How the No Child Left Behind Act fails to meet the academic expectations of Global Education.

A fundamental American value is that each individual should have the opportunity to realize his or her potential. We as Americans have always seen a strong value in education and have recognized its importance in opening the doors of opportunity to a better life for us and for our children. Our country's many successes, from the economy to the functioning of our democratic society, is indisputably linked to the quality of the education provided to our citizens by our public schools. In today’s world of rapid changes, technological advances, and global competitiveness, new challenges have been created in our schools.

 Since the attack on the United States on September 11, 2001, many have changed the way we look at ourselves and how we look at each other. We have become deeply aware that we live in a world that is fundamentally interdependent. This new world is a genuine challenge for educators who must find a way to incorporate new strategies to educate humankind for the future. We need to go towards a future where global alliance is the norm. We need to form social relationships on an international scale and construct a global consciousness. We can do this through Global Education.

 Global Education is defined as an interdisciplinary approach to learning concepts and skills necessary to function in a world that is increasingly interconnected and multicultural. The curricula based on this approach are grounded in traditional academic disciplines but are taught in the context of project-and problem-based inquiries. The learner examines issues from the vantage point of the individual, the local community, the nation, and the world community (Enclyopedia.com, 2012).

Global education is different from the concept of globalization, which is, the forces of market capitalism, which tend to focus discussion on global economic systems and information technologies. Key concepts in global education include human rights, environmental responsibility, cultural studies, and sustainable economies. Global education views national politics and transnational economic policies with an eye toward international accountability. It stresses the role of global ethics in shaping humane, environmentally sound attitudes toward the world as a single ecosystem, and it teaches that a globally conscious citizenry can effectively overcome such problems as climate change, ocean pollution, and resource depletion with ingenuity, leadership, and cooperation (Enclyopedia.com, 2012).


 Paolo Freire, an educational theorist, emphasized the necessity of raising the conscious of the newly literate (Noddings, 2011). Freire believed that education was a political act that could not be divorced from pedagogy. Teachers and students must be aware of the “politics” that surround education. They way students are taught and what they are taught serves a political agenda (Kincheloe, 2008). Freire also heavily supports students’ ability to think critically about their education situation; this way of thinking allows them to "recognize connections between their individual problems and experiences and the social contexts in which they are embedded" (Kincheloe, 2008).

 Henry Giroux is the founding theorist of critical pedagogy and was heavily influenced by Paolo Freire. Critical pedagogy is a philosophy of education described as an "educational movement, guided by passion and principle, to help students develop consciousness of freedom, recognize authoritarian tendencies, and connect knowledge to power and the ability to take constructive action" (Kincheloe, 2008).

 Under policies such as No Child Left Behind and Race to the Top, public education is guttered as public spheres where students learn to become knowledgeable, thoughtful and capable of participating in the decisions that shape their lives, their relations to others and the larger world. Education as a lesson in public values, civic politics and public life is subordinated, if not erased, under the mandate of preparing students through high-stakes testing for competing in the global marketplace (Giroux, 2012).

 The No Child Left Behind Act (107th Congress, 2002) makes it clear that all students are deserving of a comprehensive education regardless of their demographics. Diverse student populations are underserved by our educational system, and the study of the ongoing disconnection between an educator’s personal and professional beliefs held collectively may lend insight as to what effect these beliefs have on holding students back (Harmon & Wilson, 2012).

 When President Bush enacted the No Child Left Behind legislation, he emphasized that schools must act to,“ increase substantially the likelihood that each group of students enrolled in the school identified for corrective action will meet or exceed the state’s proficient levels of achievement on the state academic assessment” (No Child Left Behind Act: August, 2001). The objective is that all students meet academic proficiency standards in English and math by 2014. This would be accomplished by hiring highly qualified teachers and by reporting all student testing results – including all sub-groups so that school and district standardized test scores would not be artificially inflated by the scores of the top performing students in each school. The disaggregated score reports allow educators and laymen alike to assess how well each student or how well specific student groups are performing (Fundukian, 2009).

Federal funding, which comprises a sizeable chunk of a school’s budget, is contingent upon schools making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). The AYP is a number identified through a complex algorithm whose variables do not necessarily match the criteria of the schools they are being used to assess. For example, immigrant students must meet the same standards in English language as native English speakers. Those schools teaching larger immigrant populations will face greater difficulty in meeting growth targets than those schools with stable English speaking populations (Fundukian, 2009).

