The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 commonly referred to as (NCLB) became law on January 8th 2002. The Act requires all states to develop assessments in basic skills which are to be given to all students at select grade levels. But are these assessments fair for children with low IQ’s and learning disabilities?
The article below is one person’s take on this law. Once you’ve read this article we’d love to here your thoughts on this controversial law.
NCLB – No Child Left Behind Is Such a Joke
by Kerry B Johnson
The title of this law is a joke. What it should say is No Child Left Behind except for special education students. The law states that the purpose of NCLB is to ensure that all children have a fair, equal and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education and reach, at a minimum proficiency and challenging state academy.
Nationally there is a significant gap between the achievement test scores of children from low income families, racial members and children with disability and the “normal” children. Children with a lower IQ are not getting equal and fair educational services. The teachers are supposed to provide accommodations and modified material but regardless there are just some children that are ever going to be able to perform at grade level.
The NCLB requires annual proficiency testing, research based reading program, highly qualified teachers, supplemental education services and public choice as well as parent involvement.
The theory is that by the time a child is in the 3rd grade they will all be able to read on grade level which is simply impossible. All children are tested on grade level regardless of their capability. So basically if you have a child who is in the 6th grade but is reading on a second grade reading level there is no way the child is going to be able to pass a test that is on a sixth grade level. Not only are they getting state testing on their grade level but their classwork has to be given in the grade level the child is attending. This is where this law makes no sense. If a chid with a disability can only read on a 2nd grade level but are in 6th grade they are being set up to fail. To top it off each school gets funding from these scores.
The other part of the law states that if a Title one school fails to meet adequate yearly progress (AYP) two years in a row you can move your child to another school in the district that does meet AYP. If the school fails to meet AYP for three years the school must provide supplemental education services, they must be provided supplemental education services including tutoring, after school programs and summer programs. These services are free to parents however the problem is when dealing with special needs children that are years behind their grade level no amount of supplemental services are going to catch them up to grade level. Not to mention special needs children are tired and overwhelmed by the end of the day and the NCLB states they need these additional services. By the end of the day they are overstimulated and medications are starting to wear off. You can’t keep children back in their grade that they are performing because we could potentially stay in lower grades for the rest of their school years.
With that said, The law needs to be changed especially for special needs children. They are being set up to fail. Just because they can’t meet test scores here needs to be some serious changes in NCLB. Its a great theory but its impossible to meet those expectations.
Contact me at: mrsrevjohnson@charter.net
Article Source: EzineArticles.com
Homeschoolers understand that all children are unique, each one with their own special set of skills and abilities. They also understand that each child learns differently.
With that in mind what’s your thoughts on this law? Should it be changed or updated? Or should it be repealed?
No Child Left Behind includes many new responsibilities and requirements for states, school districts, and schools. The law also includes new rights and responsibilities for children who attend public schools that receive Title I funds and their parents.