1 Ethics in Assessment: No Child Left Behind Act https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS PAPER THIS IS FOR EXAMPLE USE ONLY NO plagiarism Ethics in Assessment: "The No Child Left Behind Act" Psychological Testing as well as Assessments are used for many, important, and diverse reasons. One reason they are used is for situations like disability and legal matters because they may need the use of tests to obtain information that permits an individual to be compared to another individual. For instance, "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act". Within this paper I will elaborate on the ethical implications of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I will provide a thorough description of the background of this act and it was implemented. In addition, I will also discuss the legal implications associated with this act. The No Child Left Behind act heavily focuses on providing assessments to all children; however, biases do exist and I will elaborate on these biases. Moreover, I will be discussing the ethical implications for diverse populations as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act. Background of No Child Left Behind Act George W. Bush positioned the "No Child Left Behind Act" law into action on January 8, 2002 . President Lyndon Baines Johnson overseen the transitory of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 (Guthrie, 2002). The act of the federal government greatly confirmed the significance of education for individuals of United States (Guthrie, 2002).The complication of the NCLB advocates it will be vital and challenging evenly to anyone assigned to overseeing the action. The original purpose, was intended to hold equal opportunity for all children in families with lower incomes by providing federal funds to the schools providing an education for low-income children (Guthrie, 2002).The school districts educating children of low-income were frequently given a smaller amount of local and state funds than the school districts supplying an education for children with family of a higher income. From 1965 when the law was in effect, ESEA has been once more authorized seven times (Guthrie, 2002). Each reauthorization has initiated change; however, the key principle of bettering the opportunities of students with lower incomes is still an issue (Guthrie, 2002). The signing of the NCLB act indicated an identification of the lower academic levels of achievements within children in public schools (Guthrie, 2002).The NCLB act was intended to be an act of a positive influence in education and to raise the academic achievement levels of all students (Guthrie, 2002).The No Child Left Behind act intention was to better all schools performance (Guthrie, 2002).The objective of the NCLB act was to lessen the opening by using individual state liability and permit the children's parents to have more of a choice in her or her child’s education (Guthrie, 2002). Moreover ...

1. 1
Ethics in Assessment: No Child Left Behind Act
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_Child_Left_Behind_Act
PLEASE DO NOT COPY THIS PAPER THIS IS FOR
EXAMPLE USE ONLY
NO plagiarism
Ethics in Assessment: "The No Child Left Behind Act"
Psychological Testing as well as Assessments are used for
many, important, and diverse reasons. One reason they are used
is for situations like disability and legal matters because they
may need the use of tests to obtain information that permits an
individual to be compared to another individual. For instance,
"The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act". Within this
paper I will elaborate on the ethical implications of the No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I will provide a thorough
description of the background of this act and it was
implemented. In addition, I will also discuss the legal
implications associated with this act. The No Child Left Behind
act heavily focuses on providing assessments to all children;
however, biases do exist and I will elaborate on these biases.
Moreover, I will be discussing the ethical implications for
diverse populations as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Background of No Child Left Behind Act
George W. Bush positioned the "No Child Left Behind
Act" law into action on January 8, 2002 . President Lyndon
Baines Johnson overseen the transitory of the original
Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965

2. (Guthrie, 2002). The act of the federal government greatly
confirmed the significance of education for individuals of
United States (Guthrie, 2002).The complication of the NCLB
advocates it will be vital and challenging evenly to anyone
assigned to overseeing the action. The original purpose, was
intended to hold equal opportunity for all children in families
with lower incomes by providing federal funds to the schools
providing an education for low-income children (Guthrie,
2002).The school districts educating children of low-income
were frequently given a smaller amount of local and state funds
than the school districts supplying an education for children
with family of a higher income. From 1965 when the law was in
effect, ESEA has been once more authorized seven times
(Guthrie, 2002). Each reauthorization has initiated change;
however, the key principle of bettering the opportunities of
students with lower incomes is still an issue (Guthrie, 2002).
The signing of the NCLB act indicated an identification of
the lower academic levels of achievements within children in
public schools (Guthrie, 2002).The NCLB act was intended to
be an act of a positive influence in education and to raise the
academic achievement levels of all students (Guthrie,
2002).The No Child Left Behind act intention was to better all
schools performance (Guthrie, 2002).The objective of the NCLB
act was to lessen the opening by using individual state liability
and permit the children's parents to have more of a choice in her
or her child’s education (Guthrie, 2002). Moreover, by
recognizing failing schools, parents would have the choice to
move his or her child to a different school making ample
progress. The NCLB’s accountability was to increase the
financial allocations (Guthrie, 2002). Next we will discuss the
Legal Implications with the NCLB.
Legal Implications
Arne Duncan, who was the "United States Secretary of
Education" in 2011, was involved in a campaign to have
Congress revise the act and issued a caution stating that "82%"
of the schools would be deemed as failing schools. The

