“The reason for all the caveats is that it is impossible to reach the conclusion that if scores go up, it is because of N.C.L.B.,” he said. “There are so many other factors that could lead to rising scores, including state efforts to raise achievement, and also, some of these gains may be artificial. So my worry is that people who come at it and don’t read the caveats will come away with an exaggerated impression.” --Robert L. Linn, Professor Emeritus at the University of Colorado

The above is a quote taken from an article in the today's New York Times that reports on a recent study that finds that the achievement gap is closing and student gains are on the rise. The study, conducted by the Center on Education Policy, compared test data from all 50 states and found that general achievement in math and reading has risen since 2002.

I agree with the quote above. I think one of the biggest mistakes that people (including teachers, administrators, and the community) make when talking about NCLB is that they forget about the vast number of other factors that come in to play. If the test scores are on the rise, it is a very bold claim to credit NCLB as the single reason for these improvements. Rather, we need to remember that schools take on their own initiatives and adopt new programs because they feel it is necessary or beneficial. While NCLB may be a big proponent in getting schools to implement these programs, it is important to remember that there are other motivators besides potential loss of federal funding.

Source:
Dillon, Sam (2007, June 6). New study finds gains since no child left behind. The New York Times, Retrieved June 6, 2007, from http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/06/education/06report.htmlex=
1181793600&en=1ccc9886c6d043bf&ei=5024&partner=BLACKBOARD.

No Child Left Behind, the federal education law, should be toughened to judge teachers and principals by their students’ test scores, and to block chronically ineffective educators from working in high-poverty schools...

I have mixed feelings about this statement. On the one hand I agree that the standards should be toughened to help ensure that each student is receiving a quality education. On the other hand I disagree because I believe that this toughening of standards would be too much, too soon. No Child Left Behind has caused major problems and difficulties for schools trying to meet the minimum requirements. Some schools have yet to meet minimum requirements just once in the five years this law has been in place. While there is no simple answer I think a better solution would be to sign the law again, with nearly all the same requirements, and allow schools more time to meet the standards. The changes the law currently seeks are not easily achievable and require much more time for states, administrators, and teachers to devise and implement the necessary resources that will effectively bring about these changes. I don't want to oversimplify the issue at hand but I believe that the key to the success of No Child Left Behind is being more patient and allowing more time to reach the goals that have were set five years ago.

Source:
Schemo, Diana (2007, February 14). Tougher standards urged for federal education law. The New York Times, Retrieved February 15, 2007, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F60E13F83D5A0C778DDDAB0894DF404482

I am still riding the fence on the No Child Left Behind law. I am beginning to understand the desire to make sure that each student is able to perform at certain level. But this law does not take into account the fact that each student has different skill levels and abilities. And it also assumes that all students should perform equally well when tested in the same way. However, the bigger issues here is that schools are failing these standards. Are these standards too high? Are teachers and schools inadequately prepared to teach the material? Are the standardized tests flawed?

In the article "Bush Proposes Broadening the No Child Left Behind Act" by Diana Jean Schemo makes an interesting point. She says, "In 26 states, including New York, there are limits on how many charter schools can be opened. Critics point to a lack of consistent research showing charter schools are any more effective than traditional public schools in raising achievement." President Bush has pushed for the option of failing schools to open charter schools for five years now and still has gotten nowhere near passing it through Congress. If opening a charter school is going to be the primary alternative for failing schools, I think that more research should be conducted to verify the effectiveness of this solution.

In the end, I am left wondering if President Bush (and his supporters) have realized that the goals they had set in the NCLB law are simply too much, too fast, too early. And this "broadening of the law" is essentially relaxing the requirements making it easier for the government to say "we have students who are meeting or surpassing standards." Should the goal of education be to make sure that each student has the same skill set and knowledge base?

Source:
Scheme, Diana (2007, January 25). Bush proposes broadening the no child left behind act. The New York Times, Retrieved January 25, 2007, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F10C14FA3D5B0C768EDDA80894DF404482

Unfortunately, politics is a part of virtually every area. NCLB is no exception. In the article "Democrats Push for Changes to No Child Left Behind Law" by Diana Jean Schemo, it is fairly obvious that Democrats think that one way to improve school performance and achievement is to increase funding. This funding could be used to hire better qualified teachers, train existing teachers to use better methods, update facilities to meet expectations, and many other things. While I agree that more funding could certainly help make NCLB's high standards more feasible, I also believe that the real change is going to have to start with students themselves. The students are the ones who need to be motivated to learn and perform their best. The teacher's role is to help inspire motivation and foster an environment where higher achievement is encouraged. While the administration needs to support teachers in their efforts to be effective educators. Simply increasing funding isn't going to solve the problem. Its the students who need the reason and desire to meet these standards. Even if students don't meet all the required standards, I believe that a better achievement has been made: students have a desire to continue life-long learning.

Source:
Schemo, Diana (2007, January 9). Democrats push for changes to no child left behind law. The New York Times, Retrieved January 9, 2007, from http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F70F1EF83E540C7A8CDDA80894DF404482