No Child Left Behind Act

Paper Summary:

The paper attempts to show how the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) approach may undermine crucial aspects of overall education quality for the purpose of ensuring the improvement of poorly-performing primary school students. The paper explains that the NCLB approach provides an incentive for greater reliance on rote drilling instead of on a deeper understanding and retention of the material. The paper emphasizes that the framework of a national incentive for improvement in public education in the U.S. is a worthwhile goal, but argues that the NCLBA is a poorly conceived approach whose deficiencies may actually undermine many aspects of education rather than promote any meaningful improvement.

Outline:
Perspectives on the NCLB Approach to Public Education
The Impact of the NCLB Program on P-12 Curricula
Conclusion

From the Paper:

"The No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB) signed into law by President Bush was intended to ensure proficiency in reading and in mathematics among American primary and secondary students by the year 2014 (DOE, 2001). Renewal of the NCLB program is up for a vote on its reauthorization in 2008 and nearly 100 national education, civil rights, and religious organizations have signed a "joint organizational statement on NCLB" (Olson & Hoff, 2007) against renewal of NCLB without fundamental changes."

Sample of Sources Used:

• Caillier, J. (2007) No Child Left Behind Act: Are States On Target To Make Their Goals?; Journal of Negro Education, Fall 2007 Issue. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from:http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3626/is_200710/ai_n25139930/pg_10
• Crawford, J. (2004) No Child Left Behind: Misguided Approach to School Accountability for English Language Learners. National Association for Bilingual Education. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from: http://www.nabe.org/documents/policy_legislation/NABE_on_NCLB.pdf
• Darling-Hammond, L. (2004) NCLB Implementation Challenges: The Local Superintendent's View; Peabody Journal of Education, 80, 156-169. Forgary, R. (1997) Brain Compatible Classrooms. Andover, MA: Skylight Publishing.
• Hendrie, C. (2002) Taking a Chance on Choice; Education Week, Oct 23 2002. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from www.edweek.org/ew/ewstory.cfm?slug=08choice.h22
• Murray, C. (2006) Acid Tests: No Child Left Behind is Beyond Uninformative. It Is Deceptive; The Wall Street Journal, July 25, 2006. Retrieved September 8, 2008, from: http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110008701

More papers on No Child Left Behind Act:

• Analytical Essay # 73336 : "The No Child Left Behind Act"
• Essay # 66362 : "No Child Left Behind Act"
• Analytical Essay # 130818 : "The No Child Left Behind Act and Outcomes"
• Research Paper # 105508 : "The No Child Left Behind Act: An Analysis"

APA Citation:

MLA Citation: