Written by Tanay Kavalur
Throughout a person's life, a significant amount of time is taken up by education — either attending grade school or working towards a degree. That is why, in our modern society, the need for equalized education cannot be emphasized more; its side effects, be it positive or negative, are crucial to America's youth. Signed into law on Jan. 8, 2002, by President George W. Bush, "No Child Left Behind" (NCLB) was an act that aimed to improve children's education across the United States based on their specific needs. . Though seemingly inconsequential at the time, "No Child Left Behind" heavily impacted the youth of America and the education system. To better understand "No Child Left Behind" and its repercussions, we must first look into the act's policies and its actual effects on the American education system.
The "No Child Left Behind" act focused on promoting increased educational opportunities for children: the increased effort to boost graduation rates in impoverished areas and aiding students of color, special education students, and students who are not native English speakers. By focusing on the needs of those in underprivileged areas, legislatures believed that children would be enabled to do better in school. The "No Child Left Behind" act aimed to accomplish its goals by creating new facilities and educational platforms for the above demographics. For instance, schools were required to give special education students separate classrooms and spaces to allow them to learn in an environment best suited for their needs. Similarly, schools with students who were not native English speakers were required to host remedial English classes. These students were also tested annually for administrators to track their development and configure a plan for future growth. Local schools were required to promote free/reduced lunch programs along with handing out necessities such as food and water to the families of those children.
Additionally, the "No Child Left Behind" act also increased the criteria required to become a teacher, thus allowing for a theoretical increase in the quality of education. Since educational funding was still limited, state standardized testing was implemented. These tests determine if a district adequately educates children and how much funding it would receive. Based on the academic success of each school district, the government could then effectively determine allocated financing on a state-wide basis. In the eyes of lawmakers, the integration of performance-based budget allocation would force underperforming schools to strive for improvement so that they may receive increased funding from the government.
The overall intentions of the "No Child Left Behind" act were pure. The act's benefits were as follows: school districts and educators were held accountable for failing to educate children, and test scores, on average, increased nationwide. Still, the results following its integration ranged from moderate benefits to highly detrimental to children's education. Even though these outcomes reflect positively on the act's effectiveness, many positives only seem to benefit middle to upper-class families. The primary reason only those belonging to the middle to upper class could reap the rewards of "No Child Left Behind" was the financial system tied to it; more specifically, the allocation of educational funds based on test scores. Since funding distribution favored schools with higher test scores, many districts directly tied teacher salaries to their students' scores to "motivate" them. Often, teachers in lower-income areas were less motivated due to the lower scores of their students compared to those in middle and upper-class neighborhoods. Hence, this causes a downwards spiral as even less funding would eventually be allocated to these schools, forcing the scores to plummet further. The shift towards income derived from "No Child Left Behind" often caused many communities it had attempted to aid to lose their crucial educational infrastructure. As a result, many schools shut down facilities such as gyms and playgrounds. However, lower-income regions were not the only areas affected, with middle and upper-class zones also affected. Due to the monetary impact of "No Child Left Behind," many schools started to focus more on subjects that would boost test scores, such as math, science, and English. The lack of focus on electives caused the overall morale of students to lower, as they had fewer outlets to express themselves creatively and academically other than through core classes. Additionally, the overall quality of education declined due to the integration of "No Child Left Behind." Though students had higher test scores on average, the amount of information retained and learned was greatly reduced.
Overall, the "No Child Left Behind" act sought to boost graduation rates and aid children in underprivileged areas. This was done primarily by editing educational funds distribution and increasing the specificity of criteria for school facilities and faculties. Even though the policies stated under the act seemingly had good intentions, the overall execution proved detrimental to American youth's education. Simply put, "No Child Left Behind" forced many schools to focus on budgetary constraints instead of the education of students. The metaphorical monetization of the education system caused many problems, such as the lack of focus on students' interests and poor funding distribution amongst districts. Even though "No Child Left Behind" was repealed in 2015, it serves as a prime example of how a body of law with the right intentions can negatively impact others simply by its execution.
Sources
“19 No Child Left behind Pros and Cons.” Vittana.org, 2015,
vittana.org/19-no-child-left-behind-pros-and-cons.
Randolph, Ladette. “Introduction.” Ploughshares, vol. 38, no. 4, 2012, pp. 7–8,
10.1353/plo.2012.0129.
Comments