THE PROS AND CONS OF NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

By

Michael Hillocks

PROS• The purpose of No Child Left Behind is to eliminate the

achievement gap found when comparing the academic performance of student groups in the US.

• The goals of No Child Left Behind are:• By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a

minimum attaining proficiency or better, in reading/English language arts and mathematics.

• All limited English proficient students will become proficient in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency or better, in reading/English language arts and mathematics.

• By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified teachers.

• All students will be educated in learning environments that are safe, drug-free, and conducive to learning.

• All students will graduate from High School.

PROS• State-wise standardized tests have resulted in a higher enrollment for

courses in mathematics than ever before. • Best nine-year-old scoring history since 1971. • Academic improvement in all subject categories. • Legislation encouraged accountability in public schools to provide

additional educational options. • Negligible achievement gap between white students and the minorities. • Measurement based performance assessment. • Detailed report cards explaining AYP performance, recommended para-

professional or parental involvement and preferred line of curriculum and instruction practice for each child.

• Special focus on students from low-income groups and disabilities. • Increased responsibility towards ethnic subgroups by awarding schools

adequate rating and recognition for measured school performance. • Improved instruction and classroom practices and scope for more parent

involvement. • Funding for school technology used in classrooms as part of NCLB, is

administered by the Enhancing Education Through Technology Program (EETT) funding for technology used within classrooms, professional teacher training and development of online assessment interfaces.

CONS• Lack of desired federal intervention to address random subject choice for

teachers. • Inadequate oversight in the case of special education. • Manipulated test records and results. • Lowered official state standards to earn incentives from improvement via

standardized tests. • Choice of select skills subsets to increase test performances leading to

misinterpretation of educational outcome. • Inherent cultural disparity since each culture is naturally gifted with certain

skills. • Lack of sensitivity towards Disabilities Education for the visually impaired

and others. • Inappropriate dispossession of students who fail to meet the desired

performance levels for the school to earn incentive. • Forced, mandatory curriculum in reading, writing, and arithmetic, impairing

grade advancement. • Restricted and almost absent non-English test assessments. • Limited scope for research-based case studies, within the "one size fits all"

policy.

CONS• The federal government has consistently failed to provide the amount of funding the

program requires. • Achievement is measured only by a students’ performance on annual multiple-choice

reading and math tests. • Teachers are increasingly only teaching “to the test” due to the widespread fear that

their students will perform badly resulting in their termination. • Critics argue that by teaching to the test, many students fail to receive a creative,

personally relevant and well-rounded curriculum. • All students are held to the same achievement standard (as dictated by their state)

regardless of their ability level, socioeconomic status and native language. • The only students who are not held to the same achievement standards are those

with severe physical or mental disabilities. • Due to the intense focus on math and reading proficiency, fewer resources and time

are devoted to subjects such as art, physical education, social studies and science. • Analysis of the academic reports by organizations who are unaffiliated with the

federal board of education have come to mixed conclusions regarding the success of NCLB in raising math and reading achievement.

• Many education professionals argue that it is impossible to compare data on a nation-wide scale because each state defines and assesses proficiency differently. 

• The term “scientifically-based” education programs is not specifically defined and allows ample room for interpretation.

• In the past year, more schools have been identified as “in need of improvement” than in previous years.

WEBSITES• I used www.nochildleftbehind.com because it gave the

history of NCLB• I didn’t use www.writewaytoread.net because it only gave

the pro side on NCLB• I used www.ernweb.com because it had success stories

about NCLB • I used www.uwr.standardizedtesting.com/no-child-left-

behind.html because it gave the con side and pro side on NCLB

• I used www.carleton.edu/departments/educ/Vote/pages/Pros_and-Cons.html because it gave videos on NCLB

• I didn’t use www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-the-no-child-left-behind-act.html because the information on NCLB was a few years old and may not be current

REFERENCES

• http://www.carleton.edu/departments/educ/Vote/pages/Pros_and-Cons.html

• http://www.buzzle.com/articles/pros-and-cons-of-the-no-child-left-behind-act.html

• http://www.ernweb.com/public/892.cfm• http://www.writewaytoread.net/Author.htm

l• http://www.uwr.standardizedtesting.com/n

o-child-left-behind.html• http://www.nochildleftbehind.com