NCLB and MCA (six of my least favorite letters)

No Child Left Behind:
An Explanation of the Newest Education Act, as well as Some of Its Flaws

No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) was signed into law on January 8, 2002, by President George W. Bush as the latest version of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. I oppose NCLB. I believe that the program has good intentions, but overzealous goals that will only hurt our education system. I also think that the tests used to determine whether or not a district has reached its AYP, as explained later in the paper, may be biased and only increase the gap between students and deprive our students of valuable learning experiences.

The goal of NCLB is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education, and reach at a minimum, proficiency on challenging state academic achievement standards and state academic assessments” (NCLB, 2001 as cited by Simpson, 2004). These proficiencies are to be met 100% by the year 2014 in the areas of reading, math, and science. “It has sweeping accountability measures that will impact every public school in Minnesota” (http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=8506). The state is responsible for establishing statewide academic standards for students, testing the students, and reporting progress and improvement in several categories. NCLB has three targets in which the law is focused on. “The targets are low achieving, economically disadvantaged students; the adults providing educational service to those students; and accountability for improving academic achievement for all students” (http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=8506). Finally, the ultimate goal of NCLB is to achieve 100% graduation rate from secondary schools, including all students who once were not proficient in English.

For students, NCLB will mean additional testing to measure the students’ progress. Students will be required to meet state standards in the areas of math, reading/language arts, and science. “Although standards have received most of the attention, benchmarks that specify what students should know and be able to do at a particular grade are even more important. The benchmarks are what students will be tested on and schools be held accountable for achieving [i.e. a benchmark for 3rd graders may be responsible for knowing the multiplication table and being able to answer questions regarding it on the state standardized test].” (http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=8506). Below are listed timelines and guidelines for implementing testing as provided by Education MN:
· 2003-2004: Transition year for Minnesota schools to modify their curriculums to meet the new standards.
· 2004-2005: Reading/Language arts and math standards will be implemented in Minnesota. These standards will be gradually worked into the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments.
· 2005-2006: Students will take the reading/language arts test annually in grades 2-8 and once in high school. As well, the science and social studies standards will be implemented.
· 2007-2008: Students will take one state test for science standards in grades 3-5, once in grades 6-9, and once in grades 9-12.
· By 2014, local districts will develop standards and test for health and physical education, vocational and technical education, and languages. Local district will also be responsible for formulating standards in the arts as well.

Just like the students, the teachers and paraprofessionals will be held accountable to standards. The minimum requirements apply to all teachers in the academic area of English, Math, Science, Foreign Language, Civics/Government, Economics, Arts, History and Geography. Teachers paid from Title 1 funds are required to meet the “highly qualified standards” since 2002-2003, and all teachers whom teach the academic subjects listed above, will be required to meet the standards by 2005-2006. To acquire the “highly qualified standards”, a teacher must:
· Have a full state license for teaching
· Have a minimum of a Bachelors Degree
· Be able to demonstrate knowledge in the academic areas in which they are teaching, by either hold a major in that subject, passing the Praxis II test in a core subject area, or by demonstrating competence in their subject through the new Minnesota high objective uniform state standard for evaluation (HOUSSE).
With the above requirements that teachers need to meet parents are now able to request the qualifications of the said teacher or paraprofessional. The parents have the right to know that their student is being taught by a “highly qualified” individual and to receive the information in a timely manner.

Paraprofessionals must also meet the “highly qualified” standards by 2006. However, paraprofessionals who work with the Title I programs, if hired after January 8th. 2002, have already had to meet these “highly qualified” standards. These standards can be met in one of three ways:
· Receive an Associates Degree
· Have completed two years of study at college or university levels
· Be able to pass and show proficiency using the state assessments in reading, writing and mathematics.

Schools, as well, will be held accountable for assuring that the above listed standards and timelines are upheld. This will be done by the schools satisfactory completion or progression towards a state mandated guideline called the “Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP for short. “Adequate yearly progress in simple terms requires increasing the percentage of students within designated subgroups who are able to demonstrate proficient levels of mastery on state language arts and math tests until the NCLB goal of 100% proficiency is reached by 2014” (Newbold, 2004). The AYP is based on each school’s individual test results over the last three years. “In Minnesota four factors will be looked at to determine the AYP: participation, proficiency, attendance, and graduation” (http://education.state.mn.us/content/072468.pdf). This holds true for school districts as well, who, along with providing yearly report card to parents, must increase the percentage of students achieving proficiency on the testing gradually, until they meet the 2014 goal of 100% proficiency.

