No Child Left Behind

License to be Left Behind:

How the Public School System is denying us our Freedom to Fail

License to be Left Behind:

How the Public School System is denying us our Freedom to Fail

No child left behind is the type of statement one would expect to hear a leading man say at the apex of an emotional scene in a movie; "No child shall be left behind." This

Pageantry of diction influences a culture that makes decisions based-on talking points, and headlines rather than informing themselves about the specifics of an issue. In the aftermath of September eleventh, a bill titled the Patriot Act was proposed, and in an emotional response to what can only be assumed was the rubric itself, as the actual specifics of the bill had not finished printing at the time of voting, was passed into law. The effect of that law, as is now becoming clear, has stripped Americans of their core freedoms. The lesson learned must not leave us; we must never again decide our future on an emotional response to rhetoric. That is why the No Child Left Behind Act must be examined, and the question must be posed; as American youth begins to academically trail the rest of the world, is the No Child Left Behind Act seeking to repair the problem, or the cause of it?

Under NCLB (No Child Left Behind) the accountability for a child's education is placed by the Federal government into the hands of the state.

This is the first time an American president has set a goal of universal proficiency in

reading and mathematics for all children. The federal emphasis on literacy, reading,

and mathematics emphasizes teacher and school accountability, with negative

consequences when schools do not meet established improvement goals (U.S.

Department of Education, 2002).

Under NCLB the state must have accountability provisions that include how they will close the achievement gap. According to the Department of Education the achievement gap is defined as such;

The difference between how well low-income and minority children perform on

standardized tests as compared with their peers. For many years, low-income and

minority children have been falling behind their white peers in terms of academic

achievement (Department of Education, 2002).

States must also monitor that every student not excluding the disadvantaged achieve academic proficiency. Yearly assessments must be produced to inform parents of the progress of both the state and the community. Schools that do not meet the academic proficiency standards must offer supplemental services and take corrective action. If within five years the school is still not making yearly progress than dramatic changes in the school's academic direction must be made. Dramatic changes according to the Department of Education are defined as follows; "...additional changes to ensure improvement." The definition raises the question of whether there is a plan for failure at all.

The National Assessment of Educational Progress, in its "National Report Card" shows that these goals may be falling short. Students in fourth grade show temporary improvement in math right after No Child Left Behind became a law, but returned to pre-reform growth rate. The NAEP estimates that by 2014 less than 25% of financially challenged and African American students will achieve NAEP proficiency in reading. Using the same time frame less than half the financially challenged and African American students will obtain proficiency in math. With so much pressure on the states to perform well, a trend is becoming apparent that they are inflating proficiency levels of students. This causes discrepancies between the NAEP and state assessments especially among the financially challenged, African American, and Hispanic students.

With no sufficient evidence being shown that NCLB is working the larger question presents itself; is the federal government capable of running our school systems? There are undoubtedly dangers in the public school system teaching a federally mandated curriculum, any time history is being taught by those affecting the present a conflict of interest arises. When one controls people's perception of history, one controls the present. There is, of course, the point to be made that if the nations' children are kept in watered down public schools, positions of power will be open to the children of the aristocracy, who without fail, are being sent to private schools.

Here the irony--hypocrisy is a less kind word--is again startling. So many of those

politicians who stand in the way of allowing poor children to escape failing schools

send their own children to private schools (sic). In New York City, where I have spent

most of my professional life, both the current and the past chancellor of schools sent

their children to private schools. Six of the seven members of the now-defunct Board

of Education had also sent their children to private schools at one time or another. One

might add to the list other notables in New York--the governor, the mayor, the

leaders of both houses of the legislature, and the junior U.S. senator (and former first

lady). In fact, I cannot remember a mayor of the city who sent his children to public

school (Viteritti, 2003).

The reports of the success of NCLB are encouraging to the supporters of the project. There have been schools in