1. N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND Jill Daignault ED 613 Unit III Assignment

2. N O C HILD L EFT B EHIND (NCLB) NCLB 2001 was signed into law by President George W. Bush on January 8, 2012

3. M AJOR P HILOSOPHICAL R ATIONALE  NCLB is a reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 (Education Week, 2004).  NCLB is an act “To close the achievement gap with accountability, flexibility, and choice, so that no child is left behind” (NCLB, 2001).  It was intended for all students to have an equal opportunity to achieve academically and to have states and schools be held accountable for their student’s progress.

4. R ATIONALE C ONTINUED Main Points of NCLB  Annual Testing Testing of students in reading, math, and science in accordance with national standards.  Academic Progress Schools must show adequate yearly progress (AYP) If a Title I school and does not make AYP in two years it receives assistance and students are allowed to choose another school to attend If AYP is not met after three years are given supplemental educational services (SES) (Education Weekly, 2004)

5. R ATIONALE C ONTINUED Main Points continued:  Report Cards Schools and School Districts are required to provide report cards providing disaggregated data  Teacher Qualifications All teachers must become “highly qualified” in their subject area in accordance with set requirements  Reading First Scientific, research-based reading for grades K-3  Funding Changes Funding to was to be given to schools to assist in the necessary resources for academic achievement (Education Weekly, 2004)

6. NCLB – F EDERAL L EVEL  Public opinion poll in 2003 of school superintendents and principals showed that they felt that NCLB was politically motivated or aimed at undermining public schools  Polls shows that people feel that the law disproportionately penalizes schools with diverse student populations  2010 – 38% of schools did not make AYP  Currently Congress is in the process of reauthorizing the NCLB Act of 2001, but cannot agree on the shape of the version of the new law. (Education Week, 2004)

7. NCLB – S TATE L EVEL  States set their own benchmarks  States required to test annually in math, reading and science  Requires all teachers to be “highly qualified”  States required to be 100% proficient (meet AYP) by 2013-2014

8. NCLB – L OCAL L EVEL  Supports learning in the early years  Provides more information for parents regarding their child’s progress  Alerts parents to important academic performance  Improves teaching and learning by providing better information to teachers and administrators  Ensures that teacher quality is a high priority  Gives more resources to schools  Allows more flexibility  Focuses on what works (U.S. Dept. of Ed, 2005)

9. NCLB AND THE MN W AIVER  U.S. Department of Education allowed states to request more flexibility regarding the 100% proficiency requirement of NCLB  Schools must prove a rigorous school improvement plan that shows a close in achievement gaps, better equality among students, and improve quality of teacher instruction  MN submitted a waiver which was approved on February 9, 2012  MN Schools will have to show improvement in math and reading, but also in individual students  Priority schools must submit plans on how they plan to close the achievement gap among their students. (Star Tribune, 2012)

10. P ERSONAL O PINION  NCLB I believe that the philosophy and vision of NCLB is good and holds schools accountable for their students and teachers. Requiring students to meet set standards and have high expectations is a positive thing in addition to ensuring that teachers are highly qualified. I do not agree with the collection of data from the tests and the diversity among the student population is not accurately represented and skews test results I feel that there is not adequate resources for schools, administrators, or teachers to help them reach AYP

11. MN Waiver I like how the U.S. Dept of Ed is allowing states flexibility in reaching the 100% proficiency required by 2013-2014. I agree with those who do not support the waiver – showing student growth is not good enough, students must still meet the standards required. If we as educators give students lower standards we are setting them and the schools up for failure and again will be unable to compete with foreign countries. Setting high standards for students is a good thing as it forces students to strive for excellence. P ERSONAL O PINION

12. R EFERENCES Education Week. (2004). No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 4, 2012, from http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/http://www.edweek.org/ew/issues/no-child-left-behind/ McGuire, Kim. (2012). Minnesota Freed from ‘No Child Left Behind’ sanctions. Star Tribune. Retrieved July 7, 2012, from http://www.startribune.com/local/139062899.html http://www.startribune.com/local/139062899.html U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Introduction: No Child Left Behind: Archived Information. Retrieved July 6, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/index.html U.S. Department of Education. (2001). NCLB Legislation. No Child Left Behind. Retrieved July 3, 2012, from http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=ln http://www2.ed.gov/nclb/landing.jhtml?src=ln