No+Child+Left+Behind

**Artifact #11: No Child Left Behind Examination**

Rumors circulate among teachers, librarians, administrators and the general public about No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and its effects on the academic achievement of students. For every individual insisting that it is productive and helpful, there are ten more coming forward with a personal experience of why it is flawed. Anecdotes and opinions are interesting, but they do not provide the full picture. In such a weighty debate, therefore, it is crucial to examine research and scholarly studies in order to develop an informed opinion. Through this process, we can begin to understand the differing sides of the debate, as well as form a belief about how NCLB functions best and what should be adapted in the future.

Critics of NCLB are an impassioned and outspoken group, arguing that it creates a teacher and textbook oriented curriculum, forces the exclusion of subjects not tested, reduces learning to rote memorization, and requires too much classroom time spent preparing for tests rather than actual learning. These claims, while compelling, are seldom backed up by research, so it is important to look at scholarly studies that have addressed these issues. In numerous articles, test-taking experts repudiate the value of tests such as those used in NCLB, claiming that “educational tests are much less accurate than most parents believe” (CPE). Furthermore, these tests force schools to focus on reading and math at the expense of other subjects. The CPE article states that 81% of middle schools reported changing their curriculum to more closely match tested content. However, the researchers do not address the effects of this change – perhaps these schools are better served by focusing more time on math and reading. Critics assert that NCLB forces teachers to “teach to the test” and reduce instruction to the memorization of test items, although large-scale studies have not been conducted to verify this. Finally, NCLB will, according to the AEE, leave inner city and rural middle schools struggling to find teachers that meet the new strict qualification standards. According to critics, curriculum will suffer as schools focus on memorization, reading, and math, at the expense of other subjects, while instruction will worsen due to a lack of highly qualified teachers.

Proponents of NCLB argue that high-stakes testing, more highly qualified teachers, and Adequate Yearly Progress will increase student academic achievement. Numerous studies have shown that student performance on other tests and in other areas improves after high-stakes testing is introduced (CPE) and that states with high-stakes testing typically outperform those states without (CPE). Additionally, many teachers rewrite curriculum to align it with test items and state-standards and, in Yeh’s study, a majority of Minnesota teachers thought that the impact of state testing was positive. Again, this evidence is anecdotal and does not measure the effect of this rewritten curriculum on student performance, so must be considered critically. Finally, and most importantly, NCLB requires teachers to be more highly certified in every content area in which they teach. While critics worry that this will increase the difficulty in staffing classrooms, particularly in poor urban and rural areas, the end result is positive. Researchers have found that the most important factor in student achievement is teacher quality (NMSA NCLB Recommendations) so this increase in qualified teachers will only benefit student achievement.

As with most aspects of education, NCLB has positively affected middle school curriculum and instruction in some ways and negatively affected them in others. I believe that by creating a more teacher and textbook oriented classroom, NCLB does students a disservice by making middle school a more static, less user-friendly experience. The focus on math and reading for low-achieving students hurts students who may excel in a more problem-solving and student-focused curriculum. Aiming toward one goal only – achieving high test scores – makes the classroom a less engaging environment. In these aspects, NCLB fails our students. Thus, I would advocate the inclusion of tests with more critical thinking skills, such as problem solving and other content areas besides reading and math. This would ensure a better-rounded curriculum for students. I would likewise include the professional development requirements that the NMSA advocates in order to provide better educated and prepared teachers. Despite these problems, NCLB does offer many positive benefits. Assessment is crucial and a valuable element of the program since it requires teachers and administrators to be held to a benchmark and deliver on the standards. Additionally, the legislation’s insistence on highly qualified teachers creates a more academically and developmentally appropriate environment for students. Since NCLB is likely to remain a large part of middle schools, teachers and librarians must learn to work with it and make it work in their own classrooms. Through this, they will be able to overcome some of the negative aspects while using the benefits to their advantage.