For Title I schools, there is a set of sanctions that are to be put in place if they fail to achieve these goals. If they fail to make their AYP for two consecutive years, the school will receive technical assistance from either the state or the school district, and students will be given the option to attend another school, with the school paying for the transportation with their Title I money (up to a maximum of 5% of said money). If the schools fail to make their AYP for 3 consecutive years, they will receive the additional consequence of having to allow parents to have the option of utilizing outside supplemental teaching resources, such as private tutoring and such educational resources as the Sylvan Learning Center. This will again utilize their Title I money to pay for these services (5% maximum for the tutoring, and an additional 10% may be used for funding the first consequence). If the school continues to fail to meet the standards for the fourth year in a row, they enter the “Corrective Action” stage (http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=8506). These penalties drastically worsen, which include, but are not limited to, the replacement of staff, a forced change in the schools curriculum, and the removal of partial school and school district authority in school based matters. If the school continues to fail to meet their AYP standards for the fifth year in a row, the stage is set for the school to undergo drastic changes. This can include the complete replacement of all staff members, and the restructuring of the school itself, including changing its status from a public school to a charter school, having a private management organization take over the administration, or having the state take over completely.

In conclusion, the sanctions discussed above lead into the problems that can be found with the NCLB system. According to a simulation done by the office of the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota and the University of Minnesota Office of Educational Accountability (2004), 80-100 percent of Minnesota’s elementary schools would fail to achieve the proscribed AYP 100% quota by the year 2014. Up to 76% of the Title I elementary schools would face restructuring within the next decade. This is an unfathomable amount of restructuring, resulting in a tremendous amount of money spent during said changes (http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/Ped/2004/0404sum.htm).

The second major fault is that NC LB legislation will result in a huge forfeiture of Title I funds to help pay for much of the NCLB project. It is estimated by the Office of the Legislative Auditor for the State of Minnesota (2004) that the tests alone will cost approximately $19 million dollars annually. School districts could possibly spend up to $20 million dollars annually paying for outside services (i.e. tutoring services such as Sylvan) and transportation to and from the schools to which parents decide to send their children (http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/Ped/2004/0404sum.htm). These funds could be better spent within the school districts and the individual schools to create or strengthen their own curriculums or paying teachers’ salaries. The government entered into the NCLB with a utopian idea for the public school system, but unfortunately entered it blindly, for they are unable to provide any research that proves conclusively that this system has a chance at succeeding.

Some other issues that I believe were overlooked with NCLB, as well as any program that the outcome is based on test scores, include the fact that some students are not good test takers. Test anxiety is a real problem and to make tests the only judging factor could cause false results. Also, questions on standardized test can be biased. This has been a problem since standardized testing began. However, this bias in questions could widen the gap between white students and students of other ethnicities. And, finally, I believe that NCLB may force school districts to change curriculum and have the teachers teach to the test. This may shortchange our students of other valuable information and experiences. The only fact that can be stated about the NCLB project is that it will again divert money and information away from the people who truly need it in this whole system, the students.


References
Minnesota Department of Education. (2004). No Questions Left Behind: A Comprehensive
Guide to Minnesota’s Accountability Plan Under the No Child Left Behind Act
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 22, 2004, from
http://education.state.mn.us/content/072468.pdf
Newbold, B. L. (2004). The Faceless Mandates of NCLB [Electronic Version]. Kappa
Delta Pi Record, 41(1), 7-9.
No Child Left Behind (n.d.). Retrieved October 22, 2004, from
http://www.educationminnesota.org/index.cfm?PAGE_ID=8506
Simpson, R. L., LaCava, P. G., & Graner, P. S. (2004). The No Child Left Behind Act:
Challenges and Implications for Educators [Electronic Version]. Intervention of
School and Clinic, 40(2), 67-75.
State of Minnesota Office of the Legislative Auditor. (2004). No Child Left Behind
[Electronic Version]. Retrieved October 22, 2004, from
http://www.auditor.leg.state.mn.us/Ped/2004/0404sum.htm