Ethics In Assessment No Child Left Behind Act
ethics In Assessment No Child Left Behind Acthttpsenwikipediaor
Ethics in Assessment: "The No Child Left Behind Act" Psychological Testing as well as Assessments are used for many, important, and diverse reasons. One reason they are used is for situations like disability and legal matters because they may need the use of tests to obtain information that permits an individual to be compared to another individual. For instance, "The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act". Within this paper I will elaborate on the ethical implications of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). I will provide a thorough description of the background of this act and it was implemented.
In addition, I will also discuss the legal implications associated with this act. The No Child Left Behind act heavily focuses on providing assessments to all children; however, biases do exist and I will elaborate on these biases. Moreover, I will be discussing the ethical implications for diverse populations as a result of the No Child Left Behind Act. Background of No Child Left Behind Act George W. Bush positioned the "No Child Left Behind Act" law into action on January 8, 2002 . President Lyndon Baines Johnson overseen the transitory of the original Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in 1965 (Guthrie, 2002). The act of the federal government greatly confirmed the significance of education for individuals of United States (Guthrie, 2002).The complication of the NCLB advocates it will be vital and challenging evenly to anyone assigned to overseeing the action. The original purpose, was intended to hold equal opportunity for all children in families with lower incomes by providing federal funds to the schools providing an education for low-income children (Guthrie, 2002).The school districts educating children of low-income were frequently given a smaller amount of local and state funds than the school districts supplying an education for children with family of a higher income.
From 1965 when the law was in effect, ESEA has been once more authorized seven times (Guthrie, 2002). Each reauthorization has initiated change; however, the key principle of bettering the opportunities of students with lower incomes is still an issue (Guthrie, 2002). The signing of the NCLB act indicated an identification of the lower academic levels of achievements within children in public schools (Guthrie, 2002).The NCLB act was intended to be an act of a positive influence in education and to raise the academic achievement levels of all students (Guthrie, 2002).The No Child Left Behind act intention was to better all schools performance (Guthrie, 2002).The objective of the NCLB act was to lessen the opening by using individual state liability and permit the children's parents to have more of a choice in her or her child’s education (Guthrie, 2002).
Moreover, by recognizing failing schools, parents would have the choice to move his or her child to a different school making ample progress. The NCLB’s accountability was to increase the financial allocations (Guthrie, 2002). Next we will discuss the Legal Implications with the NCLB. Legal Implications Arne Duncan, who was the "United States Secretary of Education" in 2011, was involved in a campaign to have Congress revise the act and issued a caution stating that "82%" of the schools would be deemed as failing schools. The percentage in the end was not that elevated; although, numerous states did see failure rates of over "50%" (McNeil, 2011).
The act permitted the states to place their individual yearly standard (McNeil, 2011). In turn, this allowed the states to reach 100% by . Various states refused to raise their standards more or even ask for waivers. In 2011, Arne Duncan made a pledge to develop a waiver choice for individual states; although, there would be other implications that meant the states would have to recognize some administration’s education main concerns (McNeil, 2011). Both Democrats and Republicans of Congress agreed the law needed to be revised (Klein, 2011).
The NCLB Act had a number of supporters amongst education leaders that showed support for the severe responsibility orders (Hess, 2014). The supporters distinguish the orders as vital handles of change, clearness, and completeness. Various groups argued the concluding usefulness of NCLB could be because of how the schools and states stand by the values of the hard accountability beliefs (Hess, 2014).Below I will discuss the analysis of biases. Analysis of Biases Many states are left to make a decision of what their standards are concerning assessments for students; however, the assessments are mandatory to line up with the standards (Sclafani, 2002). The dilemma with this can be that some states are not entirely parallel with the standards.
In history many students were passed in spite of how he or she was doing in school. There were a lot of biases toward children with lower socioeconomic backgrounds. This bias led to children being passed to a higher grade just so a teacher does not have to handle the child again. The assessment now specified it is because of the "No Child Left Behind Act" but this can be bias and numerous individuals do argue the tests are not fairly put together. Moreover, some students who struggle with the assessments do not have any difficulty with his or her school work assignments.
Sadly, many states believe that assessments are directed toward children with a higher socioeconomic backgrounds or even race (Sclafani, 2002). Assessments given to children at schools defiantly sparked up many questions. Is the information used to create the tests correct? Is the information biased? Before No Child Left Behind was in place various schools were so far off behind that the information taken from these schools could twist the results of the tests.
For example, the material that is on the assessment could or may not be taught. If the material is not taught, how can one be certain the child had a fair passing chance (Cohen, & Swerdlik, 2010)? Moreover, the quality of teachers can be low in some school districts along with leadership (Sclafani, 2002). Due to this situation, in many cases, the state ordered assessments that were designed to ensure The No Child is Left Behind will not facilitate if the quality of leadership and teachers is low although numerous highly skilled teachers and principals will not teach in a school that has problems and low test grades (Sclafani, 2002). "Today all major test publishers strive to develop instruments that are fair when used in strict accordance with guidelines in the test manual.
