No Child Left Behind – Are We Hurting Some to Help Some?
Emma Caroline Reed
Bloomsburg University
No Child Left Behind ... what is all the hype and when did these four words suddenly become the most popular buzz phrase in education? The No Child Left Behind Act as presented to Congress in March of 2001, announced education as President Bush’s top priority (Paige, 2001). No Child Left Behind (NCLB) strives to “improve the quality of education for all of our children” (Paige, 2001 pp. 3). In 2002, President George W. Bush signed into law the No Child Left Behind Act (The Davidson Institute for Talent Development, 2006). NCLB has quickly left its impression on the education system. When President Bush took office he felt strongly that student performance overall was down and the United States needed a plan to keep up with the rest of the world. That plan came in the form of NCLB. Margaret Spellings, U.S. Secretary of Education, said, “The president has delivered on his promise – thanks to No Child Left Behind, our nation’s schools are making great strides toward ending the soft bigotry of low expectations; and ensuring that all children have the opportunity to learn (The Davidson Institute for Talent Development, 2006 pp. 1).”
If one searched, it would be hard to not find something positive about NCLB. NCLB was designed to ensure a quality education for each and every student (Paige, 2001). Its core values are some that America should not be without. NCLB sets the goal that 100% of all students master proficient levels in the major subject areas. Currently the subjects focused on are math and reading, but in the near future there are plans to expand to science.
In education, the ultimate goal is to teach children. It is the greatest achievement for an educator, to know that a student has gained knowledge over the course of his/her educational journey because of their dedication. No one is arguing that it is alright to “leave children behind”. Educators, working in the field right now, did not choose education as their career to “leave children behind”. However, in an effort to help those struggling students become proficient are we leaving the average learner or the more gifted and talented students on the sidelines?
Schools nationwide are struggling with how to meet the requirements of No Child Left Behind without excluding students from their deserved educational experience (Harvey, 2004). The federal government is linking funding for public schools based on standardized test scores and the improvement shown from year to year (Goldstein, 2004). NCLB will also penalize schools if they do not continually improve upon the number of proficient students (Goldstein, 2004). Some schools are so wrapped up in the current subjects tested that students are only being taught reading, math and physical education while all other subjects are being ignored (Dillon, 2006). For students who already test at a proficient level in math and reading, school is nothing more than repetition. In some school districts, the time allotted to teach reading and math has been tripled (Dillon, 2006). In a recent survey, the Center on Education Policy, found that since No Child Left Behind was passed, 71% of the nation’s school districts have reduced time spent on instructing history, music and other subjects to allow more time to teach math and reading (Dillon, 2006). Thomas Sobol, an education professor at Columbia Teachers College and a former education commissioner for New York State said, “That’s like a violin student who is only permitted to play scales, nothing else, day after day, scales, scales, scales. They’d lose their zest for music (Dillon, 2006 pp. 2).” It is sad to think that while doing the job of educating children, schools could be turning students off to learning altogether.
The standardized tests and their subsequent scores seem to be the driving force in education today. “Teachers know that assessments are an important gauge of student comprehension and accomplishment, but they object to the unremitting focus on tests, test preparation and test-taking skills (McElroy, 2005 pp. 2).” Money is and always will be a major issue when planning for the education of students. Without the funding needed, little improvement can be made and when funding is cut drastically it is hard to even supply the basics needed to educate a child. NCLB has so strongly linked the test scores and the federal funding that schools feel a strong urgency to perform well on the tests. It almost seems as though the test scores are more important than any actual learning that may be happening. Students are becoming less and less of the focus and their test taking ability is rapidly taking center stage. Due to the overwhelming demand to practice test-taking skills in the classroom, unit projects and creative thinking are quickly becoming a thing of the past. Across the country, schools risk sending the message to students that school means repetition and drilling (Dillon, 2006).
NCLB at its core, was designed to help the low-level achievers in the classroom (Goodkin, 2005). It was meant to ensure that those children were not overlooked and simply pushed through the system. NCLB is a step in the right direction where those learners are concerned; however, NCLB may not truly be helping those students achieve anything more than the skills needed to pass a standardized test. While classrooms continue to focus on test taking strategies in an effort to not “leave behind” any of the students previously overlooked, teachers may not have a choice but “leave behind” or at least “leave to the side” the average and above average learner.
Nclb And The Gifted Learner – What Are The Negatives?
How does NCLB actually hurt some students? In as many ways as one could list positive things about NCLB someone could create an equally long list of negatives. It is easy to see how the mentally challenged or handicapped student might have problems with NCLB, but what about those learners at the opposite end of the spectrum? What about those learners who are begging for more of a challenge? “High achieving students often have as many needs as struggling students (Clarke, 2004).” “Caring for the needs of gifted children – or even identifying them all, including gifted minorities – has not been a high priority for U.S. schools (Hardy, 2003 pp. 26).” “Part of the current controversy is what No Child Left Behind does to enhance or impede that excellence principle. (Gallagher, 2004 pp. 121).” Barbara Thrush, gifted education director for the Pennsylvania Department of Education said, “No Child Left Behind focuses on students and schools who are struggling, rather than students who are above average, highly able, high achieving or identified gifted. (Carrado, 2005 pp. 1).” Is that “Leaving NO Child Behind?” When only focusing on the students at risk for failure those wishing to advance are left behind.
