No Child Left Behind

1004 Words3 Pages

The NCLB’s sanction of reducing or no eliminating government funding for schools that fail to reach or fulfill a certain level of student performance represents another unhelpful process in closing the performance disparity. The Federal Title 1 program facilitates financial assistance and sponsorship for schools in non-English speaking societies, and areas deemed low-income and technically disadvantaged in education resources. Limiting a school’s financial resources through discontinuation of funding after “insufficient” performance results only worsens the challenge of closing the performance gag among students from different socioeconomic contexts. Academicians regard the ideal solution for such funding to be increased instead funding is being reduced. Most of the potential defaulters under NCLB fall in low-income, non-English speaking, and technically disadvantaged societies in the U.S., due to resources’ scarcity (Rueter pars 1-2; TAAD 1-8).

The NCLB sanction of reduced or discontinued funding for schools whose student performances fall short of set target thus violates the logical solution for remedying the performance imbalance, thus being unhelpful in attempts at closure of the performance gap. The rating system under NCLB to determine eligibility for national funding creates an unsuitable setting for closure of the performance gap. The system involves strong focus on assessment, based on a preference for math, science, and English, and the need for high ratings for government funding qualification. This supports increased school focus on the three subjects at the expense of others, and promotes a negative atmosphere for students’ learning. Students’ demonstrate increased anxiety, thus narrowing the curriculum to...

... middle of paper ...

...e, Rod, and Gibbons, John. “No Child Left Behind: a Parents Guide.” Department of Education, 2003. Web. 26 Nov. 2011.

Parrish, Thomas, et al. “Effects of the Implementation of Proposition 227 on the Education Learners. K-12: Year Two Report American Institutes for Research and WestEd. Palo Alto. 2002. Web. 28 Nov. 2011.

Rueter, Ted. “Disastrous: No Child Left Behind Law Should Be Repealed, Says Prof. Ted Rueter.” DePauw University. Sept. 2007. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

Sacramento Unified 1st Grade Teacher. Personal interview. 1 Dec.2011.

“Ten Moral Concerns on the Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act”. (TMCI): National Council of Churches. Web. 23 Nov. 2011.

“Title 1- Improving The Academic Achievement Of The Disadvantaged (TAAD).” U.S. Department of Educaton, 2006. Web. 30 Nov. 2011.

Youth Correctional Facility Teacher. Personal interview. 1 Dec. 2011.

Open Document