|
|
|
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law of 2002 is a good example of goals set excessively high, too lofty for schools to achieve. Each state sets their own standards for pupils to attain in NCLB. Presently, there are a plethora of states which have pulled out, by permission, of relevant parts of NCLB, if they have an alternative procedure of indicating learner progress. Two places in NCLB which have produced problems in pupils meeting objectives is in
• Reaching standards of proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. At a time when school budgets are being cut due to a lack of funding by the state legislature and the governor, class size has increased, fewer materials of instruction are being purchased, as well as the ensuing school year will see even less of finances being available. In front of me is a copy of Education Week, which states that in Texas, Superintendents have said they cannot educate pupils with these cutbacks in funding. They have permission from the state superintendent to omit the part which deals with pupils needing to pass the state NCLB test to be promoted to the next grade level.
• Adequate yearly progress (AYP) has made for further difficulties in schools meeting NCLB criteria.
The NCLB is still in effect, however it has been greatly weakened with the above two asterisked indicated above. The ensuing common core objectives will be emphasized increasingly so, and, no doubt, will, in time, completely replace NCLB. It takes much time and money to write high quality valid and reliable tests, pilot tested, which truly measure pupil achievement in reading and mathematics. Science test items were incorporated into NCLB two years ago. There still are additional tests which need to be written such as for the social studies, the fine arts, and physical education.
— Marlow Ediger, North Newton
The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law of 2002 is a good example of goals set excessively high, too lofty for schools to achieve. Each state sets their own standards for pupils to attain in NCLB. Presently, there are a plethora of states which have pulled out, by permission, of relevant parts of NCLB, if they have an alternative procedure of indicating learner progress. Two places in NCLB which have produced problems in pupils meeting objectives is in
• Reaching standards of proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2014. At a time when school budgets are being cut due to a lack of funding by the state legislature and the governor, class size has increased, fewer materials of instruction are being purchased, as well as the ensuing school year will see even less of finances being available. In front of me is a copy of Education Week, which states that in Texas, Superintendents have said they cannot educate pupils with these cutbacks in funding. They have permission from the state superintendent to omit the part which deals with pupils needing to pass the state NCLB test to be promoted to the next grade level.
• Adequate yearly progress (AYP) has made for further difficulties in schools meeting NCLB criteria.
The NCLB is still in effect, however it has been greatly weakened with the above two asterisked indicated above. The ensuing common core objectives will be emphasized increasingly so, and, no doubt, will, in time, completely replace NCLB. It takes much time and money to write high quality valid and reliable tests, pilot tested, which truly measure pupil achievement in reading and mathematics. Science test items were incorporated into NCLB two years ago. There still are additional tests which need to be written such as for the social studies, the fine arts, and physical education.
— Marlow Ediger, North Newton
