No Child Left Behind Act Sources for your Essay

No Child Left Behind Act-


Although the complete improvement as a result of No Child Left Behind is yet to take effect, parents have by now witnessing encouraging outcomes from its proclamation for answerability and improved standards for every students. (Boehner, 2004) recent unbiased report by the nonpartisan Education Commission of the States recommends states are achieving improvement in executing the education amendments covered in the No Child Left behind Act

No Child Left Behind Act-


(Martin, 2004) the "No Child Left Behind" Act penalizes schools while the students are unable to meet the desired levels, instead of gratifying them when they perform up to the level. (Clarke, 2004) Yet again there is an impediment in directing the monetary assistance to states, districts and schools

No Child Left Behind Act-


NCLB is producing encouraging outcomes in many of the schools where there is a genuinely robust participation of the parents. (Hocker, 2004) NCLB not just arms parents with information, but also with alternatives

No Child Left Behind Act-


The Act powerfully stresses on literacy aimed at youths, enhancing credentials of instructors and guarantees that each child who goes to the school in the United States will be taught English. (Jerry, 2003) Several people regard the NCLB enactment as President Bush's important milestone in Education Act of 2002 and mention the noble purposes for its cause, whereas several others particularly at the regional and school stages persist to have serious reservations on its true consequences

No Child Left Behind Act-


Besides, it even gave resources for libraries, academic research and state education departments and projects. (Kafer, 2004) President George Bush in the January 2002 approved a broad amendment of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965

No Child Left Behind Act-


(Jerry, 2003) Several people regard the NCLB enactment as President Bush's important milestone in Education Act of 2002 and mention the noble purposes for its cause, whereas several others particularly at the regional and school stages persist to have serious reservations on its true consequences. (Martin, 2004) Let us now have a look at the supporting and opposing viewpoints of the debate

No Child Left Behind Act-


In the opinion of the detractors, the difficulty is that, in two to three years we will not have any school left which is performing, since every school, which is having difficulties in testing, will dissociate more children into the schools, which were fortunate to perform in a better manner. (Monroe, 2003) an additional difficulty is present as per its detractors

No Child Left Behind Act-


Widely recognized as the No Child Left behind Act - NCLB Act and ratified with overwhelming backup of the two parties in Congress, this latest Act guarantees a vital departure in endeavors at each stage to enhance the standard of public education. (Ritter; Lucas, 2003) the plan necessitates the state to conduct an examination for every pupil each year in grades 3 to 8 in reading and mathematics; to disaggregate the marks secured according to ethnic status, sex, English-language expertise, incapacitation and socioeconomic position; and subsequently makes public the data

No Child Left Behind Act-


The initial question is that by description LEP students are not skilled in English and also by description students who are incapacitated possesses individual requirements, which initiated them to be branded like that at the outset. (Schwartzbeck, 2003) Secondly, in the gamut of answerability buildup of NCLB, what is the manner in which students evaluated and numbered? As per the detractors a lot of important disparities exist from one state to another in the categories of alterations existing and how groups of students are reckoned towards sufficient development on a yearly basis

No Child Left Behind Act-


The outcome is that schools that fare better do not have any financial inducement to enroll children whose performance is not good. (Snell, 2004) it has been contended that the NCLB offers genuine impediments to assisting students and reinforcing public schools as it concentrates on penalties instead of support; authorization instead of assistance for successful programs and; privatization instead of teacher-guided, family-centric results

No Child Left Behind Act-


The initial question is that by description LEP students are not skilled in English and also by description students who are incapacitated possesses individual requirements, which initiated them to be branded like that at the outset. (Schwartzbeck, 2003) Secondly, in the gamut of answerability buildup of NCLB, what is the manner in which students evaluated and numbered? As per the detractors a lot of important disparities exist from one state to another in the categories of alterations existing and how groups of students are reckoned towards sufficient development on a yearly basis

No Child Left Behind Act-


(Clarke, 2004) Yet again there is an impediment in directing the monetary assistance to states, districts and schools. (Tony, 2002) It has been criticized that under NCLB, Tide I federal funding -capital employed to give additional educational facilities to underprivileged students in educational institutions where incidence of poverty is high -- does not track children to non-Title I schools who function better

No Child Left Behind Act


The Act presents strategies for the states and school districts in order to facilitate the improvement necessary to be in compliance with the Act, and some of those strategies have proven helpful. One recent article showed that "Districts viewed strategies to improve achievement proposed in NCLB as helpful, such as extending the school day, using new curricula, engaging in planning for improvements, and using outside experts for help" (Lewis, 2008, p

No Child Left Behind Act


Many experts believe the Act has many fine qualities to it, and that its purpose was very well meant, however, it could be that the act does need some modifications. One study surmised "the moral of this story is that making and maintaining a policy based on poor -- or incomplete -- science can have disastrous consequences for the very individuals that policy makers seek to help" (Zimmerman, Brown, 2004, p

No Child Left Behind Act


In an era of increased demands for accountability on the part of teachers and students alike, this date is not a suggestion or a recommendation, but rather a fundamental mandate that must be met. As a result, it is the responsibility of school districts across the country to help ELL students in particular achieve ongoing progress toward this objective, as gauged by student performance on a wide range of high-stakes state-level tests, or face serious consequences for their failure (Abedi & Dietel, 2004)

No Child Left Behind Act


A study by Artiles, Rueda, Salazar and Higareda (2005) entitled, "Within-Group Diversity in Minority Disproportionate Representation: English Language Learners in Urban School Districts," cited the inordinately high placement of ELL students in special education classrooms for one reason or another and found that ELLs placed in English immersion programs were more than twice as likely to be placed in less restrictive services than their ELLs counterparts who were placed in modified English immersion models and almost three times more likely than ELLs in bilingual education programs. According to these authors, ELLs that were place in modified English immersion programs were 31% more likely to be placed in Resource Specialist Program (RSP), a category that included students who receive special education and related services outside the general education classroom for at least 21%, but not more than 60%, of the school day classes than their counterparts in bilingual education (Artiles et al

No Child Left Behind Act


xiv). These authors even go so far as to suggest that the same corporate forces that are driving the privatization of the nation's prison and jail system are at work in Congress: "The current reform environment creates conditions in which public schools can only fail, thus providing 'statistical evidence' for an alleged need to turn education over to private companies in the name of 'freedom of choice'" (Kesson & Ross, 2004, p

No Child Left Behind Act


Furthermore, the number of ELL students in American classrooms continues to increase faster than the system can accommodate them. In fact, more than four-and-a-half million students were identified as English language learners (ELLs) attended school in the educational system in the United States, prekindergarten through Grade 12, in 2000-2001, accounting for almost 10% of the total public school enrollment (Komatsu & Witt, 2006)

No Child Left Behind Act


In addition, during the period from 1989 to 2006, the ELL population has approximately doubled, a trend that these researchers predict will continue for at least the next two decades (Komatsu & Witt, 2006). While special language programs are provided for more than 400 different language groups in American classrooms, approximately 80% of ELLs today are Spanish speakers (Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson-Courtney & Kushner, 2006)

No Child Left Behind Act


56). Less than 13% of teachers in American classrooms currently possess even minimal ESL training, though, and just 8 to 10% of teachers have bilingual or ESL certification (Rice & Pappamihiel, 2004)