3. percentage in the end was not that elevated; although, numerous
states did see failure rates of over "50%" (McNeil, 2011). The
act permitted the states to place their individual yearly standard
(McNeil, 2011). In turn, this allowed the states to reach 100%
by 2012-13. Various states refused to raise their standards more
or even ask for waivers. In 2011, Arne Duncan made a pledge to
develop a waiver choice for individual states; although, there
would be other implications that meant the states would have to
recognize some administration’s education main concerns
(McNeil, 2011). Both Democrats and Republicans of Congress
agreed the law needed to be revised (Klein, 2011). The NCLB
Act had a number of supporters amongst education leaders that
showed support for the severe responsibility orders (Hess,
2014). The supporters distinguish the orders as vital handles of
change, clearness, and completeness. Various groups argued
the concluding usefulness of NCLB could be because of how the
schools and states stand by the values of the hard accountability
beliefs (Hess, 2014).Below I will discuss the analysis of biases.
Analysis of Biases
Many states are left to make a decision of what their standards
are concerning assessments for students; however, the
assessments are mandatory to line up with the standards
(Sclafani, 2002). The dilemma with this can be that some states
are not entirely parallel with the standards. In history many
students were passed in spite of how he or she was doing in
school. There were a lot of biases toward children with lower
socioeconomic backgrounds. This bias led to children being
passed to a higher grade just so a teacher does not have to
handle the child again. The assessment now specified it is
because of the "No Child Left Behind Act" but this can be bias
and numerous individuals do argue the tests are not fairly put
together. Moreover, some students who struggle with the
assessments do not have any difficulty with his or her school
work assignments. Sadly, many states believe that assessments
are directed toward children with a higher socioeconomic
backgrounds or even race (Sclafani, 2002).

4. Assessments given to children at schools defiantly sparked up
many questions. Is the information used to create the tests
correct? Is the information biased? Before No Child Left Behind
was in place various schools were so far off behind that the
information taken from these schools could twist the results of
the tests. For example, the material that is on the assessment
could or may not be taught. If the material is not taught, how
can one be certain the child had a fair passing chance (Cohen,
& Swerdlik, 2010)? Moreover, the quality of teachers can be
low in some school districts along with leadership (Sclafani,
2002). Due to this situation, in many cases, the state ordered
assessments that were designed to ensure The No Child is Left
Behind will not facilitate if the quality of leadership and
teachers is low although numerous highly skilled teachers and
principals will not teach in a school that has problems and low
test grades (Sclafani, 2002). "Today all major test publishers
strive to develop instruments that are fair when used in strict
accordance with guidelines in the test manual. However, despite
the best efforts of many professionals, fairness-related
questions and problems do occasionally arise" (Cohen, &
Swerdlik, 2010, p.123).
There also seems to be bias when it comes to funding.
According to the New American Foundation (2014), the No
Child Left Behind outlines all children should have the right to
a good education. Regrettably, finances are restricted and the
school with high scores on assessments get more financial
support than the schools with low scores on assessment
(Schroeder, 2001). With little resources for low performing
schools it appears that there are not many alternatives for those
students. The students decline would become poorer as these
schools struggle with getting the required resources (Schroeder,
2001).
Ethical Implications for Diverse Populations
Students in schools with large populations of low-income and
minority children are many times underprivileged of a rich
education that will get the child ready for a successful future

