Week 4- Thoughts re: NCLB

The NCLB Act is good in theory but falls short in practice. From a theoretical point of view, legislative educational reforms at a national level (e.g. NCLB) are necessary due to economic reasons. As our economy becomes more of a “Global Village”, children from our country will be competing with the children of foreign countries for jobs. Because of the latter it is imperative that the US government makes a concentrated effort to ensure that our children will be equipped with the educational resources necessary to effectively compete and survive in the global economy.
Unlike the jobs of the past, employment in the present and ultimately the future will require an advanced level of skills that are acquired from strong foundations in reading, writing, and mathematics. Currently, at a national level, our children are lacking in the aforementioned skills. In fact, the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) recently found that the U.S. ranks 23rd out of 29 OECD countries in math achievement. A list of OECD countries can be obtained by accessing the following page: http://www.oecd.org/document/58/0,3343,en_2649_201185_1889402_1_1_1_1,00.html. That list of countries does not include China or India.
In practice, the lacking federal funds to adequately support the objectives of the NCLB coupled with the stiff penalties associated with AYP may cause some states to resort to other measures to achieve compliance. In an effort to avoid the stiff penalties of NCLB, some states have been accused of “dumbing down the tests”. In a brief article entitled, “Are States Dumbing Down Student Achievement Tests”, by Robert Longley the aforementioned issue is raised. Longley cites a report by the U.S Department of education that implies some states may possibly be reducing the difficulty of standardized state assessments. The article and the report can be found by accessing the following page: http://usgovinfo.about.com/b/a/217640.htm. Whether of not the report substantiates such acts by individual states is not as important as the underlying message conveyed through such actions: states, districts, administrators, and educators are under immense pressure to meet compliance with NCLB!