Why Band-Aids Don't Work: Analyzing and Evaluating No Child Left Behind (NCLB) in Light of Constructivist Philosophy, Theory, and Practice.

The overwhelming consensus as the twentieth century has closed has been that knowledge is constructed. D. C. Phillips, Constructivism in Education No Child Left Behind (NCLB) When Shawn Sturgill began Shelbyville High School, southwest of Indianapolis, IN. in 2002, he joined a group of about ten students who became his friends. He describes them as Not too rich, not too poor; not bookish, but not slow, or typical, average kids (Thornburgh 2006). By his senior year, only one or two of Shawn's friends remained; almost all the rest became high school dropouts. Statistics indicate that of the 315 Shelbyville students who began high school with Shawn, only 215 were expected to graduate (Thornburgh 2006). This disturbing story of educational failure, although extreme, is nonetheless an indication of the overwhelming malfunction of the federal government's attempt to reform education in American schools though the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) signed into law by President George Bush on January 8, 2002. The law sets requirements for granting schools federal funding. NCLB focuses on five principles: 1. Accountability and Assessment 2. State flexibility in the use of federal funds 3. School Choice 4. Emphasis on scientific teaching methods 5. Teachers must be highly qualified Through these principles the government has made an unprecedented effort to expand the role of the federal government in education. The Constitution contains no provisions for influence in education. But, if states wish to benefit from federal education funding they must comply with whatever regulations Washington imposes (Jaeger 2007, 2). NCLB's ultimate goal demands 100% student proficiency in reading and mathematics by the end of the 2013-2014 school year for all students in third through twelfth grades. Of these five principles, the most notably problematic aspect is in accountability and assessment. States are required to develop standardized assessments of student proficiency. The most economical means of student assessment is standardized testing which has therefore been adopted as the primary instrument for measurement. The scores from these tests are used to grade the schools and the school systems themselves. A school's achievement is based on its ability to meet what NCLB defines as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) goals. Each year this goal is raised in order to meet the 2014 deadline. When schools do not meet their AYP, they suffer consequences: 1. After two years of not meeting AYP, schools must allow students to transfer to higher-performing schools and must provide transportation for the students. 2. After three years of not meeting AYP, schools must pay for outside tutoring at the request of parents. 3. After four years of not meeting AYP, schools the state must take corrective action which includes staff, implementing new curriculum including professional development, decreasing management authority at the school site level, appointing an outside expert to advise the school, extending the school day, or reorganizing the school internally. (Jaeger 2006, 8) 4. After five years of not meeting AYP, the school district must fundamentally restructure the school including, reopening school as a charter school, replacing school staff, and/or turning over school operations to the state or a private company. While accountability and achievement are the concern of every educator in America, the NCLB initiative goes about it in the wrong way. Traditionally, one of the primary strengths of the educational system is that it is locally governed thereby meeting the specific needs of the students in quite different environments and cultures across the US. An Intuit child in Alaska has significantly different educational needs than a child growing up in urban Los Angeles or suburban Miami. …