Guilfoyle, Christy. “NCLB: Is There Life Beyond Testing?.” Educational Leadership 64.3
(2006): 8-13. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.
In this article, Guilfoyle reports her findings on the flaws of the No Child Left Behind Act. She states that when described with one word, most educators would describe the Act as “accountability”. However, Guilfoyle states that after 2014, educators would describe the Act with “testing”. The No Child Left Behind Act is built off the foundation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), which would provide funding to low-income districts. Guilfoyle states that the main problem with the Act is that the focus is put on Reading and Math, and all other subjects are forgotten. Also, testing by-laws are determined by the districts, and some districts are making their tests easier so their students get higher scores. Within the article, the U.S. Dept. of Education is quoted by Guilfoyle, saying that only 1 standardized test per year, which is required by the Act, to measure student growth is inadequate. I will be using this article to demonstrate the flaws of the No Child Left Behind Act in relation to student progress.
MALEYKO, GLENN, and MARYTZA A. GAWLIK. “No Child Left Behind: What We Know
And What We Need To Know.” Education 131.3 (2011): 600-624. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.
In this entry, the authors look at arguments for every aspect of the No Child Left Behind act, and it looks at the consequences of the Act towards low-income districts. It starts by stating that states have the ability to manipulate their Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). This directly results in a misconception that AYP is a reliable, consistent measure of student growth. They also state that the ideal benefit of the Act is that all children have the right to learn and be taught. Research in the article confirms that ethnically diverse and poor schools will be affected first. At statistic was gathered in Kentucky that schools with 25% or more black students are much more likely to fail to meet the AYP criteria. Also, largely Hispanic-populated schools are failing to meet AYP by 8%. The authors also state that Economically Disadvantaged (ED) schools are failing to meet AYP by 9%. The article also talks about students that are barely below the proficient level (aka “Bubble Kids”) and how they are receiving much more resources than high proficient and lower scoring students. While this article has a lot of information on the broad topic of No Child Left Behind, I will be using it for its section on ethnically diverse schools and their AYP statistics.
McNeil, Michele. “Key Elements Of Title I Program Broken, Researchers Say.” Education Week
30.26 (2011): 20. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Oct. 2012.
McNeil argues in this article that the Title 1 program is now broken because of NCLB’s demands. She starts by stating that as of April 2011, there is $14.5 million in Title 1 federal aid.
Because of this budget, various audits can occur within districts that may overspend. This creates a snowball effect, and most schools are afraid to offer new programs due to their budgets, so they stick to the same programs every year, even if they are ineffective. Also, McNeil claims a loophole in the “comparability” requirement. This requirement states that Title 1 programs receive the same services that non-Title 1 programs receive. However, districts do not need to indicate teacher’s salaries, so many districts do not have to indicate where high-salary teachers are being place, and where lower-salary teachers are placed. She then talks about how in a Florida school there was a 10% increase in student poverty. This only resulted in a $56 increase in per-pupil spending. McNeil argues that this number should be much larger. She concludes by acknowledging that is students fail to bring their Average Yearly Progress above the required level for three consecutive years, these schools would need to employ contract tutors. She then debates that these tutors are statistically ineffective. I will be using this article to show how the Title 1 program has been affected by the NCLB act.
lmm466 