“In a real sense, NCLB was a mighty yawp of frustration uttered by Washington policymakers tired of nicely asking educators to cooperate-and ready to ruffle some feathers” (Hess and Petrilli). As is evidenced by this quote, stated by educators Frederick M. Hess and Michael J. Petrilli, the No Child Left Behind Act has stirred up a lot of controversy since its inception. It has caused a divide between educators and the government. No Child Left Behind is wrong.
Since the 1990s, educational reform has been on the rise. This culminated in 2002 with the initiation of President George W. Bush’s signature educational reform, the No Child Left Behind Act. Designed to increase standardized testing and improve school accountability, the law was the largest educational reform in history. Signed into action on January 8, 2002, the law was hailed as a triumph of Bush; however, it still had its fair share of criticisms.
One reason why NCLB is wrong is because it has mandated the increase of standardized testing. The increase in the amount of standardized testing in schools has caused an increase in the number of dropouts. Those who feel they cannot pass the test don’t think they need to stay in school (Rueter). Although the law has had a positive effect on test scores in some schools, the majority of the United States has not had a major improvement in test scores (Murray). The NCLB Act has opened the eyes of educators by emphasizing better test scores and showing how hard it is to achieve these goals (Rueter).
Through the increase in standardized testing, NCLB has increased the amount of anxiety and cheating. The amount of tests that students have to take and the pressure that is placed on them by administrators to succeed has caused a massive amount of anxiety to take over the student. This anxiety leads to cheating. In 2004 the Dallas Morning News stated that teachers, who were in fear of losing their jobs because of low test scores, helped students cheat on their tests at 400 schools throughout Texas (Rueter). Many children are even scared by the amount of pressure placed on them. This causes them to become unresponsive and not try (Houston 127).
NCLB has blocked uniqueness among students. By focusing on test scores, schools put children into a mold. By making students take large amounts of tests, students become more invisible and less individual (Childress 77). Students only become known for their test scores, instead of their personalities. The law has also contributed to a loss in educational freedom for students. Children should have the right to direct their learning path through school, rather than having to fit into a mold by taking standardized tests (Holt 25).
In addition to the strain on students, NCLB’s required increase in the amount of standardized testing has caused a reduction of meaningful instruction in school. Courses that are not tested through NCLB have been eliminated at many schools. This has resulted in a narrow curriculum and “teaching to the test” (Houston 127). These classes include music, art, history, physical education, and recess (Rueter). Due to the amount of course elimination, the overall school experience has been limited (Meier and Harrison xii). Ten percent of a school’ instruction time is spent on standardized testing. This number should be reduced. In many instances, more time is spent testing on what has been learned than actually learning (Houston 126).
The NCLB Act has unrealistic goals and unclear definitions. Although the law requires 100% proficiency by 2014, throughout its 1,100 pages it never defines proficiency (Uzzell). Furthermore, the law mandated that by 2006 all teachers must be thoroughly knowledgeable of their subjects, but there are no definite “knowledge standards” for teachers (Uzzell). Charles Murray, scholar for the American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research, reflected on NCLB’s unrealistic goals, “Many laws are too optimistic, but the No Child Left Behind Act transcended optimism. It set a goal that was devoid of any contact with reality” (Murray). In addition to having unclear definitions and unrealistic goals, NCLB was out of touch with the educational world. The Department of Education relied on government officials to make decisions, rather than teachers and school administrators (Houston 128).
As mentioned previously, the NCLB Act has dramatically increased the power of the federal government over education. Government organizations should not be law enforcers for the public school system. They should have a more collaborative role with public schools (Jones 150). NCLB has also warped school accountability. Schools should be held accountable to parents, students, and local residents rather than the government (Jones 144). NCLB strengthened the educational bureaucracy. Although the amount of federal involvement in schools was modified by Margaret Spellings in 2005, it still did not eliminate the bureaucracy altogether (Bush 276). Most schools do not have a choice but to accept the overwhelming amount of government control. Upon acceptance of federal funds, the state and its schools are required to allow the government to change state and local decisions (Berlak). The amount of funding for NCLB is also ludicrous. The tax dollars of the American people have been wasted on countless amounts of tests and programs. Through the NCLB Act, federal education spending increased by 39% (Bush 277).