 As the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) is not supported by additional funding sources, underperforming schools have a more difficult time meeting the additional needs of urban students and maintaining highly qualified teachers in schools requiring the most work. Congress needs to add funding to the NCLB legislation in order for schools and districts to access the resources necessary to close the gap. The legislation does not go far enough to ensure the validity and reliability of the measures used by different states. Since each state is able to establish its own levels of proficiency, there is no consistency between what students’ scores mean between states. For example, earning a score of proficient or above in one state might be the equivalent of scoring basic or below in another. School accountability policies make an interesting impression on local neighborhoods. In my state of Florida, for example, schools are given a grade ranging from “A” to “F.” In my opinion, it seems that housing prices coincide with grades earned – the higher the grade, the more expensive the house. Unfortunately, grades appear to also coincide with the racial demographic of neighborhoods with “A” schools attended predominantly by white students in affluent neighborhoods and lower scores of “C” or below seem to be at schools that are primarily Title I schools.

 Schools that do not show progress each year (average yearly progress, or AYP) are labeled as failing, eventually being sanctioned, with a variety of remedies put in place. Sanctions escalate as the school continues to fail to achieve AYP, ending with schools subject to a restructuring, which could include replacing staff, instituting new curriculum, regulating the facility directly through the state, and even closing the school and reopening it as a charter school. Schools not only must report the progress of each of their subgroups, but each group must show continual progress (Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy).

 President Obama delivered details on how states can get relief from requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA)- or No Child Left Behind (NCLB). The new flexibility supports local and state education reform across the country in exchange for serious state-led efforts to close achievement gaps, promote rigorous accountability, and ensure that all students are on track to graduate college- and career-ready (Brenchly, 2011).

 ESEA flexibility will move accountability systems toward decisions that are based on student growth and progress. They will consider more than a single test score measured against an arbitrary proficiency level (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). States will be able to look comprehensively at how schools are serving their students and communities, in areas like school climate, access to rigorous coursework, and providing a well-rounded education. Flexibility also will support States and districts in fixing the broken teacher evaluation systems, by allowing for the use of multiple measures to evaluate teachers, including peer reviews, principal observation, portfolios, and student work (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

 ESEA Flexibility will let States create honest accountability and support systems that require real change in the worst performing schools, allow for locally tailored solutions based on individual school needs, and recognize schools for success. When schools fall short, parents will know that school leaders will adopt targeted and focused strategies for the students most at risk (Brenchly, 2011).

The accountability system also will end the over-emphasis on testing. Parents will like this change for the same reasons that teachers will – it will promote a well-rounded curriculum while giving a fair and responsible assessment of their school’s success in preparing students for college and careers. Under ESEA flexibility, States will begin to move beyond the bubble tests and dumbed-down standards that are based on arbitrary standards of proficiency. By measuring student growth and critical thinking, new assessments will inspire better teaching and greater student engagement across a well-rounded curriculum. By setting standards based on college- and career-readiness, States will challenge students to make progress toward a goal that will prepare them for success in the 21st century knowledge economy (U.S. Department of Education, 2011).

 The 21st century economy creates an urgent demand that our schools provide a high quality education for every student so that they may succeed in life and so that our country can remain globally competitive. Educating our children within that framework must remain a primary function of state and local communities, where ownership and commitment for student success are most prominent. The federal government has a limited, but important, role to play. In recent years, that role has taken an unhealthy and unproductive “top-down approach”.

 The clear roll that the federal government needs to acknowledge is that those efforts over the previous decade to employ a “top-down approach” have not worked. The federal government’s role should be one of partnership and support to school districts. Not in only terms of funding those with the greatest needs (e.g. poverty, disability, ELL) they need to share and promote ideas and best practices regarding actions needed to overcome shortfalls in student achievement. They need to replace the current accountability system that does not accurately or fairly report student, school or 
school district performance. They need to provide for multiple measures of academic achievement that would more accurately determine 
students’ knowledge and performance to be successful in the global market. They must focus on a long-term solution to funding education in America to rebuild our economy and ensure that our students will successfully compete in the global market. They should Fully fund both Title I grants for disadvantaged students and the federal commitment to special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), along with other key programs that are critical to student achievement. They must provide support to help prepare students for what is needed for college and workforce success, to facilitate innovation, and to be a true measure of academic success. They should challenge and inspire educators rather than simply punishing and discouraging schools or students when they fall short.

