• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
No Child Left Behind

No Child Left Behind



My attempt to have my local represenitives vote down NCLB.

My attempt to have my local represenitives vote down NCLB.



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



2 Embeds 11

http://www.lmodules.com 10
https://blackboard.bsu.edu 1



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft Word

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment

    No Child Left Behind No Child Left Behind Document Transcript

    • Recommendations For The Reauthorization Of No Child Left Behind Prepared for Bob Ingles Congressional Representative for South Carolina Prepared by James Hanson October 14, 2007
    • Memorandum Date: September 26, 2007 To: Senator Bob Ingles From: James Hanson Subject: Recommendations for Reauthorization Of No Child Left Behind This is a report that addresses the areas of concentration that South Carolina and Greenville County will use to persuade Representative Ingles and the United States Congress in their reauthorization of No Child Left Behind. As stated by many educators the NCLB act that was signed into law in January 2002 by the Bush Administration is in desperate need of repair. Although in theory the law sounds like the answer to every schools education woes, it has been a feeble attempt to improve student achievement. Taking a look at many comments and statistics about the law will show that the reauthorization that is scheduled in September 2007 is well overdue. Below is a list of recommendations strongly being suggested to Congress on this matter. The State should possess the power to evaluate students on more than one test score. The average size of a class should be reduced. The State should increase the number of highly qualified teachers. The State should have the ability to terminate any teacher that does not meet the standards set by the State Board of Education. The recommendations come from many sources that will be highlighted throughout this report. The persuasive arguments being sent to Rep. Ingles will hopefully help this law to either be revamped entirely or eliminated. It is an honor to work on a report that has such an impact on the education of South Carolina children. Hopefully, the work accomplished here will help in the overall outcome reached by the United States Congress on this vital reauthorization.
    • I Contents Executive Summary III Explanation of No Child Left Behind III Introduction IV Effects the law has on schools V All students must pass standardized test. Funding for law. Overcrowding of classrooms. Unqualified teachers Teaching for test only Recommendations for reauthorization by the state. V Use more than test scores to measure student performance. Smaller class sizes. Make exemptions for Special Ed. students. Increase number of highly qualified teachers. Local school district's resolution. VII Lack of funding Deterioration of local control Unrealistic accountability Conclusion VIII Works Citied IX
    • II Executive Summary This report examines the No Child Left Behind Education Reform Act that became a law in 2002. It will discuss the effect that the law has had on the State's education and the recommendations being offered by both the State and Greenville County Board of Education. Explanation of the No Child Left Behind Law Brought forth by the Bush Administration, the NCLB act was presented to Congress as an aggressive way to tie federal funding of schools to the academic achievement of their student body. The influential arguments presenting this act enable it to become a law in January 2002. In theory the law presents a great idea. It only seems logical to hold educators accountable for the academic success of students. However, the law creates a host of problems bringing havoc and confusion into the entire process. Problems with No Child Left Behind The NCLB has been a nightmare for the state and local school systems. The federal funding linked to the test scores has caused teachers and administrators to focus all their efforts on their schools ability to pass the standardized test required by the federal government. The NCLB requires that every student demonstrates proficiency on a state test by 2013-14. If not the schools will be designated as failing. Along with the previously mentioned problems the law was also passed without adequate funding. These problems associated with NCLB have snowballed into many more problems stemming from the increased pressure to maintain high test scores. Recommendations for Reauthorization The State and Greenville Country School Boards would like the opportunity to use several different measures of student achievement. They would also like the ability to limit class size, offer higher salaries to attack quality teachers, and restructure the federal funding of schools. The State would also like to make early childhood education for 4 year olds mandatory.
