The goal of the No Child Left Behind Act was to make every student across the United States proficient in both reading and math by the year 2014. They sought equal opportunities for all children no matter their background, race, gender, or economic status. However, when President George W. Bush signed the No Child Left Behind Act into a law in 2002 he did not account for the various learning styles, disabilities, or flat out un-motivation that limits a child's ability to fully comprehend all the aspects of reading and math within their twelve years in school. Distinct learning disabilities, economic situations, mental disabilities, and family dynamics can hinder learning, and should not be expected to be the same to all students. The Act requires all students to undergo a rigorous amount of standardized testing despite their academic ability level. Following the testing each school is required to report all of their scores to find the adequate yearly progress. Once the district receives their scores, they may either be on the right track; however, most are placed on an improvement plan in effort to advance the schools. (No Child Left Behind, 2011). With that being said, if students do not preform well on these various standardized tests, there are only more to be completed, and methods are implicated to ensure that their scores improve. The No Child Left Behind Act takes creativity out of classrooms, does not contain plans for children with various learning styles, enforces teachers to teach to a test, and resulting in children loosing the ability to move at their own pace. It began as a good idea with a goal to eliminate inequality amongst students; however, the No Child Left Behind Act places too much of a focus on the testing elements and less on improving the quality of the education itself.

The majority of critics on the No Child Left Behind Act dispute the use of standardized testing to measure school progress. Various studies have been conducted that prove a score on a standardized test does not determine the student's academic ability.  (No Child Left Behind, 2011). Whether it be a learning disability, test anxiety, or English as a second language learners there are a significant amount of factors that can possibly hinder a student's performance. Additionally, when having a heavily weighted test a student spends all year preparing for can arise a great deal of stress and anxiety for some to preform well. Not only added pressure placed on the students, but also on the teacher as well to teach the material well enough that their students preform well without the risk of loosing a job. Just having a good score on a test in no way can reflect upon which schools have better teachers, the level of education of each district because classroom teachers are being forced to teach to a test. Since the tests are specific for each state, depending on where you are from the state is able to manipulate the information making it easier for their students. (No Child Left Behind, 2011). Moreover, if this law strives for equality of all students by having a one-hundred percent proficiency rate, that very detail does not ensure equality whatsoever.  

One main component of the No Child Left Behind Act are the subjective standardized tests that rely entirely on an end of the year score in order to determine how the school is doing. By doing so, it leads teachers and school administrators to focus all of their energy to ensure students pass math and reading tests by the end of the year. Ultimately if students do not pass, it sheds the teachers in a negative light, when in reality, they cannot force a student to study. There is such a heavy burden placed on teachers, yet just because a student fails it is not just to blame on the teachers' behalf. Teachers are with students for around seven hours a day, any additional time beyond that is completely up to the student and the parent to enforce proper study habits. A majority of children may go home to parents who have no education and cannot help them with schoolwork, may have to work leaving no time for studying and homework, or not even have parents to go home to. This Act requires that all students are to be proficient in reading and math by 2014, and with these factors in mind, it is a goal which is nearly impossible to reach (No Child Left Behind, 2011). There are a various amount of aspects which factor into poor test taking and should not ultimately reflect on a test score. With such a large empathize on reading and math, it leaves out other core subjects like science, social studies, and the arts. These other subjects are the major areas where children can express themselves, and find aspects of school that they enjoy. However, since the tests the NCLB enforces focuses strictly on reading and math students will not be able to devote extra time looking at history, art, or maybe a sport that interests them. Additionally, a child may be able to read at a high level, but after high school all of that hard work is not going to pay off, if they cannot excel in other subject areas. 

        When George Bush signed this law he wanted equal opportunities for all students, especially the ones who come from disadvantaged backgrounds. Yet, it was the mostly white, affluent schools that invariably scored much higher on the end of the year tests (Strauss, No Child Left Behind and the Damage Done). The schools with a great deal of minority groups and high in poverty, were then labeled failing due to one or two subgroups falling short of the set goal. The students who are in need of higher quality education live in poverty and the surrounding schools are not given amply resources to teach with. Since public schools get funding from the government through property taxes, the tax money will not be ample enough coming from a neighborhood with families who have low incomes (Strauss, No Child Left Behind and the Damage Done). Classrooms and schools need far more resources then what they are provided. But the law did not give credit for the students who did pass in the lower-scoring schools when the majority of the students fail. In turn, these schools were placed under watch with an implemented improvement plan, and severe cases the teachers as well as administrators can be fired. It is important to consider that in these types of situations often times it is not the teachers who are at fault, some students just fall victim to circumstance. 