5. (Lamp, & Krohn,199). It is said that low-income and minority
children many times do not test as well, and his or her school
may fall short of making the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
and are put underneath sanctions (Neill, 2003). According to
Neil (2003), The many subjects like “history, science, language,
and art” are being eliminated or cut back, and have statured to
focus more on subjects on the standardized tests, like math and
reading capability (Neill, 2003, p. 225). In addition, if the
schools do not make AYP two years consistently the school can
lose federal backing (Neill, 2003). NCLB did not allot for any
expense increases for education; however, is leaving it up to the
states to implement the authorization of not making AYP For
example, eliminating staff members, takeovers. Low-income
regions in states that are struggling with the expenses of
meeting federal requirements have to make elimination in
education expenses by decreasing staff, boosting the size of the
class, and cutting finances to raise student achievement (Neill,
2003). According to Neil (2003), Diversely occupied schools in
states that are determining AYP on groups with as few as "30 or
less children" are destined to fail. Moreover, schools that are
doing well will be recognized as failing and pushed into
discarding sufficient teaching methods (Neill, 2003).
Meeting NCLB standards is hard for all schools in a state to
achieve, unfortunately, sometimes failing to meet AYP occurs.
Strategic lessons is a process and each school must be made
aware the school can be in danger of failure (Krieg, 2011). This
process entails the choice of focusing attention on the low-
performing children at the cost of skillful and more advanced
children (Krieg, 2011). Many classrooms have become
environments for test training that children are taught to take
tests rather than having an enriched program of study (Krieg,
2011). A self-styled curricular ceiling is positioned on children
of higher achievement for the reason that instructors are using
basic materials to assist lower performing children and are
failing to supply higher materials to enhance the education of
the students who are by now doing very well (Krieg, 2011).

6. The racial dilemma with executing strategic teaching are the
test scores for students of one racial group can force the
education of other students in another minority group (Krieg,
2011). As an example, one may say a Chinese student goes to
school and does well because the Chinese group made AYP;
however, the African American group did not. The student is
likely to struggle academically, since the resources will now be
focused away from the Chinese group of students, and focus on
the African American group of students. Another Chinese
student attends a school in which all groups made AYP; thus,
the second student is not as likely to struggle academically
since all groups are getting equivalent resources. Moreover, it is
not ethical two students at different schools in the identical
racial group are not receiving an equivalent chance for a good
educational achievement (The American Psychological
Association, 2014). In addition, it is not ethical that all students
do not have equivalent admittance to resources intended to
improve his or her individual education needs, despite of which
group he or she belongs to, or who the student goes to school
with (The American Psychological Association, 2014). Next we
will elaborate on some norming bias.
The Norming in Creating Bias
Norm-referenced tests are tests planned to evaluate and rank the
takers of the test in relation to one another and could be biased
if the “norming process” does not hold representative samples
of all subgroups that are tested. For example, if the test
developer does not have linguistically, culturally, and
socioeconomically diverse students in the first comparison
groups the resulting test could be at a disadvantage for the
groups excluded (Cohen and Swerdlik, 2005). According to
Cohen, and Swerdlik (2005), Norms are important as to give a
framework for understanding the meaning of a test score. To
meet the terms of the NCLB states must apply an accountability
system in which "95%" of all children in the school have to take
the standardized tests for that state. The test used in states is a
norm referenced test that evaluates each individual that takes

7. the test to another group of individuals that had taken the test
before (Cohen, and Swerdlik, 2005).The test is used with
percentiles to measure the individuals that took the test and then
measure them against the other individuals that have taken the
test before (Cohen, and Swerdlik, 2005). Than a large number
of individuals became the "norm score" and the other
individuals scores are based on that norm score (Cohen, and
Swerdlik, 2005).
In addition to the other standards mentioned above, standards
for sub-groups have to be met, this comprises of “racial/ethnic
groups, students with limited English proficiency, economically
disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities” (Breslin,
2009, p. 658). Larger schools with a larger population of
children with disabilities may fail to meet the AYP since the
influence of test scores of children with disabilities can lower
the entire score within the school. Smaller schools with the
identical curriculum can make AYP since the population of
students with disabilities could be so small the group fails to
meet the statistics for the testing. In an effort to abide by with
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), NCLB
does allow for a few accommodations to be made for testing
children with disabilities, and the amount of the
accommodations is determined by what state the child is in (The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). Example of
accommodations can comprise of format changes, some parts of
the test may be read aloud by another individual to the child
with disabilities, or change the place of testing; nevertheless,
the accommodations cannot modify what the test is calculating
or the capability to evaluate results according to his or her
individual education plan (IEP), and the accommodations are
needed (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014).
Students with disabilities, in accordance with IDEA, need an
IEP that is exclusive to and fitting for his or her learning
abilities (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act,
2014). NCLB states that children with disabilities have to be
deemed as severely cognitively impaired, or be evaluated by the

