What are the pros and cons of No child Left Behind?
What are the pros and cons of no child left behind? What are the advantages of this law? Has it been worth it?
- 1 decade agoFavorite Answer
NCLB is a law that was developed with good intentions by a bipartisan group. Unfortunately, the lawmakers with sense did not participate as heavily in the penalty phase of its development.
One thing that makes sense is the annual assessment of all students in grades 3-8 and 11. There are alternate and alternative assessments for students who are limited English proficient or in special ed. In the past, these students were not assessed and were not fully accessing a public education.
NCLB has made every educator distinctly aware of how all students perform. NCLB requires that subgroups perform as well as the whole, meaning that students who are minorities, limited English proficient, special education, and/or poor are looked at very closely. Student data is disaggregated so that the scores of those students in subgroups are looked at as well. If a school passes as a whole, but one or more of those subgroups do not, the school is not accredited.
This focus on the performance of subgroups has put an inordinate amount of stress on their teachers and administrators. Both groups are constantly looking for ways to improve the scores of those students. In addition, if a student falls into more than one of those categories, his or her score is counted in each one, not just once. One student's scores can really make a difference in how a school performs.
NCLB actually began as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1967 (I think) and will be revised within the next few years.
- DarcyLv 44 years ago
We were talking about this in class the other day. And it often means that even if some kids in the class, like one or two are behind and slacking, the rest of the class has to suffer and go back and stay behind instead of raising up. I forgot what we specifically brought up though... Oh, it was about diffrent teaching methods. I got to a highschool in Sacramento,CA and it's not the BEST school in our district, but it's certaintly a lot better than the press gives us credit for - but to the point we have what they call "at risk" students and they say the best way to teach [us] is by having us get up and move around and participating. Well, that's not always possible, specially in classes like my physiology class (specially when funds are already low so supplies to make "interactive" lesson plans are always fesible anyways) where lectures and open discussions are a better method to understand. The problem comes when the teachers get evaluated and are told they're doing a poor job because they're letting the "at-risk students" do whatever when they lecture, and it all ends up going to the "no child left behind" program and it's ideals; etc. Hope that helped some :] (since it didn't come out as clearly as I wished) ps - Em is quite right, specially on "teaching the test". I've taken multiple AP classes through my years, and I know AP classes are more designed to gear tword the test, but they absoulutely are test test test, a very very clear understanding isn't always there. Half of my classmates can't recal what we did in that class but what scores they got on the AP test. As well as everyday we are taught to a standard. We learn specifically what that standard states, test on it, and then move on. It dosen't seem quite right to me. Of course when SAT's or my California Highschool Exit Exam (CAHSEE) rolls around the teachers go into a frenzy saying, "You guys better not get below a ___" on the test, and there are review sessions and everything just switches to, "DO BETTER ON THIS TEST". I can't say its a positively negative thing though. Our schools scores have gone up every year for the last three or four and we're the only school in the district to constantly show improvement, which is suprising to many since our school supposedly has the "worse and most at risk children".
- 1 decade ago
The good thing is that it has a good intention.
The bad is that it doesn't really work(mostly becasue of Bush and his administration.)