The No Child Left Behind Act (Nclb) of 2001, passed January 2002 by President Bush's administration, addresses educational reform. The law reflects four educational reform principle promoted by our president: stronger accountability for results, consist of flexibility and local operate (by state and local government), addition options for parents, and emphasis on teaching methods that have proven to work. (Natrillo p.2). The reality of Nclb is that it acts like a smokescreen, construct to make habitancy believe the Bush administration has the educational system's best interest at heart and intends to limit the federal governments' operate of our social schools. The true agenda of Nclb is slyly gut the educational law of its earnings and its social tax dollars to other Bush agendas, all the while dipping federal government hands into the fate of schools nation wide.
The 2004 budget presented by Bush's administration requested billion less in educational spending in the first year than what was authorized by the Nclb act. Added this budget is 0 million short of the 2003 budget and comes as the lowest growth in eight years. This poses the extreme blow to the educational system. Cutting an already starved budget gives schools petite to adapt addition number of school children or educational cost. It also diminishes the occasion of "failing" schools obtaining promise funding entitlements under the Nclb. Other blows to educational funding comes from inaccurately publicized increases to extra schooling spending, slashed funding to the forces Impact Aid (Mia) and from school vouchers designed for school " school choice" program.
Related The "No Child Left Behind" Act.
One seeming benefit of the Nclb is that it grants a billon growth for extra schooling funding: however, this funding came from elimination of forty -six detach programs that previously cost .5 billion. This is $ 6 billion less that what the president promised as part of the Nclb. Consequently, the extra schooling funding that goes into the Individuals with Disabilities Act (Idea) is still largely under-funded. At the rate of the growth allotment from President Bush's educational proposals, it will never be fully funded (Pmct p. 2) Further, according the Congressional explore Service, "A first grader who was in school was first passed in 1975, will be 65 years old by the time the Bush administration's growth would even come close to fully funded extra education" (Pmct p.3) Lastly the budget also eliminates funding for Perkins loan program, which maintain disadvantage students.
Recommend The "No Child Left Behind" Act.
Mia will no longer compensate school districts with large habitancy of children whose parents work at forces bases or other federal installation (Martin p.2) these parents are exempt from local property taxes, the original source for school funding. It will any way still provide to school districts in parents live in forces bases, but not for those who live off base. Overall, the total deduction of funding is sixty percent to Mia, since the number of children living off-base nearly doubles the number living on-base.
Entitled, under Bush's educational budget are government fund called "school vouchers" which appear to promote parental option provisions in Nclb. However, the real motive behind availability of these funds is to finally promote incommunicable schools. The imagine to promote incommunicable schools is simply: they are confidentially funded. If you can discredit social schools and shut down schools forcing children to relocate to other districts, or incommunicable schools then the price of schooling is paid by parents and not by the government. The two school vouchers, a grant and a tax initiative, are specifically geared for incommunicable school programs. The irony of these vouchers is that they will drain over 0 million from the social schooling budget to fund them. So while paying these vouchers, social schools has to earn their voucher by passing test guidelines of the Nclb. Meanwhile incommunicable schools are totally exempt from testing guidelines.
Nclb enforces accountability accepted for successfully instructing our nation's children, lest they face the loss of federal funding. Nclb measures teacher's success through mandating testing on reading and math proficiency for definite grades in all social schools nationwide. If a school meet Nclb scoring requirement, then it will continue to receive grand federal funding and will continue to operate on the local the level. Schools that do not meet test scores or show year-to year improvement for each of five racial and ethic groups, as well as for low-income students, those with petite English fluency, or studying disabilities are classified as "low-performing" or "failed" schools. (Martin p.2). The fate of latter is severe. The Nclb requires that all students should hire tutors, exchange to other school, or face state taking over or shutting them down. In the meantime Nclb forces schools to divert money from their own budget to construct get tests that will hopefully meet Nclb requirements.
Federal funding is not guaranteed for schools that meet Nclb requirements or show marked improvement in year trends. The end-result: the federal government can decide the fate of social schools based on results of test and then turn their backs on those failing to meet criteria. Walter (2004), states that advanced curriculum and a statewide test to identify whether their students are meeting standards for themselves in a position of rethinking, reshaping, and refunding their strategies. The Nclb act and its demands are forcing many states to "throw the baby out with the bath water" as states are forced to once again change curriculum and accountability measures.
In areas that are currently struggling to staff schools completely, the Nclb raises the standards for identifying highly grand teachers. according to (Bush & Keri 2004) this growth in the accepted causes a harsher and even unrealistic challenge for small rural school districts. Bush has also ignored Dropout Crisis. Today 30 percent of kids aren't graduating high school, along with about 50 percent of African- American and Hispanic youth. No Child Left Behind contains exact provisions designed to ensure that schools are enabling more children to graduate high school but the Bush administration has failed to ensure these provisions, and has created incentives to drive up test scores by pushing low-achieving students out of schools. Under the Nclb law, schools with low graduation rates risk being designated as "failing." Schools can manipulate the figures with "pushouts," students who are pressured to leave school long before graduation in order to improve its statistics (Schafly 2003).