    • III Introduction Originally titled the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, now re-titled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 set a goal that all children should score proficient on standardized test by 2013-2014. The primary focus of the act was to create creditable goals, superior principles and responsibility for the education of children. Persuaded into law by the Bush Administration in January 2002, the new established NCLB law introduced American students and educators to new way of measuring performance in the classroom. Deemed as the ultimate measure of academic progress each state was given the opportunity to create it’s own standardized test. These test allowed each state to gauge the success of the school on the overall score achieved on this test. This created an atmosphere that caused educators to focus all efforts on their student's abilities to pass the standardized test. Educators knew that failure would be dramatically tied to the school's federal funding. Stated in the law, it outlines the disciplinary action schools face if they do not meet the laws strict guidelines. This forced school administrators to insist that their teachers teach students to pass the test. This is the primary focus of this report. Along with discussing the consequences coming from teaching for the test, the report will tell of many other problem are caused by NCLB and the many recommendations coming from both The Greenville County and South Carolina Boards of Education.
    • IV Effects the Law Has On Schools The law currently requires that each student pass a state approved standardized achievement test. This test is given at the end of each school years. The children are coached and prepared by their teachers for this all important exam. Because of legislation requirements set into place by the law, federal funding for the school rest directly on the overall outcome of the testing; other than the score on the yearly PACT exam, schools are also judged on their graduation rate, and percentage of students available to take the exam. Furthermore, high priority is placed on English and mathematics and less on social studies, science, etc. Classroom size has also become a hindrance. Overcrowding places a large burden on educators. Giving individual attention to students has become a thing of the past. NCLB in theory ask that schools be held accountable for the education of students. The law creates a lot of problems for school administrators, because of the increase in classroom size, teaching for the PACT exam, and federal funding linked to exam outcome, teachers that are highly qualified do not want to deal with all the hassles. They are leaving the profession for more fulfilling careers. Recommendations for Reauthorization by the State (South Carolina) The recent evaluations that are based on the PACT exam tend to lead to muggy results. South Carolina is pushing heavily to restructure the test. The Post and Courier, Charleston, SC COLUMBIA- Increasing teacher’s salaries, giving additional incentives to teachers who teach in high-poverty schools, altering the state’s school funding formula and changing standardized testing are a few of the recommendations of State Superintendent of Education Jim Rex. Rex and former state Rep. Ronny Townsend, who led the accountability committee, agreed that PACT is in desperate need of modification. The assessment tests dominate the time of teachers and students, yet results don’t provide details on how a student can improve and aren’t released until several months after the test is taken. The federal No Child Left Behind law is up for reauthorization this year, making it an ideal time to consider devising new tests. (Together we can) Many of the issued discussed above are the reasons for South Carolina children receiving a less than satisfactory education.
    • V The State feels that the overcrowding of classrooms is one of the most troublesome areas. The overcrowding is a result of under funding of schools; it is a fact that without money to offer competitive salaries, college graduates shy away from the teaching profession. The PACT exam is an all inclusive test that allows for no exceptions. South Carolina like other states feel that this is extremely unfair. They purpose that new guidelines be established for testing. In these guidelines there is a need for realignment. United States Senator Russ Feingold elaborates his own opinions in this article from the National Education Association website. U.S. Senator Russ Feingold has introduced the Improving Student Testing Act of 2007, a bill that will make changes to the No Child Left Behind Act to improve the quality of education assessments used in our schools and support innovation state and local school reform efforts. The legislation is fully paid for through offsets. Feingold’s legislation contains the following provisions: Reforming NCLB’s Focus on High Stakes Testing- Encourages states and local districts to move away from using high stakes standardizing testing as the primary measurement of academic achievement in school accountability decisions. The bill provides competitive grant funds for states and local districts encouraging the creation of high-quality, authentic measurement of student performance. The legislation also provides states and local districts with flexibility to use high- quality multiple measures of assessment in state testing and accountability systems. Reforming Testing Mandates- Promotes state and local control over decisions affecting children’s day –to-day classroom experiences, including the frequency and use of high stakes standardized testing. The bill reforms the federal testing mandate to allow annual assessment at least once in grades 3-5,6-9, and 10-12, instead of the current requirements for annual testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school. Revising the One-Size-Fits-All Adequate Yearly Progress Model- Provides flexibility for states to develop alternative accountability models. One example of such models include growth models, which allow schools to better ensure that each student, regardless of his or her current academic level, continues to make academic progress. Addressing the 2014 Deadline- Reforms the 2014 deadline by putting in place a funding trigger that waives the 2014 deadline for any year that Congress does not fully fund Title I, Part A.
