The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, President George W. Bush’s education reform bill, was signed into law on Jan. 8, 2002. The No Child Left Behind Act says that states will develop and apply challenging academic standards in reading and math. It will also set annual progress objectives to make sure that all groups of students reach proficiency within 12 years. And the act also says that children will be tested annually in grades 3 through 8, in reading and math to measure their progress.
The test results will be made public in annual report cards on how schools and states are progressing toward their objectives. States will have until the 2005-06 school year to develop and apply their tests. Once the tests are in place, schools will be required to show ‘adequate yearly progress’ toward their statewide objectives. This means that they must demonstrate through their test scores that they are on track to reach 100 percent proficiency for all groups of students within 12 years.
The schools that fall behind may tend to have school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring measures forced by the state. The No Child Left Behind Act has many positive and negative aspects. Many school teachers and community members are starting to challenge many of the features of the No Child Left Behind Act. Many people feel that the law was developed too quickly and that it was pushed through Congress. For many years, both Democrats and Republicans have supported the limited role of the federal government in education. Now after the passing of the No Child Left Behind Act, many schools feel like they have lost the local control they once had.
The Essay on Primary Education and School Children
The Government of India in 2001 launched the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), a nationwide programme to provide universal primary education, thereby encouraging secondary education also. The Center passed The Right to Education Act in 1 April 2010, which guarantees free and compulsory education to every child in the 6-14 age groups. But, the lack of awareness on the requirement of pre-school education ...
Democrats and Republicans should challenge the No Child Left Behind Act. Even though the No Child Left Behind Act has good intentions to help children, there are many hazardous strategies involved. The No Child Left Behind Act may do more harm than good. The strategies in the No Child Left Behind Act do not contain research evidence to support the law. The No Child Left Behind Act guidelines that were published in December, 2002 by the United States Department of Education, insist that parents of students in poorly performing schools be allowed to transfer them to a different school, even if it causes overcrowding somewhere else.
The No Child Left Behind Act also has a very narrow focus on curriculum. The act focuses on just math and reading scores. This could have an undemocratic effect on a large generation of students in poorly performing schools. Schools would have take away much of the broad education in order to elevate scores on just two subject areas. Students in wealthy schools with good test scores will continue to learn a full range of subjects including art, social studies and science, while the students who scored poorly on the tests, will be receiving education in only two subject areas. It is not right to put two subjects as the top priority.
This means that not all students will get a complete education. This concern with literacy and math skills divides education into two groups. One group is forced to learn basic skills and the other group gets the more complete education. The goal of raising the performance level of all students is an honorable idea, but the change in performance should be in all subject areas not just math and reading. The No Child Left Behind Act’s main provisions ignore the fact that poorly performing students will somehow become good readers by moving to a school with good scores. The chance that the previously successful school will find its average scores pulled down by the new students.
The Essay on Condoms vs Abstinence for Public School Children
Rush Limbaugh’s article, “Condoms: The New Diploma,” berates the common practice of distributing condoms to school children. The iconic conservative talk show host, who is blessed with “talent on loan from God,” uses forceful, colloquial arguments and analogies to warn against the messages and possible dire consequences that public school condom distribution can impart on America’s children. He ...
Since the school’s performance is rated by five categories of students and watching their scores, the school could decline into a poor category. Standardized testing is an ineffective way to assess students on their learning. These tests are not helpful because not all students learn the same way. The debate about these test have gone for a long period of time. Solutions must be made and alternatives are the only key. web.
