolina will record the higher score of the original test or the retest in reporting to the U.S. department of education. On the other hand, the State of California states that a gain is 1 point or more over the previous year whereas a drop in scores is 1 point or less. LEA’s are required to submit a comprehensive plan that meets California’s criteria. The state then will grade and report the assessment scores as a proportion of those scoring at or above the criteria set forth. States can also change their criteria from year to year since there is no national standard.
A problem not addressed within NCLB is that at its implementation not all schools were playing with a level playing field. Many schools do not have the same resources, number of qualified teachers, and even lack the technical ability to improve scores. Schools, particularly those in urban and rural areas often lack the necessary textbooks or the ability to recruit teachers. These schools are often financially strapped and lack any technology in the classroom.
Another problem with NCLB is that it only accounts for testing in mathematics and reading, bit ignores all other subject areas like science, civics, geography, history and the arts. Many nations, particularly those in Asia, test in science. Science often helps math scores and vice-versa. Students proficient in history and civics get that way from reading and reading comprehension. Changing the focus to incorporate all aspects of education will truly gauge a students and schools performance and possibly help identify the strengths and weaknesses of both entities.
In some cases teachers are “teaching to test.” This presents the danger that teachers are just focusing on the areas of math and reading and neglecting other areas of instruction. Teachers and administrators may receive up to $1800 in annual bonuses for increased scores in those areas. Teachers do not have any incentive to teach beyond those to subjects and administrators have no incentive to force teachers to teach beyond those subjects either.
Finally a problem not addressed is the family, home and school environment characteristics for favorable high testing scores. The bottom line in these areas is that students need to have a positive and safe learning environment. Education does not simply end when the bell rings. Students often have homework that they need to complete. Personal and family culture has a huge impact on the ability of the student to learn outside the classroom. Students from impoverished and low-income homes are often at home alone after school due to parents working. In some cases students have to deal with many varieties of abuses, lack of proper nutrition, adequate housing, safe communities and health care. For some students the only contact with a dentist or doctor is annual fluoride treatments or seeing and hearing assessments in school. Children that do not have proper healthcare miss more school then those who can see a doctor when they are sick. Many students are left to their own devices after school. They have to cook and clean up after themselves and are also responsible for initiating homework. Students that have a parent at home after school tend to be of higher socio-economic status in safe communities with adequate nutrition and health care. These students will score better of assessments. The school is also a major factor in the quality of education. Schools that are positive, have many extra-curricular activities, high levels of parent-teacher involvement and even advanced technology see greater aptitude in their students. A culture of learning is being established that supports the student in all aspects of education. Teacher’s beliefs in student’s abilities may be the biggest factor in providing a positive educational experience. Unfortunately none of these issues were addressed in NCLB. This is not to say that students of low socio-economic status can not succeed. Studies have shown that some characteristics will help promote educational success, such as belief in self, determination, independence and cultural appreciation.
Solution
The question then turns to, “Is NCLB effective and if not what needs to be changed or does the whole thing need to be re-written?” Some studies show that the education improvement is on the rise in areas of math and reading. Others show that whereas overall state scores are up, the scores among minority and impoverished students are down. One study showed a 26-point difference on average between minorities and their white peers. This shows that some type of change needs to be addressed when the No Child Left Behind Act is voted on for reauthorization.
The first thing that needs to be addressed is funding. Unfortunately every government agency needs funding and is always trying to show why there needs are more important then the other agencies. Of a LEA’s education budget, only 8.3 percent of funding came from the Federal budget, 45.6 percent from state budgets, 37.1 percents from local governments and 8.9 percent from the private sector. How do we increase education dollars? My first idea would be a national lottery. Many states have lotteries already, but they don't all contribute the same way. For example, in Georgia lottery funds go for higher education tuition for students attending instate schools, teacher post-graduate education, pre-kindergarten programs, and technology grants. In North Carolina, the education lottery only allows for construction of new schools, purchase of land for new schools, and retiring school debt. A national lottery would allow for participating states to draw on funds for whatever purpose is stated. I would argue that the stated purpose of a national education lottery would be for college expenses for education majors, technology upgrades for schools, and new school construction. Current education dollars then could go for textbooks, school maintenance, etc. Another plan for funding that may increase math and reading scores would be to tie specialty programs for education to the defense budget. The US Department of Defense and NASA can be forced to fund science and math programs to schools that qualify for grants. This can help with technology upgrades in schools and take the burden of schools.
After the funding issues have been sorted out standards need to be put in place. Minimum scores on a national level need to be put into effect for students in all states that is uniform to all states. This will allow for accurate reporting in all testing scores to better gauge the proficiency of state programs in increasing the scores for students. The next step is to level the playing field. Larger amounts of money should be redirected to schools that serve kids from lower socio-economic areas, and less to higher socio-economic areas.