NCLB has caused unrest among teachers. Through the law, teachers feel that they have been bullied (Wallis). By exposing failing students, teachers felt humiliated. Susan Neuman, Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education from 2000 to 2003, said, “Vilifying teachers and saying we are going to shame them was not the right approach” (Wallis). This shows that even the federal government was not happy with this aspect of NCLB.
One of the main goals of the No Child Left Behind Act was fixing the achievement gap between high- and low-performing students. Many supporters argue that NCLB has mended this gap. Truthfully, the law has widened the achievement gap. For one thing, there are many differences that lie outside of student performance. Between various school districts and states, there are many differences in financial support (Houston 126). Richer schools spend ten times more than poorer schools. This enormous difference is a major factor in the achievement gap (Meier and Harrison 6). By punishing poor schools, the government is widening the achievement gap. Poor schools have larger class sizes, less teachers, less materials, and less extracurricular activities. These schools are punished for not meeting achievement standards, but they really cannot afford to (Meier and Harrison 6). Through the punishment of low-achieving schools, transfers have increased. When these transfers occur, the schools often lose proficient students. When the schools don’t meet testing standards because they have lost these students, they receive more punishment from the government. This causes more transfers. It is an endless cycle (Belcher). Therefore, NCLB has not fixed the achievement gap. It has widened it.
Many NCLB supporters also claim that the law reveals all low-achieving schools through rigorous standardized testing. NCLB does not reveal all low-achieving schools. First, the majority of the United States lies about test results (Uzzell). In their NCLB reports, many states lie about graduation rates. North Carolina once claimed a graduation rate of 97%. A typical graduation rate is 64% (Uzzell). Also, the testing methods used for NCLB are unauthentic. The results of disadvantaged children are compared with those of outstanding children, which skews the overall school results (Uzzell).
As is evidenced by these numerous informative and legitimate reasons, No Child Left Behind is wrong. The government has greatly increased its role within the American public school system. When the law was put into action in 2002, it was lauded as being the signature educational reform of the last century, but was criticized for “ruffling too many feathers.” However, no one can argue that No Child Left Behind has had an effect, positive or negative, on public education.
Works Cited
Belcher, Chris. “Superintendent’s View: NCLB and the Loss of Local Control.” Columbia
Business Times. 18 September 2009. Web. 1 March 2011. <http://www.columbiabusinesstimes.com/5747/2009/09/18/superintendents-view-nclb-and-the-loss-of-local-control/>
Berlak, Harold. “The No Child Left Behind Act and the ‘Reading First’ Program.” Education
and Democracy. 10 October 2003. Web. 1 March 2011. <http://www.educationanddemocracy.org/Resources/Berlak-control.htm>
Bush, George W. Decision Points. New York: Crown Publishers, 2010. Print.
Childress, Herb. “Subtractive Education.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues.
Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 73-80. Print.
Hess, Frederick M., and Michael J. Petrilli. “The Politics of No Child Left Behind: Will the
Coalition Hold?” American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research. 1 January 2004. Web. 8 March 2011. <http://www.aei.org/article/24565>
Holt, John. “Escape From Childhood.” Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. Ed.
James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 25-29. Print.
Houston, Paul D. “The Seven Deadly Sins of No Child Left Behind.” Taking Sides: Clashing
Views on Educational Issues. Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 123-129. Print.
Jones, Ken. “A Balanced School Accountability Model: An Alternative to High-Stakes Testing.”
Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Educational Issues. Ed. James Wm. Noll. New York: McGraw Hill, 2009. 153-152. Print.
Left Behind Act Is Damaging Our Children and Our Schools. Boston: Beacon Press, 2004. Google Books. 24 February 2011. Web.
Murray, Charles. “The Age of Educational Romanticism.” American Enterprise Institute for
Public Policy Research. 1 May 2008. Web. 28 February 2011. <http://www.aei.org/article/27692>
Uzzell, Lawrence A. “Cheat Sheets.” The American Spectator. 3 November 2005. Web. 23
February 2011. <http://spectator.org/archives/2005/11/03/cheat-sheets>
Wallis, Claudia. “No Child Left Behind: Doomed to Fail?” Time Magazine. 8 June 2008. Web. 2
March 2011. <http://www.time.com/time/nation/article10,8599,1812758,00.html>