The testing issues brought from the Nclb are significant. First reading and math test are administered via many option tests versus question solving test that originate knowledge, formulate new idea or stymie complicated thinking. Furthermore, through Nclb does need science to be incorporated into tests by the year 2006, it fails to make room for social studies, second languages, art or music, which are increasingly left behind in curricula as a succeed of the emphasis on passing mandated test subjects. Secondly, Nclb does not consist of its own accepted testing for school to administer-the schools are forced to shell out money to get them from manufactures giants such as Harcourt General, McGraw Hill, Houghton Mifflin and others. Further, this expense balloons for struggling schools that are forced by the Nclb act to seek assistance in formulating their curricula and providing principal assistance to students. Lastly, it is prominent to argue Bush's principle that testing is a "proven teaching method" in enhancing student learning. If this were true, then it could be plausible to expect states that have high test scores on the Nclb tests to also have high rising scores on other national tests. Apparently this is a false presumption. In a four year study by the University of Arizona on the impact of high-stakes testing in eighteen states, sconces did not rise for other national tests such as Sat, Act, Naep, or Ap (University of Minnesota p. 1). Lastly, a saddening succeed of Club's testing assessments is that it has reported that some talented teachers have become frustrated with test and left the profession. Meanwhile, student who have not been able to succeed in their scores have dropped out.
Upon implementing, Nclb was announced to the social amidst of sea of propaganda touting its value for forcing stinger accountability upon schools and teachers, addition flexibility and local control, addition options for parents, and enforcing tried-and true methods of teaching. However, Nclb is saturated with incommunicable federal government agendas, particularly those of George W. Bush, None of this benefit social education. On the contrary, Nclb succeeds only in granting federal government more power over social schooling saddling the states with majority of monetary educational obligations. First, the Nclb provides more detailed federal operate over state funding and does not promise funding to school that "pass" Nclb guidelines. Second, it enables the federal government to force state to manage and fund schools that fail federal standards with original federal aid or guidance. The Nclb withdrew existing social schooling funding to originate so-called "school vouchers" to subsidize incommunicable schooling of tutoring as on real option for parents with children in failing schools. Lastly, Nclb undermines the growth of our children by forcing high stake national tests that are depriving them from concentrating on a wider range of subjects.
Nclb succeeds beyond anyone's expectations in these respect-narrowing educational curricula out of sheer necessity to stay afloat in the law it currently stands. This piece of legislation seems to have failed to meet any law that Bush administration claimed it embodied. In fact, it ensures that taxes will rise while the federal government diverts the federal schooling budget funds towards other agendas. States will have to look to slash or match school programs and budgets to keep social schooling afloat. Meanwhile, the federal government does petite or nothing to help. Nclb is a monster bend on devouring the remaining occasion for our children to get a well rounded schooling previously guaranteed to them. In sum, it proves that Bush administration does not have the educational law at heart, nor do they intend to get the federal government out of our social schools. Bracey (2002) calls this act a trap, a grand project of social privatizes. Nclb act sets up social schools for the final knock down.
References
Bracy, Gerald W. (November, 2002) The No Child Left Behind Act: Just Say No: schooling News. Org
Bush, Laura & Kerry, John F. (May 13, 2004) Kerry Campaign: an additional one Bush Failure: President Ignores High School Dropout Crisis. U.S Newswire. Washington: Retrieved University Of Phoenix Online Library, from Proquest.com May 15, 2004.
"Leave No Corporation Behind: Bush's testing initative". University of Minnesota College of schooling and Human Development. June 18 2002. Retrieved May 1, 2004.from [http://education.umn.edu/research/testing-editorial.html]
Martin, Patrick. "Bush budget Plan Attacks social Education" World socialist website (www.wsws.org). Written February 3, 2003. Retrieved May 1, 2004. From [http://www.wsws.org/articles/2003/feb2003/budg-f15_prn.shtml]
Natriello, Professor Gray, "Education Urban Impact statement". Columbia University's Urban Impact Consortium. February 11, 2000. Retrieved April 27, 2004 from [http://www.columbia.edu/cu/pu/00/02/urbanimpact/education/html/]
"No Child Left Behind schooling and Impact". Pmct.org Retrieved May 10, 2004 form http//Pmct.org/articles/03/nclb.html
Schafly, Phyllis (Oct 2003) Leaving more Children behind: Vol. 59, Iss. 37; pg. 10 Retrieved from University Of Phoenix Online, On May 15, 2004
Walter, James K. (May 2004) A closer look at the fundamental issue of the Nclb Act: Vol. 18, pg. 1, 4 pgs: Retrieved from University Of Phoenix Online on May 15, 2004 from Proquest.com
No comments:
Post a Comment