No Child Left Behind Act
The article by Jamal Abedi looks at the major issues that touch on the implementation of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The article looks at the inadequacies of the limited English proficiency. The author notes the inconsistence of the program as well as the small number of students with limited English proficiency as the main factors that limit effective monitoring of the progress. The number of students within the limited English proficiency is not stable mainly because students move out of the category immediately they attain proficiency. This accountability is therefore threatened, which is a major component of the act. The author notes that the statute requires the learners to be assessed annually using standard test on mathematics and reading. This is followed on a progress report on the student proficiency. The author presents some of the technical issues that limit appropriate reporting of the learners progress using the limited progressive proficiency. These issues includes inconsistency in the classification of students in different states or districts, disparities in the population of students, classified as limited English proficiency, lack of stability of the subgroups, quality of assessment and the baseline scores. The author analyses how schools, districts and states have varying criteria of limited English proficiency which lead to inconsistence in classification and inaccurate reporting. The author notes that the small number of students in the limited English proficiency subgroup across the country is very small for meaningful analysis. The author uses data to bring his point forward. He also describes the possible causes of the technical issues raised and gives some of the measures that have been undertaken by schools and states to counteract these issues.
Gensler, R., (2006) Effects on No Child Left Behind Act of Special Education Regarding Standardized Testing, Law Disorder, issue 1, pp 11-16
Rebecca Gensler, an educational specialist in the Indiana University takes a look at the controversial No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 and its positive and negative impact on special education programs. The main aim of the act was to provide equal education opportunities to all children in the United States irrespective of their race, social and economic status, ethnicity and physical abilities. The statute requires all students irrespective of their conditions be subjected to the same standardized test. This was aimed at eliminating the biased hypothesis on the expectation of children of a certain background or physical ability. The author notes the major component of the statute which makes the schools accountable for what the children learn, how to improve their performance and informing the public on the results. She also acknowledges the steady progress in the attainment of the set standards in mathematics and reading. However, the requirement by the act that the learners who require special education treatment be assessed with the same standard test as their peers has attracted a big controversy. The student may have been identified as a learner who requires special assessment. The author notes that the act has had a positive impact on special education by increasing the expectations for students with special needs. However, the standardized tests are not appropriate in determining the progress in such students. For this reason, most of the students in need of special education facilities do not pass the standard tests. These factors negatively affect special education since the poor performance is blamed on the schools and the teachers. Due to the negative impact of the act on special education, the author makes some recommendations such as alternative tests and assessments that are based on the needs of the student in question according to the Individualized Education Plan.
Reeves, C. (2003) Implementing the No Child Left Behind Act Implications For Rural Schools and Districts, Naperville, Illinois, North Central Regional Educational Laboratories.
The production of this paper was funded by the institute of education sciences in the United States department of education. The author analyses the challenges that are presented by the No Child Left Behind Act which was enacted by President Bushs administration in 2001. The paper looks at the challenges that are faced by schools and districts as they try to ensure that the state proficiency standards in reading and mathematics set by the act are met by the year 2014. The paper also looks at the challenges that were faced in ensuring that teachers were highly qualified and met the requirement by the year 2006. The main challenge in the rural schools and districts as noted by the author is the small number of children in these schools as well as the geographical isolation of the schools. Schools in rural areas accounted for about forty two percent of all schools in the United States by the end of the twentieth century with only about thirty percent of the total number of students in the United States schooling in these rural schools. The author notes that the small size of schools in rural areas and small towns combined with the decreasing enrolment is a big challenge in the implementation of No Child Left Behind Act in these schools. These characteristics affect the funds and opportunities that are necessary in the implementation of the act. For this reason, the paper analyses the disparities in the funding of educational programs by the federal government which put these marginalized schools at a disadvantage. The paper analyses in details the challenges that are faced by schools in the rural areas in the implementation of the program. These challenges include accountability, recruitment and retention of teachers and funding. The paper concludes by stating that the rural schools are faced with many challenges. Unless assistance is given to rural schools, the No Child Left Behind program will not be fully implemented.
Uzzell, L. A. (2005) No Child Left Behind The Dangers of Centralized Education Policy, Routing, No. 544, pp 1-28
Lawrence Uzzell, a former employee in the department of education, a former member of the senate committee on education and now an independent researcher on issues related to educational policies analyses the No Child Left Behind Act. He looks into the details of the policy and the possible negative effects of centralized educational policy. He starts by noting how the enactment of the policy by the Bush Administration was received with excitement. The administration claimed that it was a great get through in domestic policies. However, Uzzell is quick to note that this policy was a contradiction of the Bushs administration ideologies of ownership society which was part of their reform agenda. The author notes that the success of the program is dependent on the ability of a centralized education program to perform excellently. However, the advocates of the program contradict themselves since centralized educational policies for almost half a century now had proved to be ineffective. The author describes how the statute of the act as a reform strategy is faced with challenges from within and is at war with itself. The statute forces federal and state educational agencies and officials to do things they are unwilling to do which is the major challenge in its success. The author notes the possibility of covering up problems in the implementation of the policy. He notes that the implementation depend on the data provided by the schools and education agencies officials which include the test scores, the teachers qualifications and abilities, graduation rates and incidences of violence in the schools. A danger therefore exists since it is difficult to determine whether the officials information is true. Due to the dangers associated with enactment of such programs, the author recommends that federal government should avoid enactment of such education policies and allow states to make education policies that suit them best.
Young, R. D. (2004) Public Education A Primer on No Child Left Behind and Its Impact on South Carolina, Columbia, SC University of South Carolina
The article looks at how the enactment of the No Child Left Behind Act by President Bushs administration changed the role of the federal government in the education sector. These changes had several impacts on the education systems in different states in the country. The author narrows down to the impacts of the new law in the education systems in South Carolina. The author starts by noting how the federal government became accountable for the performance of the students, focuses on what works, expanded the options available to parents and give room for more flexible spending on education funding. Before analyzing these roles, the author looks at the changing role of the federal government in the education sector over the years. The changes in the role of the federal government in public education started with the enactment of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in the mid 1960s which increased federal funding of educational programs. More concerns on the involvement of federal government in public education rose in the 1980s when the achievement of the American students was reported to be low compared to the achievement in other nations. This report was followed by the enactment of the Improving Americans School Act of 1994 and the Educate America Act of 2000. When President Bush came to power, he did not hesitate to sign the No Child Left Behind Act in 2002.
The author notes that the enactment of the law has increased federal funding of the education programs in the country with a significant margin. The author also looks at the positive and negative effects of the act to the education systems in the states of South Carolina. The author also analysis the systemic challenges that the public education program is faced with in South Carolina. It is noted that a large number of children in South Carolina are faced with some risk which affects the implementation of education policies. The article also analyses the accountability plan presented by the state of South Carolina and how it was approved by the department of education.
Categories:
0 comments:
Post a Comment