Smith 1

Stephanie Smith

Mrs. Corbett

AP Literature

17 November 2011

An Issue in Education: No Child Left Behind

Education, if simply defined, is “a discipline that is concerned with methods of teaching

and learning in schools or school-like environments” (“Education”). Education is the diffusion of

societal values and the knowledge that each society has accumulated thus far. Education is said

to be responsible for the cultivation of a civilized society; it enables the development of a

responsible society through the teaching of values. Ideally, the purpose of education is to

cultivate the innocent minds of children by instilling those values and principles into their minds.

By introducing these values, children are able to develop physical, mental and social skills.

Children are guided by education in learning about their culture until their behavior has become

adult-like and they are able to pursue a role in society. Nevertheless, education is not foolproof in

its aims and suffers from one central problem. That is, what exactly should education be focused

on in order to help children attain their full potential?

In response, several aims have been proposed by philosophers and other figures in an

attempt to make learning more efficient. Many have considered balancing student needs and

interests or replacing close-mindedness with an augmented imagination (“Education, philosophy

of”). No matter the approach, all of these propositions have been defended and criticized by

other thinkers. No Child Left Behind, a prime example of a proposal, was both ridiculed and

praised for its attempt to pinpoint the focuses of education. The reform, signed off on January 8th,

2002 by President George W. Bush, was based on four principles- “stronger statewide

Smith 2

accountability for students' proficiency, increased flexibility for state and local control in the use

of government education funds, expanded school options for parents, and an emphasis on proven

teaching methods” (“Education”). No Child Left Behind was a major alteration of the

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, a federal law that suffered from its own

faults. The revised NCLB debuted at a time of public concern over the state of education. The

legislation set in requirements that reached into every American public school imaginable.

Chiefly, it took aim at improving the academic skills of disadvantaged students by using a

number of measures designed to enhance their academic performances.

Positioned at the core of the No Child Left Behind Act, these measures forced states and

schools to become more involved in their student progress as well. They represented significant

changes to the education landscape and lit the path to a more promising future for education. The

first of these measures was annual testing. “The testing portion of the plan required states to set

standards for what every child should learn in reading, mathematics, and science in elementary

and secondary schools” (“Education”). Commencing in 2002, all schools were to administer

reading and math tests to grades 3-5, 6-9, and 10-12. By the time 2007 rolled around, annual

tests were required in grades 3-8 and science tests were added. The tests were based on state

academic standards, determined whether or not a school continued to receive federal funding,

and took its participant’s results to be compared in the National Assessment of Educational

Progress.

Secondly, the No Child Left Behind Act measured academic progress in a moderated

fashion. States were required to bring all students up to the proficient level on state tests by the

end of the 2014 school year. Individual schools had to meet state “adequate yearly progress”,

objectives that “focused on the collection of data and the analysis of that data in relation to

Smith 3

student learning” (Woestman). Adequate yearly progress is measured not only for their student

populations as a whole but for students of certain demographics and capabilities as well. No

Child Left Behind clearly mentions that the target goals must be raised over time and that more

students should be meeting them. States are required by the act to evaluate every student and

make sure that their adequate yearly progress is met. Any school that does not adhere by these

requirements will suffer from failure in its entirety and may have to reorganize or surrender to

federal control. However, private schools and home-schooled students are exempt from the

requirements.

Moreover, states had to equip yearly report cards showing a range of information such as

student achievement data and information on the performance of school districts. Through the

use of report cards, the federal government displayed school performance and statewide progress

to parents. Concerned parents were also able to evaluate the quality of their child’s school,

teachers, and progress in major subjects. These reports showed progress for all student groups in

diminishing achievement gaps between disadvantaged students and ones of separate ethnicities.

In addition to these reports, the No Child Left Behind act “[suggested] that state governments

and school districts use alternative means of licensing and endorsing teachers” (Waid and

McNergney). Contrary to the past, teachers now had to be “highly qualified”, or certified and

proficient in the subject that he or she taught. They should have also completed at least two years

of college, obtained at least a bachelor’s degree, or passed an assessment to depict their teaching

aptitude. Only under these circumstances would teachers be qualified and trusted to guide

children into reaching their full potential.

Lastly, No Child Left Behind ensured student safety and created a new program called

Reading First. Funded at $1.02 billion in 2004, the program “was designed to help students in

Smith 4

kindergarten through third grade develop stronger reading skills” (Gordon). Reading First

focused primarily on teaching students of impoverished backgrounds to read. Through this aim,

the program guaranteed that every child would be able to read by the end of third grade. The act

also provided funds for parents to relocate their child from an unsafe or poorly performing

school to a satisfactory one. This increased choice and flexibility in how states and districts could

consume federal funding. However, the measures implemented by the No Child Left Behind act

were not beneficial from every angle.

Despite its good intentions, several critics questioned the feasibility of the No Child Left

Behind Act, claiming that its intentions were truly negative and hurt education even further. For

instance, annual testing yielded anxiety-stricken children. The tests were often flawed in that

they neglected low-income children and those of certain minorities as well. This generated the

idea that the No Child Left Behind act had failed to acknowledge the diversity in schools.