Funding is not only an issue when discussing the money given for good and improving performances on the standardized tests, but it is also an issue when simply discussing the implementation of NCLB (Gallagher, 2004). States are already asking the government for additional funding to ensure basic success in No Child Left Behind (Phillips, 2004). Historically gifted education has lacked the funding needed to educate students with the desired materials. It is feared by some that even more funding will be cut to allow for tutoring and other special programs to aide those in risk of academic problems (Hardy, 2003). For example, Illinois has eliminated $19 million in state funding for gifted programs and California has reduced its funding by $10 million ("No Child Left Behind Leaves Out Gifted Students," 2004). In the past several years, Michigan has cut state money designated for gifted education from $4 million to $250,000 while New York has completely eliminated state financing for gifted programs ("Schools, Facing Tight Budgets, Leave Gifted Programs Behind," 2004). If these trends continue across the United States, will “gifted education” soon be a thing of the past? There is currently “a lack of legislative mandates to provide services for these (gifted) students (Goldstein, 2004 pp. 2).” Pennsylvania, New Jersey and Delaware all have state laws for special education students that gifted students fall under. Pennsylvania offers a small amount of funding, New Jersey and Delaware offer no monetary support (Carrado, 2005). With the increasing demands of NCLB and the accountability factor, how will school districts ‘keep alive’ these programs?
The standardized tests given are also being called unfair to the gifted community of students. Many gifted students will continue to score well on these tests, but the tests will not show if the students are being educated to develop their full potential (Goodkin, 2005). Instead, these tests are only designed to show grade-level mastery. Also, standardized tests do not present challenging enough questions and thus, the gifted learner loses interest (Clark, 2004). If taking the tests seem to bore these above average students, one could assume that sitting in a classroom that constantly drills how to take the test will certainly disenchant an otherwise knowledge hungry student. Schools; however, “face no penalties if top students decline in their level of functioning as long as they are above the predetermined proficiency threshold (Goldstein, 2004 pp. 2).”
Some feel that because they are already ahead of their peers, “gifted students will fare well academically regardless of whether their special learning needs are met (Goodkin, 2005 pp. A25).” These students can; however, be viewed as or considered behind. “They are behind where they could be. They are behind a wall of standards that are, by design, limiting and vague. They are behind the barrier of regular education teacher’s incredible pressure to prepare children for the next assessment. (Clark, 2002).” No Child Left Behind is making it harder and harder to challenge and meet the needs of the gifted learner (Gallagher, 2004).
Gifted Education has its dedicated group of cheerleaders and without them this topic might be easily overlooked. As an educator, the everyday demands of the students in the classroom are enough to keep one busy and occupied, but then add the pressures of NCLB and the added paperwork and it is no wonder that school buildings are filled with stressed employees (Harvey, 2004). School administrators, school boards, educators and the legislature need to take a close look and make sure that not only are no children left behind, but that all children are given a chance to get ahead, be challenged, think independently and grow educationally.
Nclb And The Gifted Learner – Can It Be A Positive?
It has been said, “most teachers have little knowledge of gifted children or how to respond to their needs (Hardy, 2003 pp. 27).” No Child Left Behind could actually aide to solve this problem. In one example, the “emphasis on highly qualified teachers within the legislation justifies the practice of a gifted program to require specialized professional development opportunities for teachers who will be assigned to teach the gifted (Kaplan, 2004 pp. 125).” It is estimated that 3 million students, roughly 5% of America’s school age population are deemed ‘gifted’ (Hardy, 2003). “Gifted education requires that each gifted student receive an education that is matched to the student’s ability, achievement and needs according to Barbara Thrush (Carrado, 2005 pp. 1).” Each student should be encouraged to reach his/her own educational potential (Phillips, 2004). If every child was exactly the same, thought the same way, was exposed to exactly the same experiences and outside influences then and only then could we expect that all students perform the same way and at the same level. Different students need different types of instruction. “Every student, at every level, needs the right education for where they are right now. In that way, they can all learn and grow (Clark, 2004 pp. 20).” If schools treat each student identically it may not result in treating each student fairly (Phillips, 2004). NCLB should be making provisions to meet the special needs of each and every student – gifted, average, low-level or disabled learner.
Nclb And Solutions For The Gifted Learner
A good start solution can be both simple and inexpensive. Grade and subject acceleration requires little or no additional funding and are both proven methods of advancing the gifted learner. When gifted students are grouped with their intellectual peers rather than same aged peers they gain as much as a year of academic development. This type of grouping (skill based rather than age based) has shown to be effective for all learners at all levels (The Davidson Institute for Talent Development, 2006). However, if students are only accelerated into another classroom full of testing drills, the only thing being accomplished is the shuffling of students.
