NCLB

(2001)
 * No Child Left Behind **

__Principles of NCLB:__  __Measures and Sanctions__ Schools are expected to make AYP (adequate yearly progress) toward the goal of 100% proficiency, if they do not they will be labeled as a SINI (school in need of improvement.) As a SINI, sanctions follow: first year, they are put on notice. Second year, the school must give the option to all students to transfer to a different school, and transportation will be paid out of the district's federal funding. Third year the school must offer free tutoring, paid by the district's federal funding. Fourth year the school must take "corrective action," which could include staff changes, curriculum changes, or addition of time spent in classes. On the fifth year they will required to "restructure," which gives them five options: 1) convert to a charter school 2) replace the principle and staff 3) turn control over to private management 4) turn the school over to the state 5) any other major reconstructing in the authority of the state.Schools must also test and report students' academic skills in reading and math with the federal exam, NAEP (national assessment of educational progress,) every other year, beginning in fourth grade.
 * 1) Every child should be tested, every year, grades 3-8 using state (not national) tests
 * 2) Decisions about how to reform schools would be made by states (not Washington)
 * 3) Low performing schools would get help to improve
 * 4) Students stuck in persistently dangerous or failing schools would be able to transfer to other schools

__Where the provisions failed__  __History of NCLB__ The bill was passed in 2001, during the presidency of George W. Bush. In his book, Ravitch writes that this bill would have been opposed by Democrats for its heavy emphasis on testing and Republicans for its expansion of federal power on schools, however because of the timing (after Sept. 11th) of the proposal, it went right through. Also that tests focused on accountability, that they could show whether or not students were learning and then the schools would be rewarded or punished, no one thought much about the quality, validity, or reliability of the tests (2010).
 * 1) Some schools were excellent, however, labeled as SINI because of one failing subgroup (often special Ed.)
 * 2) On the second year that a school is labeled SINI, students have the choice to move to a successful school, however very few students were doing this some the reasons were: often alternative schools had no space for new students, or in rural areas no other schools existed at the same grade level, parents did not want to bus their children to far away schools, and often felt most comfortable with the neighborhood school (despite its 'failing' label.)
 * 3) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">On the third year they were to offer free tutoring or supplemental education services (SES,) 'voucher program.' However less than 20% of eligible students in any state actually received it because: private tutoring agencies and public school often had discrepancies with each other (about space, insurance, operation and methods, etc.) Also it seemed that extending the school day kept students away from tutoring as well.
 * 4) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Billions of dollars were going to tutoring companies, creators of tests, and test pre materials, however students were showing little change.
 * 5) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">States are left the role of creating their own standards and definitions of improvement, therefore claims of progress were often inflated and standards unclear. Often states claim that they are at much higher levels of proficiency than federal test scores show (for example, Mississippi claimed that 89% of their fourth graders were at or above proficiency, however, the NAEP test showed on 18% were.) For fear of sanctions, states often lowered standards rather than raise them (as desired by NCLB.) (Colorado is among the states with the lowest expectations.)
 * 6) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Incentives and sanctions (the forces driving NCLB) are meant for businesses (focused on profit,) but are not appropriate for schools. Sanctions are ineffective and cause the privatization of schools in large numbers.
 * 7) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">It sets a "magical date" (2014,) by which all students (regardless of background,) must be **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">proficient. ****<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Proficient **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;"> is too high an expectation, since years previous show that only about one third of students across the country have been able to reach this level and that **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">functional **<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;"> would be a much more reasonable expectation. The goal of 100% is unattainable and therefore "a timetable for the demolition of public education in the United States."
 * 8) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">The only guaranteed method for turning around a failing school is to transform the population, that is exchange low-performing students for high-performing ones; rather than making sure 'no child gets left behind,' low performing students get shuffled around, and hidden from existence.
 * 9) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">A study conducted by the CEP (center for Education Policy,) found that restructuring, no matter which strategy was used, rarely helped turn students performance around or meet the AYP
 * 10) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Stress on testing takes away from other subjects which often spark interest in students, which increase their motivation in school, and could actually improve their performance. It trains students to answer a specific type of question on a test, but does not educate them. Therefore they often reach high school ill prepared
 * 11) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">NCLB did not bring about high standards or high accomplishments
 * 12) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Improvements were mostly a result of learning test taking skills, not broadening their knowledge or understanding of the world, or ability to understand what they've learned
 * 13) <span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">Assumed that low scores were a result of lazy teachers and principals, and that higher test scores = better education

<span style="font-family: 'Arial','sans-serif'; font-size: 13px;">References for this page:

Ravitch, D. (2010). NCLB: Measure and punish. In //The death and life of the great American school system: How testing and choice are undermining education//. NY: Basic Books.