Although this idea arose, several states replaced their generic academic standard with a

progression standard to measure how students had developed over the course of a year. Also,

“opponents claimed that standardized test results since 2002 were not consistently better and that

emphasis on test-taking skills led to neglect of other forms of learning” (“The George W. Bush

Administrations”). The standardized testing distracted teachers from other areas such as music,

art, and foreign languages, and thus encouraging teachers to adjust their teaching style and teach

specifically for the tests. The annual tests sought to evaluate a child’s understanding and to

hastily return test results to teachers. But as a result, the tests failed to evaluate student success

and put children of less intelligence at a disadvantage. According to a study, “the NCLB

program’s high-stakes testing had done little to improve student’s achievement and had resulted

in higher high-school dropout rates” (“Primary and Secondary Education”). Supporters of the act

Smith 5

were decreasing as many began to believe that it had no effect on public schools and put an

unnecessary focus on standardized testing. Overall, the addition of annual testing only dug a

deeper hole and led to an increasingly bleak future for education.

To discuss further, the No Child Left Behind Act overlooked a major problem in

education: the disproportion of funding offered in the United States. Unlike schools in other

countries, “the amount that wealthy schools are permitted to spend is approximately ten times

greater than the poorest schools in the United States” (“Funding for Education”). Subsequently,

American schools suffer from a larger achievement gap than any other country. While some

schools may qualify as proficient under the terms of the law others miss the mark. For example,

minority schools are more likely to score lower or fail state required tests because they do not

have access to the same resources as high-end schools. Even though the law “orders schools to

ensure that 100 percent of students test at levels identified as “proficient” by the year 2014…the

small per pupil dollar allocation it makes to schools serving low-income students is well under

10 percent of schools’ total spending” and not nearly enough to aide underprivileged schools

(Darling-Hammond 6-9). Under No Child Left Behind, the students of under resourced schools

end their academic careers with less opportunity to play a meaningful role in society. The act is

unable to provide sufficient funding to all schools, ignores resources that enable school quality,

and handicaps students. For these reasons, No Child Left Behind misses the purpose of education

entirely.

By and large, the over-all goal of No Child Left Behind was to “ensure that all children

have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain high-quality education” (“Education

Department”). Conversely, the act highlights an unworthy focus for education as it concentrated

mainly on annual state-wide testing. Many critics felt that the act did not reflect the true potential

Smith 6

of students and damaged schools even more. Bush’s No Child Left Behind did not prove to be as

a solution to education’s biggest issue; controversy over what education should be focused on

still remains. Hence, some children may never be able to reach their full potential no matter what

the focuses of education may be.

Smith 7

Works Cited

Darling-Hammond, Linda. "Inequality in Education: What NCLB Does Not Change." Many

children left behind. By Deborah Meier. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. 6-9. Google Book Search.

Web. 17 Nov. 2011.

"Education." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School Edition.

Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2011. Web. 12 Nov.  2011.

Education Department." West's Encyclopedia of American Law. Ed. Shirelle Phelps and Jeffrey

Lehman. 2nd ed. Vol. 4. Detroit: Gale, 2005. 62-66. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 14

Nov. 2011.

"Education, philosophy of." Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online School

Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2011. Web. 16 Nov.  2011.

Funding for Education." American Decades. Ed. Judith S. Baughman, et al. Vol. 3: 1920-1929.

Detroit: Gale, 2001. Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 16 Nov. 2011.

"The George W. Bush Administrations." Presidential Administration Profiles for Students.

Detroit: Gale, 2009. Discovering Collection. Gale. Creekview High School. 14 Nov. 2011

Gordon, Byron. "Reading First: States Report Improvements in Reading Instruction, but

Additional Procedures Would Clarify Education's Role in Ensuring Proper Implementation by

States: GAO-07-161." Student Resource Center - College Edition. EBSCOhost, n.d. Web. 17

Nov. 011.

"Primary and Secondary Education.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica Online

School Edition. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 2011. Web. 12 Nov.  2011.

Smith 8

Waid, Kimberly B., and Robert F. McNergney. "Teacher." Encyclopedia of Education. Ed.

James W. Guthrie. 2nd ed. Vol. 7. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2002. 2435-2437.

Gale Virtual Reference Library. Web. 14 Nov. 2011.

Woestman, Kelly A. "No Child Left Behind (2001)." Major Acts of Congress. Ed. Brian K.

Landsberg. Vol. 3. New York: Macmillan Reference USA, 2004. 69-72. Gale Virtual Reference

Library. Web. 12 Nov. 2011.

Smith 9

This receipt acknowledges that Turnitin received your paper.Below you will find the receipt information regarding your submission:

Paper ID: 215439906Paper Title: Senior Project Research PaperAssignment Title: Senior Project Research PaperAuthor: Stephanie SmithE-mail: clarinet-girl@hotmail.com