However, despite the best efforts of many professionals, fairness-related questions and problems do occasionally arise" (Cohen, & Swerdlik, 2010, p.123). There also seems to be bias when it comes to funding. According to the New American Foundation (2014), the No Child Left Behind outlines all children should have the right to a good education. Regrettably, finances are restricted and the school with high scores on assessments get more financial support than the schools with low scores on assessment (Schroeder, 2001). With little resources for low performing schools it appears that there are not many alternatives for those students.
The students decline would become poorer as these schools struggle with getting the required resources (Schroeder, 2001). Ethical Implications for Diverse Populations Students in schools with large populations of low-income and minority children are many times underprivileged of a rich education that will get the child ready for a successful future (Lamp, & Krohn,199). It is said that low-income and minority children many times do not test as well, and his or her school may fall short of making the Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and are put underneath sanctions (Neill, 2003). According to Neil (2003), The many subjects like “history, science, language, and art†are being eliminated or cut back, and have statured to focus more on subjects on the standardized tests, like math and reading capability (Neill, 2003, p. 225). In addition, if the schools do not make AYP two years consistently the school can lose federal backing (Neill, 2003). NCLB did not allot for any expense increases for education; however, is leaving it up to the states to implement the authorization of not making AYP For example, eliminating staff members, takeovers. Low-income regions in states that are struggling with the expenses of meeting federal requirements have to make elimination in education expenses by decreasing staff, boosting the size of the class, and cutting finances to raise student achievement (Neill, 2003). According to Neil (2003), Diversely occupied schools in states that are determining AYP on groups with as few as "30 or less children" are destined to fail.
Moreover, schools that are doing well will be recognized as failing and pushed into discarding sufficient teaching methods (Neill, 2003). Meeting NCLB standards is hard for all schools in a state to achieve, unfortunately, sometimes failing to meet AYP occurs. Strategic lessons is a process and each school must be made aware the school can be in danger of failure (Krieg, 2011). This process entails the choice of focusing attention on the low-performing children at the cost of skillful and more advanced children (Krieg, 2011). Many classrooms have become environments for test training that children are taught to take tests rather than having an enriched program of study (Krieg, 2011).
A self-styled curricular ceiling is positioned on children of higher achievement for the reason that instructors are using basic materials to assist lower performing children and are failing to supply higher materials to enhance the education of the students who are by now doing very well (Krieg, 2011). The racial dilemma with executing strategic teaching are the test scores for students of one racial group can force the education of other students in another minority group (Krieg, 2011). As an example, one may say a Chinese student goes to school and does well because the Chinese group made AYP; however, the African American group did not. The student is likely to struggle academically, since the resources will now be focused away from the Chinese group of students, and focus on the African American group of students.
Another Chinese student attends a school in which all groups made AYP; thus, the second student is not as likely to struggle academically since all groups are getting equivalent resources. Moreover, it is not ethical two students at different schools in the identical racial group are not receiving an equivalent chance for a good educational achievement (The American Psychological Association, 2014). In addition, it is not ethical that all students do not have equivalent admittance to resources intended to improve his or her individual education needs, despite of which group he or she belongs to, or who the student goes to school with (The American Psychological Association, 2014). Next we will elaborate on some norming bias.
The Norming in Creating Bias Norm-referenced tests are tests planned to evaluate and rank the takers of the test in relation to one another and could be biased if the “norming process†does not hold representative samples of all subgroups that are tested. For example, if the test developer does not have linguistically, culturally, and socioeconomically diverse students in the first comparison groups the resulting test could be at a disadvantage for the groups excluded (Cohen and Swerdlik, 2005). According to Cohen, and Swerdlik (2005), Norms are important as to give a framework for understanding the meaning of a test score. To meet the terms of the NCLB states must apply an accountability system in which "95%" of all children in the school have to take the standardized tests for that state. The test used in states is a norm referenced test that evaluates each individual that takes the test to another group of individuals that had taken the test before (Cohen, and Swerdlik, 2005).The test is used with percentiles to measure the individuals that took the test and then measure them against the other individuals that have taken the test before (Cohen, and Swerdlik, 2005). Than a large number of individuals became the "norm score" and the other individuals scores are based on that norm score (Cohen, and Swerdlik, 2005). In addition to the other standards mentioned above, standards for sub-groups have to be met, this comprises of “racial/ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency, economically disadvantaged students, and students with disabilities†(Breslin, 2009, p. 658). Larger schools with a larger population of children with disabilities may fail to meet the AYP since the influence of test scores of children with disabilities can lower the entire score within the school. Smaller schools with the identical curriculum can make AYP since the population of students with disabilities could be so small the group fails to meet the statistics for the testing. In an effort to abide with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), NCLB does allow for a few accommodations to be made for testing children with disabilities, and the amount of the accommodations is determined by what state the child is in (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). Example of accommodations can comprise of format changes, some parts of the test may be read aloud by another individual to the child with disabilities, or change the place of testing; nevertheless, the accommodations cannot modify what the test is calculating or the capability to evaluate results according to his or her individual education plan (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). Students with disabilities, in accordance with IDEA, need an IEP that is exclusive to and fitting for his or her learning abilities (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). NCLB states that children with disabilities have to be deemed as severely cognitively impaired, or be evaluated by the identical standards as his or her peers that are not disabled (The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2014). This necessitates children with disabilities be assessed on information they may not know, or that is not in fulfillment with his or her IEP’s (Breslin, 2009). Conclusion Throughout this paper one has learned NCLB was designed to close the opening connecting academic achievement of low income and minority children and his or her Caucasian middle class corresponding children. Lawmakers did see the need for revision of NCLB and wanted to steady the balance and make it easier for many states to bring all schools in the states up to national standards. Sadly, assessments are packed with biases, and it is a challenge to accommodate children of a lower socioeconomic status has met minimum standards. The Norming in producing bias tests are still to this day misunderstood by students in subgroups, which in addition, can bias the outcomes in a negative manner.