The Federal Government and Department of Education are beginning to explore new ways to measure the progress of students. In May 2006, North Carolina and Tennessee were granted permission to be part of a pilot program that could eventually involve ten states. The pilot program tracks how individual students advance and progress from year to year in reading and math (Schemo, 2006). This change would ensure EACH students’ scores be looked at individually instead of the entire grade being lumped together. Time will show how effective this system will be, but it could prove beneficial to many students including those gifted learners. Margaret Spellings said the change did not weaken the demands of NCLB, but instead was “simply a different way to understand the progress that’s being made (Schemo, 2006).”
No Child Left Behind – The Reality
No Child Left Behind is a step in the right direction. The fear however is that in an effort to create a better more equal education for all we may create an education system that fails to mold well rounded, creative, educated adults. Instead, we will have a group of young people who know the ins and outs of how to take a standardized test, who have rote memorized a lot of useful information, but have no practical knowledge of how to apply it to everyday living. We will have high school graduates who aren’t sure how to express their creativity or advance themselves in life. We will have “an entire generation of merely proficient students (Goodkin, 2005 pp. A25).” When heading into the work force, if an interview process consists of taking a standardized test they will not hesitate and will probably fare well, but when asked to extrapolate on a theory, analyze a question or work in a team, these students will not only feel unprepared, but will honestly be unprepared. No Child Left Behind may someday be remembered as No Adult Truly Prepared.
Yes, our education system has left children behind and shame on us, but is No Child Left Behind going to enhance the education of all students? No Child Left Behind may instead lead to more frustration among educators and students. “It is naïve to assume that our efforts to meet this important goal may not create new risks and liabilities (Goldstein, 2004).” No Child Left Behind in theory is a wonderful goal and concept, but reality might show something different. As educators, we need to try to keep our eyes open and our classroom flexible enough to educate ALL children and in that we will ensure that no child is left behind.
References
Carrado, M. A. (2005, December). Is Gifted Education Being Left Behind? Retrieved from
http://www.metrokids.com/december05/giftededucation1205.html.
Clark, J. (2002, Summer). . Retrieved from http://www.penngifted.org/presmsg-sumr2002.cfm.
Clark, L. (2004, May). Computerized Adaptive Testings: Effective Mearsurement for All Students.
T H E Journal, 31(10), 14-20.
Clarke, O. (2004, 27/09). Gifted Students Often Left Behind. Northwest Indiana News.
Retrieved 6/9/2006, from http://www.thetimesonline.com/articles/2004/09/27/news.
Dillon, S. (2006, 26/3). Schools Cut Back Subjects to Push Reading and Math. New York Times.
Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/26/education/26child.html?ex=1144040400&en=189
ce859d6a86d5a&ei=5024&partner=BLACKBOARD
Gallagher, J. J. (2004). No Child Left Behind and Gifted Education. Roeper Review, 26(3), 121-123.
Goldstein, S., Ph.D. (2004, February). No Child Left Behind: Will the Push for Basic Literacy Ultimately
Cause More Harm Than Good for Gifted and Talented Students?
Retrieved from http://www.SamGoldstein.com.
Goodkin, S. (2005, 27/12). Leave No Gifted Child Behind. The Washington Post..
Hardy, L. (2003, August). The Politics of Gifted Education. American School Board Journal, 190(8), 26.
Harvey, C. (2004, May). Special Education Solutions in the Age of NCLB. T H E Journal, 31(10), 68.
Kaplan, S. N. (2004). Where We Stand Determines the Answers to the Question: Can the No Child Left
Behind Legislation Be Beneficial to Gifted Students? Roeper Review, 26(3), 124-125.
McElroy, E. J. (2005, May). Teaching Left Behind. Teaching Pre-K-8, 35(8), 6.
No Child Left Behind Leaves Out Gifted Students. (2004, Summer). Gifted Child Today Magazine, 27(3), 8-9.
Paige, R. (2001, 13/3). A Blueprint for Education Reform, before the House Budget Committee. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/Speeches/03-2001/010313.html.
Phillips, V. L. (Pennsylvania Secretary of Education). (2004, 7/4). Pennsylvania and No Child Left Behind:
What We Have Learned and What Needs to Change. (1-13).
Schemo, D. J. (2006, 18/05). Flexibility Granted 2 States in No Child Left Behind (Education).
Retrieved from The New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/05/18/education/18education.html.
Schools, Facing Tight Budgets, Leave Gifted Programs Behind
[Http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/education/02GIFT.html]. (2004, 02/03).
The New York Times, p. A01.
The Davidson Institute for Talent Development. (2006). Does No Child Left Behind Require that No Child Can
Get Ahead? Retrieved from http://www.gt-cybersource.org |
