What Are The Pros And Cons Of No Child Left Behind

Our nation’s forty-third president, George W. Bush, entered the oval office with a monumental vision of education reform. Through countless speeches and impressive promises, Bush sought to improve the academic performance of America’s elementary and secondary schools while, at the same time, ensuring that no child is trapped in a failing school. This tremendous feat later became known as the “cornerstone of his presidential administration”, becoming a main focus during his campaign. Bush recognized that the country’s neediest children were being neglected academically and spent large amounts of money trying to correct the issue. Although well intended, the No Child Left Behind Act did more harm than good for the American students of the twenty-first

Teachers no longer cover the vast range of topics a certain subject may include but, rather, teach only those found on the standardized state test. This unfortunate method of teaching is a result of the NCLB’s heavy stress on the student success on the tests it issues. The Educational Research Newsletter says it best in it’s article, “The Pros and Cons of NCLB: What Research Says”: “By imposing standards on students’ minds we are, in effect, depriving them of their fundamental intellectual freedom by applying one standard set of knowledge. Standardized tests oversimplify knowledge and do not test higher-order thinking skills…. One-size-fits-all standards either dumb down instruction to the lowest common denominator or condemn low-ability students to frequent failure”. Because schools that fail to meet the AYP, “Adequate Yearly Progress”, often receive various consequences, teacher administrations have, sadly, rejected rigorous teaching methods that were once so prevalent in the learning institutions of this country. Instead of going to school to learn, children are going to school to pass a test, losing the opportunity to receive a well-rounded

Fewer time and resources are being put into teaching subjects such as history, geography, science, art, and physical education. Due to the NCLB, a steady reduction has been implemented in these important subjects. How are students expected to lead successful lives while being deprived of essential subject lessons? This is a matter of great concern that is not receiving the attention and awareness it deserves. Concerning this issue, the National Council for the Social Studies released the following statement in an online article: “By requiring states to measure student achievement in language arts and mathematics and tying school performance reports and financial incentives to testing results, NCLB resulted in the diversion of both funding and class-time away from social studies and other non-tested subjects. The phrase "if it isn't tested, it isn't taught" resonates in the American educational community, with significant implications for educational practices and outcomes.” Although significantly damaging, the exclusion of certain subjects is not the only controversy stemming from the