         Fundamentally each individual school's progress is not measured as a whole student body, but broken into heterogeneous subgroups (Randolph & Wilson-Younger, 2012). The subgroups contain students with English language learners, mental disabilities, and international children. Even though they are divided into their own groups aside from the other students without a disability it is still required for one-hundred percent of students in each subgroup must pass their specific test. The Act requires a one-hundred percent proficiency rate for all students, no matter what. To put it in perspective, if there is a group of four students with special needs and even one or two do not pass, the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), then that entire group fails. Having a complete proficiency rate is an unfair and unrealistic goal for particular schools to have. (Strauss, 2012).

        Overall, one of the other major oppositions to the No Child Left Behind Act is the relationship between unfunded and funded mandates. Federal funding has been stagnant, which means that there is not a sufficient amount of funds set aside to support the law. Under the Title I act in the NCLB, thirteen billion dollars are set aside for the disadvantaged schools (Funding Stagnant for No Child Left Behind Program, 2007). However, with budget cuts it has eliminated direct programs that were said to being improving the academic achievement of the poorer students, as well as lessening the funds given to the school who were not reaching the achievement goal. Even though this might seem like a lot of money, in the end they do not receive close to that. Over the years that the NCLB has been in effect people are saying that education is not a high priority in our country, due to more and more budget cuts. Teachers are fearful of entering the profession because a large number are spending money out of their own pocket for school supplies, classroom necessities, and items for children that do not have them at home. Arguments have also surfaced that our law is not clear on what states need to do to receive federal funds, and this act has lead to billions of dollars in unfunded mandates (Meir & Wood, 7). The members of the government who are making the laws regarding education are not teachers. Not only are they not teachers, they do not have a background in the education field. This is where additional criticism is raised, because individuals who are not teachers, or members of the school board, directly affected by the No Child Left Behind Act are the ones who would know how to better the education of our students. Teachers should have some sort of input into the material they are teaching, and how they decide to teach that. It is suggested that the government should provide after school programs, tutoring services, and courses for teachers which qualify them to prepare their students for these types of standards (Klein, 321).

        With all these criticisms and disputes among school districts, individual teachers, and even the National Education Association (NEA) it is clear that changes are due to be made. (Strauss, 2012). Proponents of the NCLB believe all children in the same grade should be at the same level of proficiency after a year in the same class. Therefore, the only way to ensure this is to give them a test to measure where they are at academically. When in reality every child no matter where they came from is going to be different, excel at various subjects, while inferior at another. As a result of the AYP teachers are being taken away from their jobs, simply because their students may not have met this unrealistic goal. Instead of having strict tests at the end of each academic year schools could turn in student progress reports regarding each individual subject rather than only reading and math. In addition to the student evaluations in attempt to reform this law there can also be teacher evaluations and new programs for rectification of the lower scoring schools (Linn, 23). In today's society there are numerous emerging technologies which can also be used in the classroom to assist learners who may need the extra help. With technology, and progress reports there are an unlimited amount of ways to assess our students without having the stress of sitting down with pen and paper to fill in bubbles for a few hours. By finding new innovative ways to excite student learning, it takes away the stress of a test, and their teachers can measure their improvement in all subject areas instead of an unachievable percentage of students who reach the proficiency. I believe we need to set fewer, and clearer standards with this law and provide schools the support necessary to boost our students. Since there are such severe consequences for schools not reaching the proficiency rate like teachers being fired and school administrations being replaced, it is important to recognize and reward the high-poverty schools that are showing improvement on getting their students on the path to success. Therefore, giving more federal funds to the schools that need them like the ones who have more children from disadvantaged backgrounds. More importantly the government needs to make education more of a priority because it effects our country significantly.

       As Nelson Mandela once said, "education is the most powerful weapon you can choose to change the world." With that being said, we need to start placing a larger focus on the achievement of students academically, in order to produce well-rounded college bound students, ready to take on the real world. By doing so, we must place less of an emphasis on common core, reading, and math, and begin to look at educating children to be a better version of themselves. It is now the 21st Century and teachers should be allowed to use different methods of teaching by differentiating instruction to appeal to all types of learners. Teaching each year for students to be labeled into groups by their ability to take a test seems take away from the diversity and uniqueness of all learners. All in all, the No Child Left Behind Act wants all children to be at the same proficiency rate, but what is even more important to realize is that education and teaching is not about all students being the same. It is about the fact that in a classroom of twenty-five students each and everyone comes from a different background, which is why we should highlight the diversity of students, not set goals for them all to be the same. As a future teacher, I want my students to have and develop a love for learning, and more importantly enjoy coming to school. School should be an environment for discovery, without stress of preparing for tests. Education serves as building blocks of providing a better future for our children and students, and if we do not revamp this system we will not see change in the future. 

