Jacquelyn Truxaw -NCLB in Education (Activity 1.1)

Discussion Prompt: Discuss what you think are the biggest problems/challenges with NCLB, IDEA and/or other federal mandates in education.

Chapter 1: Learning Disabilities and Related Mild Disabilities

There are many problems with NCLB, or No Child Left Behind Act, in education. After working in public school districts as I obtained my Bachelors degree and teaching credential, I found the stress placed on teachers and students to be remarkably high. The teachers had to “teach for the test” to students who primarily didn’t speak English. To make it more frustrating, there were comprehension stories using cultural contexts for students who were unfamiliar with the words or stories.

Also at this time, I worked in a Special Day classroom with students identified with moderate to severe disabilities. During the testing times mandated by NCLB, these students cried because they could not fill-in the circles. One boy with ED hid under the table and cried because it was a change in the schedule; he was confused, and; became very aggressive and overwhelmed by the atmosphere. This was my first experience teaching for the test, and I could not comprehend, nor rationalize how the school could be measured by one form of assessment. Who said that all learners test one way? Who said that assessment could only be based on circles being filled in and creative or analytical thinking are discouraged? This post reflects upon the many problems with education and NCLB.

“Data for 3- to 5-year-old children are not counted by category of disability (e.g., learning disabilities), but 5% of all children receiving special education services are in the 3 to 5 age group (U.S. Department of Education, 2008)” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 16). Children between the age of 3 and 5 have been shown to have many developmental, behavioral, cognitive and other psychological factors that are significant to a positive growth. However, if there is a discrepancy of establishing categories of disability for children at this age level, then how are elementary teachers efficiently going to determine the student’s potential for learning?

Secondly, students with Learning Disabilities are most commonly within the general education classroom. Unfortunately, the NCLB bases the assessment on student’s proficiency, which is not an effective form of providing teachers what they need to teach their students. Particularly, if the student with learning disabilities struggles on tests, then the data is not an accurate form of assessment.

“Learning Disabilities is the largest category, accounting for 46% of all disabilities, Mental Retardation accounts for 8.4%, and Emotional Disturbance accounts for 7.9% of all disabilities” (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 23). This is an astounding statistic that should be reflected in special education services and resources. This statistic should be a beaming light for the legislation to federally mandate an allocated amount of money for effective interventions, strategies, methodologies and curriculum-based education that is fundamentally effective for all learners in the classroom. If almost half of the student population at schools has students with learning disabilities, then why is the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) basing education on strict academic standards and curriculum guidelines (Lerner & Johns, 2012, p. 25)? As described on pages 16 and 17, the elementary level and secondary level clearly demonstrates the failure to acquire and continue to acquire academic skills (Lerner & Johns, 2012). Yet, as Lerner and Johns describe on page 27, NCLB measures student’s progress through reading and math proficiency tests (2012).

NCLB requires schools and school districts to meet educational needs all of children, but with strict and stringent standards and requirements. On another note, Lerner and Johns state on pages 26 and 27 that “Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act requires that accommodations be made for individuals with disabilities in institutions that receive federal funds” (2012). Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act does demonstrate the need for the implementation of accommodating lesson plans and the curriculum for learners with disabilities. However, the NCLB does not hold achievements on the unique individual differences of our student population. Rather, the student achievements are based on the progress of reading and math proficiency tests. These tests provide funding for the schools, which only widens the gap for students with minimum proficiency to receive a high-quality education.

The gap is widening as students are based on proficiency rather than yearlong assessments to hold teachers and students effectively accountable. Students are not challenged and doing the bare minimum. Students at Good Shepherd Catholic School are tested formally, but the national percentile demonstrates the failure to provide an on-going, assessment-based curriculum. The curriculum at Good Shepherd Catholic School has funds based on tuition, and all curricular areas encouraged. NCLB is an example of the failure “teaching to the test” has caused, and absence of potential within our education. In the future, may our federal mandates measure individual growth on the whole person.