    • VI Improving the Department of Education’s Peer Review Process- Makes changes to the Department’s peer review process to ensure that states have the ability to interact directly with peer review teams. The bill also encourages more consistent decision-making from state to state during the federal peer review process of state testing and accountability systems. Disaggregating Graduation Rates- Requires states to disaggregate graduation rates by NLCB’s student subgroups, including economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, student with disabilities, and students with limited English proficiency. Encouraging Capacity Building- Creates a competitive and flexible grant program to provide funds for state and local districts to help build their infrastructure and capacity. Increased access to federal funding for capacity building will help encourage states to develop better assessment and accountability systems including using multiple measures of assessments and growth models. Improving Privacy Protections- Includes important measure to help ensure the privacy of personal information contained in state education data systems. (Feingold) Local School District Resolution When contacting the Greenville County Board of Education for their opinion of NLCB, they sent me a copy of the following letter sent to the state congressmen. Whereas, The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) was passed by the United States Congress and signed into law on January 8, 2020, and Whereas, the members of the Board of Trustees of Greenville County Schools support the goals of the Act including improving accountability in public schools, offering parents more educational options for their children, and closing the achievement gap between minority and white students, and Whereas, the members of the Board of Trustees of Greenville County Schools however, have serious concerns regarding the No Child Left Behind Act’s effectiveness, fairness and accuracy in reporting significant data, and
    • VII Whereas, Congress has already begun consideration of major revisions to the Act, which is up for possible reauthorization in 2007, and Whereas, school districts and states across the nation share these concerns with leaders such as Utah Governor Jon Huntsman (R) signing a measure into state law, which allows the state's district's to ignore the provisions of the law that conflict with Utah's state programs, and Whereas, concerns regarding the Act include: the failure of Congress to fully fund the Act; the inequitable standards and testing programs across the nation which produce misleading state reports and unduly penalize states with high standards such as South Carolina, the deterioration of local control in making educational policy, the excessive negative impact on Title I schools, the lack of funding to meet increasing infrastructure and resources requirements, and the unrealistic accountability benchmarks which provide no provisions for reasonable student academic growth and inaccurately portray student achievement within schools and districts; Therefore, be it resolved that the members of the Board of Trustees of Greenville County Schools strongly urge the members of Congress, specifically Senator Lindsey O. Graham, Senator James W. DeMint, Representative Henry E. Brown, Jr., Representative Joe Wilson, Representative J. Gresham Barrett, Representative Robert D. Ingles, Representative John M. Spratt, Jr. and Representative James E. Clyburn to support the reauthorization of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Public Law 107-110) if provisions are included therein which address all of the concerns above while protecting the lofty goals of the bill and endorsing accountability and reporting method which are accurate, reasonable and fair. (Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees) Conclusion In summary, as discussed in this report NCLB has been an extremely controversial law, In practice NCLB should have been able to help education. It ask that everyone involved in the education of children be held accountable. Because of poor execution and under funding, the wonderful idea of this law reeked havoc on educators and school systems. This report helps outline the many proposals being offered by both South Carolina and the Greenville County Boards of Education in hope that it may help in the reauthorization of NCLB.
    • VIII Works Citied Feingold, U.S. Senator Russ. quot;Improving Student Testing Act of 2007(S. 2053)quot;. October 2, 2007. http://www.nea.org/lac/esea/studentstest:ng.html. Greenville County Schools Board of Trustees. quot;Resolutionquot;. E-mailed to State of South Carolina Congressmen. 8 January 2002. quot;Together we canquot;. South Carolina Dept of Education. February 13,2007. http://www.ed.sc.gov/news/related/more.cfm?newsID=735relatedId=8
    • IX