8. identical standards as his or her peers that are not disabled (The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). This
necessitates children with disabilities be assessed on
information they may not know, or that is not in fulfillment
with his or her IEP’s (Breslin, 2009).
Conclusion
Throughout this paper one has learned NCLB was designed to
close the opening connecting academic achievement of low
income and minority children and his or her Caucasian middle
class corresponding children. Lawmakers did see the need for
revision of NCLB and wanted to steady the balance and make it
easier for many states to bring all schools in the states up to
national standards. Sadly, assessments are packed with biases,
and it is a challenge to accommodate children of a lower
socioeconomic status has met minimum standards. The Norming
in producing bias tests are still to this day misunderstood by
students in subgroups, which in addition, can bias the outcomes
in a negative manner. Not only can a possible identification of
failing students but schools as failing schools and more
excluding struggling children. Bias is apparent in test scoring,
in which higher performing schools obtain more inducements
and low performing or failing schools have restricted
educational resources. Finally, "the ethical implications of
NCLB for diverse populations" are genuine and it is difficult to
understand why the government legislation titled the act “No
Child Left Behind” when in truth, it does leave children behind.
Because states are forced to obey federal regulations, and the
existing biases, it seems NCLB has harmed more low income
and minority populations than helped. However, because test
results are presently broadly used when making imperative
decisions regarding students, test developers and test experts
have recognized and are implementing a number of approaches
that can decrease, or even abolish, test bias and unfairness in
the upcoming future.
References

9. Breslin, M. A. (2009). No child left behind and the inherent
conflict with the individuals with disabilities education act:
Leaving special education students further behind. Albany
Government Law Review. Retrieved from,
http://www.albanygovernmentlawreview.org/Articles/Vol02_2/2
.2.653-Breslin.pdf
Cohen, R. J., & Swerdlik, M. E. (2010). Psychological testing
and assessment: An introduction to tests and measurement (7th
ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
Editorial Projects in Education Research Center. (2011). Issues
A-Z: No Child Left Behind. Education Week. Retrieved Month
Day, Year from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-
behind/
Guthrie, J. W. (2002). No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. In J.
W. Guthrie (Ed.), Encyclopedia of Education (2nd ed., Vol. 5,
pp. 1801-1803). New York: Macmillan Reference USA.
Retrieved from
http://go.galegroup.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/ps/i.do?id=G
ALE%7CCX3403200466&v=2.1&u=uphoenix&it=r&p=GVRL&
sw=w&asid=25611572490c5042412db757cd8eed60
Klein, A. (2011). Duncan, key senators sing off same page on
ESEA renewal. Education Week, 30(18). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/
Klein, A. (2011). Alexander, GOP senators introduce own ESEA
bills. Education Week, 31(3). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/
Krieg, J. (2011). Which students are left behind? The racial
impacts of the no child left behind act. Economics of Education
Review, 30(4), p654-664. Retrieved from
http://www.sciencedirect.com.ezproxy.apollolibrary.com/scienc
e/article/pii/S0272775711000100
Lamp, R. E., & Krohn, E. J. (1990). Stability of the Stanford-
Binet Fourth Edition and K-ABC for young black and white
children from low-income families. Journal of
Psychoeducational Assessment, 8, 139–149.
McNeil, M. (2011). More states asking for NCLB waivers.

10. Education Week, 30(37). Retrieved from
http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/
Neill, M. (2003). Leaving children behind: How no child left
behind will fail our children. Phi Delta Kappan, 85(3), 225-228.
Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com/docview/218535516?accountid=458
New American Foundation (2014), The Federal Education
Budget Project. Retrieved from
http://febp.newamerica.net/background-analysis/no-child-left-
behind-overview
Schroeder, K. (2001). No child left behind?. The Education
Digest, 67(2), 71.
Sclafani, S. (2002). No child left behind. Issues in Science and
Technology, 19(2), 43-49.
The American Psychological Association (2014). Retrieved
from http://www.apa.org/index.aspx
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (2014).
Retrieved from
http://www.apa.org/about/gr/issues/disability/idea.aspx
Hess, F. (2014). Cami Anderson and the Forces of Unreason.
Education Week. Retrieved from
http://www.frederickhess.org/2014/08/cami-anderson-and-the-
forces-of-unreason