Finally teacher’s need to be given the means to succeed. Teacher’s need to be held responsible for teaching all aspects of education. Money needs to be provided for teacher’s to have further education on technology and new education trends and teachings. Many professions, such as medical, require continuing education and re-certification. Giving teacher’s the opportunity to succeed gives students the opportunity to succeed.
Conclusion
The education system is not perfect by any means, but has provided people who helped make the United States into a super-power. A re-structuring of the education system and focuses on all subject matter that hold students, parents, teacher’s and administrators accountable is desperately needed. To ensure this the NCLB Act has to be re-examined and changed to guide American kids through the 21st century.
Love me, hate me, everyone is entitled to my opinion!
Tashlik, Phyllis. "Changing the National Conversation on Assessment." Phi Delta Kappan 91.6 (2010): 55-59. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Schmidt, William H., Wang Hsing Chi, and Curtis C. McKnight. "Curriculum coherence: an examination of US mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective." Journal of Curriculum Studies 37.5 (2005): 525-559. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Lagana-Riordan, Christine, and Jemel P. Aguilar. "What's Missing from No Child Left Behind? A Policy Analysis from a Social Work Perspective." Children & Schools 31.3 (2009): 135-144. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Consiglio, Anthony. "NERVOUS LAUGHTER AND THE HIGH COST OF EQUALITY: RENEWING "NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND" WILL SAFEGUARD A VIBRANT FEDERALISM AND A PATH TOWARD EDUCATIONAL EXCELLENCE." Brigham Young University Education & Law Journal 2 (2009): 365-397. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Hopmann, Stefan Thomas. "No child, no school, no state left behind: schooling in the age of accountability." Journal of Curriculum Studies 40.4 (2008): 417-456. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010
Ravitch, Diane. "Time to Kill 'No Child Left Behind'." Education Digest 75.1 (2009): 4-6. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Phillips, Gary W. "How to Fix No Child Left Behind." Education Week 28.31 (2009): 28-31. Academic Search Premier. EBSCO. Web. 18 Apr. 2010.
Great Schoold, Staff. "What the No Child Left Behind Law Means for Your Child." Great Schools. GreatSchools Inc., 2010. Web. 18 Apr 2010. <http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/quality-teaching/no-child-left-behind.gs?content=61&page=all>.
Department of Education, United States. "10 Facts about K-12 Education Funding". US Department of Education. April 18, 2010 < http://www2.ed.gov/about/overview/fed/10facts/index.html>.
"Proceeds to education." Georgia Lottery. Georgia Lottery, 2010. Web. 18 Apr 2010. <http://www.galottery.com/education.>
"NC Lottery Fast Facts." NC Lottery Fast Facts. North Carolina Legislature, 2010. Web. 18 Apr 2010. <http://www.person.k12.nc.us/parentquickreference/NC%20Lottery%20Fast%20Facts%201.25.10.pdf>.
Rose, Garrett. "NCLB Reauthorization: The New Blueprint." Education.com Bringing education to Life. Education.com, Inc., 16 Mar 2010. Web. 18 Apr 2010. <http://www.education.com/magazine/article/new-nclb-blueprint/>.
Department of Education, North Carolina. "State Board of Education, State of North Carolina, Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook". US Department of Education. April 18, 2010 <http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/nccsa.pdf>.
Department of Education, California. "State of California Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook". US Department of Education. April 18, 2010 <http://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/cacsa.pdf>.
GreatSchools, Staff. "What the No Child Left Behind Law Means for Your Child". Great Schools, Inc.. April 18, 2010 <http://www.greatschools.org/improvement/quality-teaching/no-child-left-behind.gs?content=61&page=all>.
"Public Education." The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: From the War on Poverty to No Child Left Behind . 10 Aug 2007. Ohio Education Association, Web. 5 Mar 2010. <http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038>.
Hanna , Julia. "News Features & Releases." The Elementary and Secondary Education Act 40 Years Later. 10 Feb 2010. Harvard graduate School of Education, Web. 5 Mar 2010. <http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819
Brown, Gary. "USMA Metric ." Goals 2000: Educate Ameica Act. 21 Feb 2003. United States Metric Association, Web. 5 Mar 2010. <http://www.gse.harvard.edu/news_events/features/2005/08/esea0819
"Public Education." The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965: From the War on Poverty to No Child Left Behind . 10 Aug 2007. Ohio Education Association, Web. 5 Mar 2010. <http://www.ohea.org/GD/Templates/Pages/OEA/OEADetail.aspx?page=3&TopicRelationID=170&Content=8038>.
Department of Education, United States. "No Child Left Behind Executive summary". US Department of Education. April 18, 2010 <http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.html>.
"Obama/Biden." BARACK OBAMA AND JOE BIDEN’S PLAN FOR LIFETIME SUCCESS THROUGH EDUCATION. Obama for America, 2008. Web. 24 Apr 2010. <http://www.barackobama.com/pdf/issues/PreK-12EducationFactSheet.pdf>.
No comments:
Post a Comment