Paper For Above instruction
The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), enacted in 2002 under President George W. Bush, represented a significant shift in American educational policy aimed at increasing accountability and closing achievement gaps among diverse student populations. While the law was motivated by noble intentions to promote equal educational opportunities, it raised complex ethical issues regarding assessment practices, equity, and the treatment of vulnerable populations. This paper examines the ethical implications of NCLB, including biases in assessment, funding disparities, and the impact on diverse and disadvantaged students.
Historically, federal education initiatives like the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 laid the groundwork for increased federal involvement in education, especially targeting low-income students. NCLB continued this trajectory by emphasizing accountability and standardized testing. Its core goal was to ensure that all students, regardless of socioeconomic background, could meet rigorous academic standards. However, the implementation of NCLB revealed several ethical concerns, particularly regarding the fairness and cultural validity of assessments, which are central to decision-making about student progress and school evaluations.
One primary ethical issue arises from biases in standardized testing. Critics argue that many assessments are culturally and linguistically biased, unfairly disadvantaging minority students or those from lower socioeconomic backgrounds. For example, tests often reflect the cultural and linguistic experiences of the dominant groups, which can distort the true abilities of students from diverse backgrounds. The "norming" process, which establishes score percentiles based on representative samples, can itself be biased if the sample lacks diversity or is not representative of the student populations. Consequently, this leads to misclassification of student performance, with minority or disadvantaged students being unfairly labeled as failing or lacking proficiency.
Funding disparities further exacerbate ethical dilemmas. Schools with higher test scores tend to receive greater financial support, while underperforming schools—often situated in low-income areas—struggle with resource shortages. This creates a self-perpetuating cycle where disadvantaged students receive fewer resources, impacting their academic achievement and perpetuating inequality. Ethically, this raises questions about distributive justice and whether educational policies are genuinely promoting equity or unintentionally reinforcing disparities.
Another critical ethical concern involves the impact of NCLB on students with disabilities. While the law initially aimed to include students with disabilities in accountability systems, the rigid testing requirements sometimes resulted in assessments that did not accurately reflect their abilities or accommodated their specific needs. Although accommodations such as format changes or read-aloud options are available, critics argue that these accommodations do not always align with students' individualized education plans (IEPs), leading to potential misjudgments about their academic capabilities. The ethical challenge here involves balancing accountability with fairness and ensuring that assessment standards do not unfairly stigmatize or penalize students with disabilities.
The law’s emphasis on high stakes testing also led to practices like "teaching to the test," which can diminish the richness of the educational experience and narrow the curriculum towards tested subjects like math and reading. This shift raises ethical questions about the holistic development of students and whether standardized tests truly measure the breadth of student learning. In many cases, lower-performing schools resorted to superficial test preparation, thereby compromising the ethical principle of providing an authentic and comprehensive education.
Most troubling is the impact of NCLB on diverse populations. Schools serving predominantly low-income and minority students often faced sanctions, closure, or restructuring, which could further stigmatize these communities and reduce access to quality education. The focus on "Adequate Yearly Progress" (AYP) often resulted in punitive measures rather than supportive interventions. Ethically, these practices seem to conflict with principles of justice and beneficence by penalizing vulnerable students and communities for systemic inequalities beyond their control.
In response to these ethical challenges, educational stakeholders have called for reforms and reforms that promote fairness, cultural relevance, and resource equity. Test developers are increasingly incorporating efforts to reduce bias and improve fairness, although complete elimination remains elusive. Policy debates continue about how to balance accountability with equity, highlighting the ongoing ethical tension between measuring student achievement and ensuring just and equitable educational opportunities.
In conclusion, while NCLB aimed to improve educational outcomes and prevent children from being "left behind," its implementation raised significant