The Implications of No Child Left Behind
The article written by Sharon L. Nichols and David C. Berliner discusses “test driven minimalism, [which results in] the slower and resistant kids monopolizing the time of frustrated and surly teachers and the brighter kids sitting quietly, bored stupid.” This statement is enlightening in terms of the No Child Left Behind Act because student success is conditional on externalities; as such, precluding students’ abilities to achieve standardized
outcomes.
In my opinion, I feel that the “No Child Left Behind Act” is not justifiable because they are only testing students on certain areas and this will not determine how successful the student will be in the future. Furthermore, I feel that each student learns differently and it is irrelevant to test a small subset of their skills. If anything, this issue at hand disheartens the special education students since they lack the ability to achieve at the expected level. Also, the students that are gifted will find themselves bored and as a result of this, possible behavioural problems will arise.
The Canadian system has adopted a standardized test as well. Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act assesses with a narrow focus and teachers teach with that same narrow focus, EQAO assesses a broader range of knowledge and skills. The American system uses multiple choice, which does not capture student’s understanding. However, the EQAO looks at reading, writing and math through open response and actual writing tasks, which is better able to measure the abilities of students.
A final note to question is the validity of the teachers that are tampering with the results as a way to make the marks higher in order for
them to receive the federal funding. This clearly demonstrates that a greater emphasis is placed on the overall scores and not the individual needs of each student. As an educator, I strongly believe the needs of each individual student must come first and foremost.
C.D.
Reference:
Nichols S., Berliner D. Is no child left behind irretrievably flawed: "Testing the Joy Out of Learning," Educational Leadership, 2008.
outcomes.
In my opinion, I feel that the “No Child Left Behind Act” is not justifiable because they are only testing students on certain areas and this will not determine how successful the student will be in the future. Furthermore, I feel that each student learns differently and it is irrelevant to test a small subset of their skills. If anything, this issue at hand disheartens the special education students since they lack the ability to achieve at the expected level. Also, the students that are gifted will find themselves bored and as a result of this, possible behavioural problems will arise.
The Canadian system has adopted a standardized test as well. Whereas the No Child Left Behind Act assesses with a narrow focus and teachers teach with that same narrow focus, EQAO assesses a broader range of knowledge and skills. The American system uses multiple choice, which does not capture student’s understanding. However, the EQAO looks at reading, writing and math through open response and actual writing tasks, which is better able to measure the abilities of students.
A final note to question is the validity of the teachers that are tampering with the results as a way to make the marks higher in order for
them to receive the federal funding. This clearly demonstrates that a greater emphasis is placed on the overall scores and not the individual needs of each student. As an educator, I strongly believe the needs of each individual student must come first and foremost.
C.D.
Reference:
Nichols S., Berliner D. Is no child left behind irretrievably flawed: "Testing the Joy Out of Learning," Educational Leadership, 2008.