NCLB

NCLB is a very sensitive and political subject. For every argument, there will always be pros and cons. It is also important to remember that we are all allowed to have an opinion and express it, something I think most politicians have forgotten. With that said, this is what I have to say about NCLB.
As our society continues to pull responsibility away from the children and the adolescents, they become less accountable for their learning and their behavior. So the question is—who becomes accountable for their education? Where should accountability fall? Should it be the teachers’ responsibility or the parents? Should students be held accountable for their test scores, or is it a reflection of the teacher’s success or failure in the classroom? Accountability and the effectiveness of testing are part of the great debates behind the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law.
Christy Guilfoyle (2006) states that “If you asked a roomful of educators which word or phrase best sums up No Child Left Behind, some educators would say accountability,” (p.8). She also goes on to mention that “the focus on holding schools accountable for student achievement on standardized assessment sets NCLB apart from previous versions of the law,” (p.9). I believe there is a need for accountability. The question is where should it be placed? Accountability on high stakes tests is a sensitive topic. If internalized, the results essentially places blame on teachers and educators for the failure of students. However, there should be a way to hold teachers, administrators, parents and students accountable at the same time.

Accountability pushes teachers to become highly qualified. In Iris Rotberg’s (2006) she states that the United States is the only nation that holds its teachers accountable for student learning (p.58). One reason for NCLB was because we were academically low compare to other countries such as Japan. However, Rotburg is quick to point out, that Japan like many countries only tests the cream of the crop. These countries also fail to assess the quality of education for its low-income students, minority students and students with disabilities (Rotburg, 2006, p. 58). NCLB requires that teachers reflect and modify their lessons and interpret data. Interpreting the data allows educators to build a strong school improvement plan which in turn helps these sub groups succeed where they would likely fail.
Accountability does carry its consequences. Having a national accountability system does limit educators to using high stakes tests only. This pressures teachers to teach to the test. Schools that fail to bring their students to a proficient level of learning over an extended amount of time, risk losing funding and being taken over by state governments (Guilfoyle, 2006). NCLB does give funding to schools that are at risk; however, in order to keep their funding schools must show improvement. If the school was not held accountable for success, what would prevent them from not succeeding and just allowing the system to provide them with extra funding?

NCLB has improved curriculums across the nation. Heather Zavadsky (2006) points out in her article that NCLB has supported teachers by providing curriculum guides and pacing charts, aligned curriculum between grades and monitored curriculum implementation. She also states that “many states are continually improving their core subject curriculums in response to NCLB,” (p.69). The curriculums now have increased meaning and motivation for students and their learning. Requiring the school systems to be accountable for their curriculum is just as important if not more important that accountability on tests.

Guilfoyle and Zavasky’s articles state that there are aspects of NCLB that are working. They see NCLB as a move in the right direction. These two articles also show that NCLB has been great for at risk students in city schools who have neglected to make sure that all students have the basic skills. NCLB demands that the teachers and administration of these schools provide additional help to these students. All three articles show a need to apply the principles of accountability to education. However, Rotberg disagrees with Guilfoyle and Zavasky as to where to apply the accountability. Rotburg wants to eliminate the accountability to teachers, since no other country in the world holds their teachers accountable for student learning. However, other job markets hold their professionals accountable such as military officers, politicians, and engineers. No Child Left Behind provides the accountability that allows all players in the education process to nurture the expectation that all children can and need to succeed.

I choose to see NCLB for what it is. To me that means I see it as a goal for all of my students to be successful. Standards do not limit me and my instruction. They guide my instruction. They are the guidelines that help me to be my full potential when I am teaching as well as to help me achieve the goals set fort by NCLB.

Guilfoyle, Christy. 2006. NCLB Is there life beyond testing. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 8-13.

Rotburg, Iris. C. 2006. Assessment around the world. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 58-63.

Zavadsky, Heather. 2006. How NCLB drives success in urban schools. Educational Leadership, 64(3), 69-73.