No Child Left Behind
...ng them on track.” (Melissa 1) States are placing more emphasis on math and reading to pass the state tests that are required by the “No Child Left Behind Act” (NCLB). Consequently, less time is spent on social studies, science, art, music and other subjects. Teachers also spend more time with minority children to prevent lower-class averages. Due to these changes, math and reading scores are going up, and the gap between Caucasian students and minorities is closing (Stepnowski 1). I disagree with what is happening in schools because of the NCLB Act. Children are missing exposure to many important subjects that are necessary for developing into a well-rounded individual. In addition, I feel that it is unreasonable for the government to expect every child to be equal in his or her learning ability. For instance, if you have a student for whom English is a second language who can not understand what the teacher is speaking, how can the government expect him or her to pass a test written in English? Another area for concern would be children with disabilities. Children with disabilities already start below the expected standards of regular curriculum. It is unreasonable to believe that a child, who functions at a three year old level, will be able to read on a third-grade level by third grade. Further, another flaw with the NCLB Act is found in the testing process. This process entails testing a different group of students every year. For example, students of 2005, represent the entire school, instead of showing they are just a class within the school. The following school year of 2006 students will test to represent the same school. Therefore a school can never fail, because every year students are tested to represent the school. The same group of students is never retested to show improvement. When the results are reported, they are not attributed to a particular group of students, but to the school as a whole. Since the inference is about the school and not about a particular group of students, it is important to take into account the fact that the group tested in any particular year might not be representative of students in that school across the years. If people were to insist that a particular group of students, say in 2001, fully represented the school-is the sufficient definition of that school- then when a new group of students is tested in 2002, they actually represented a new school. Under such a belief system, it would be impossible to have any school ever fail to meet AYP in two cons...