 The world and technology are constantly changing, however essential skills like reading, writing, and math prepare our students for anything. In today’s world, students must learn the proper skills and gain hands-on, real-world experience if they hope to survive the workforce. If educators mix career-oriented projects into their classrooms, they will help students’ master core subjects and learn skills including communication, problem solving, critical thinking, global awareness, financial literacy and technology. Students need to gain a global perspective. Cultural skills are crucial. Students need to be able to enter the workforce after high school and interact with people. This means they need to know how culture influences behavior, perceptions and expectations. I know we can’t teach them about every culture in the world, but we can make them aware of their own cultures and other cultures in our community. These are going to be the type of skills that future employers are going to look at. Students need to have them in order to be competitive in a global society (Rotherham & Willingham, 2011). And in order to be competitive in a global society, we need to make changes to the No Child Left Behind Act.

 We need to teach students how to recognize stereotypes and establish a life-long learning about diverse peoples. We can help develop student’s global perspectives by instilling in students universal concepts and dispositions that foster cross-cultural understandings. We need to incorporate global concepts and global awareness within our specific contact area. We can do this using websites such as Global SchoolNet. Global SchoolNet's mission is to support 21st century learning and improve academic performance through content-driven collaboration. Global SchoolNet engages educators and students in meaningful e-learning projects worldwide to develop science, math, literacy and communication skills, foster teamwork, civic responsibility and collaboration, encourage workforce preparedness and create multi-cultural understanding ("Globalschoolnet.org," 2011). We as educators need to give our students real-world projects that will help them understand why they need to learn certain concepts and skills. Educators need to teach them in a context that they the students understand. Educators need to embrace technology and learn how to use it. We are teaching students who have never known life without computers or the Internet.


 References

 107th Congress, U. S. (2002, January 08). U.s. department of education. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/esea02/107-110.pdf

Advisory Committee on Social Witness Policy. , (n.d.). Loving our neighbors: Equity and quality in public education (k–12). Retrieved from http://www.pc-biz.org/Resources/87feb6e1-b57a-4f47-b379-c4644baa3488/acswp-public-education-full-rationale.pdf

Brenchly, C. (2011). Homeroom. Retrieved from http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/09/what-nclb-flexibility-means-for-you/

Fundukian, K. (2009, May). Closing the achievement gap:a statewide inperative. Retrieved from http://digitallibrary.usc.edu/assetserver/controller/item/etd-Fundukian-2823.pdf

Giroux, H. (2012, 09 13). On the significance of the Chicago teachers strike: Challenging democracy’s demise. Truthout. Retrieved from http://truth-out.org/opinion/item/11530-on-the-significance-of-the-chicago-teachers-strike-bearing-witness-to-and-challenging-democracys-demise

Harmon, C., & Wilson, M. (2012). An investigation of the diversity beliefs of educators. Retrieved from http://www.wtamu.edu/webres/File/Journals/MCJ/Volume 7-2/Harmon Corinne - An Investigation of the Diversity Beliefs of Educators.pdf

Kincheloe, J. L. (2008). Critical pedagogy. (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Peter Lang. Retrieved from http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=aqttLW1Zdf8C&oi=fnd&pg=PP9&dq=Critical Pedagogy Primer&ots=DOJ8j2t_7M&sig=Nbg-7XpBIeTOmjAxtHlKBj8Jl9s

National School Boards Associations. (2011). Public education and the 112th congress: A new framework to support local school boards in achieving academic excellence for all students. Retrieved from http://www.csba.org/~/~/media/ED032EAC27524719AC77FADFD7595A88.ashx Noddings, N. (2012). Philosophy of education. (3 ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Westview Press.

Rotherham, A. J., & Willingham, D. (2011, Feb. 22). Educational leadership. Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/educational-leadership/sept09/vol67/num01/21st-Century-Skills@-The-Challenges-Ahead.aspx

 U.S. Department of Education. (2011). Retrieved from U.S. Department of Education website: http://www.ed.gov/blog/2011/09/obama-administration-offers-flexibility-from-no-child-left-behind/