Research+Paper

=Research Paper=

a.) I am happy with my paper because... __The information I used throughout the paper really proved my thesis. Not only did I explain why Obama should repeal the act, but I also included the problems with standardized testing.__
 * Reflection:**

b.) I wish I would have changed __my initial research stages about my process because I was unsure about how the paper would come about and how my topics would yield a thesis statement, and the first two weeks of the research were spent getting much too broad information.

c__.) I recommend to all future seniors of Senior Seminar that they __should focus on a clear, specific topic initially to make their lives easier and develop a quality research paper.__

d.) Going forward with my project and presentation, __I have to keep dates in mind.__

=
=====================================================================================

Sal D'Angelo--> Dave Canfield: A. Verify the format for header on a formal research paper. B. Check capitalization in MLA in-text quotations C. Verify that all in-text documentation is correctly formatted. D. Use topic sentences to outline all future arguments, not just initial arguments.

Tierney Carabba --> Dave Canfield: A. Insert transition between paragraphs six and seven. B. Insert transition between paragraphs 11 and 12. C. Verify that all transitions directly correlate with next paragraph's topic. D. Remove slang on Page 2.

Maggie Olson --> Dave Canfield: A. Attempt to draw more connections between the Obama administration and the act, as thesis states that Obama administration should repeal the Act. **I will attempt to do this but the first part of thesis was not recognized by author "No Child Left Behind has led to a narrow curriculum which has yet to deliver its anticipated results," and this definitely connects to majority of paper topic paragraphs. B. Remove slang on Page 6. C. Verify that all sources are cited correctly D. Check paper title page format and header of research paper format.





I will publish the organized time line of page completion deadlines for page numbers: two, four, six and eight on this page. Additionally, when I complete the content (typed pages) of my paper, it (they) will be uploaded to this Wiki page for publication. My up-to-date annotated bibliography is supposed to be posted on my @Bibliography page.

This is the format I am supposed to publish on my Wiki page for my completion dates:

A minimum of 2 total pages due: day of week, Monday, March __14__, 2010 Completed 3-12-10.

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 4 pages total) due: day of week, Wednesday, March __16__, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 6 pages total) due: day of week, Wednesday March __17__, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 8 pages total) due: day of week, Friday March 19, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

Below is where I am supposed to upload the content of my paper.

Too Many Flaws to Correct A minimum of 2 total pages due: day of week, Monday, March __14__, 2010 Completed 3-12-10.

The 21st century American public education system: providing the same for all students regardless of needs: standardization. This is the reality of No Child Left Behind, an act passed by congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002 (Karaba 29). Now in its eighth year, the Act has yet to deliver its promised results, and bitter bipartisanship surrounds several vague policies. No Child Left Behind has led to a narrow curriculum which has yet to deliver its anticipated results. Instead of making minor changes to policies which have bastardized the American public education system, the Obama administration should repeal the Act. In its design, No Child Left Behind was focused on four key principles, all in place for public schools to thrive under common goals. These principles forced schools to have stronger accountability for results, gave greater flexibility to school districts in the use of federal funds, gave parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds more choices, and emphasized teaching methods demonstrated to work (Haerr 83). But for many districts, these principles seemed like government sanctions on their local education systems, and after the passing of the Act many educators began to oppose this seemingly extreme government intervention. However, No Child Left Behind is only one of many acts designed to reform the public education system. During the Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson began a vigorous attempt at reforming and segregating the nation’s public schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 were attempts by the federal government to promote social mobility though federal education legislation (Hollingworth 315). Until this time, the majority of public schools were closely tied to their communities and under tight local control (Haerr 78). The only other national act designed at organizing public schools was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which specified science, technology, and foreign language as necessary items to secondary school curriculums (Haerr 81). Following Johnson’s attempts at reform, the public education sector followed his policies and coasted along without much government attention, until Reagan’s 1981 attempt at reform. Created in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education T. H. Bell, the National Commission of Excellence in Education researched the public education system to verify it was satisfactory (Hollingworth 315). The Commission published //A Nation at Risk// in 1983, which stated that, “in the wake of the Sputnik challenge, our schools were unable to prepare America’s children for either a technological work force of for a global village ecology” (316). Following this publication, achievement test scores were closely scrutinized and a reliance on standardized tests was put into place (Hollingworth 315). By 2000, education reform was once again a major issue throughout the nation’s political spectrum. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore promised public education reform, and after winning the election Bush delivered. The Bush administration reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the No Child Left Behind act of 2002 (“Archived Information: December 2008”). Through annual tests in grades 3-8 and once in high school, all students are expected to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014 (“Archived Information: December 2008”). Additionally, the Act calls for highly qualified teachers in every classroom, something that no educator could argue with (“Archived Information: December 2008”). However, in its execution, No Child Left Behind has been a huge disappointment.

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 4 pages total) due: day of week, Wednesday, March __16__, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

Working towards narrowing the gap between minority and white students, the main financial thrust of the policy is attached to results on high-stakes, standardized testing (Karaba 36). Yet, in an act designed to promote equality, standardized testing is not the best choice for measuring progress. Testing throughout the world today relies heavily on standardized testing, however, achievement tests are for the most part designed for only half of the test-takers to get a single question right (Kohn). The argument behind NCLB’s focus on standards lies in the belief that “If we raise standards for all students, we automatically address the disparity between high and low achievers. Thus…minority students will benefit because they are generally found in urban schools with low achievement records (Janesick 98). In a study conducted by //Education Week//, four variables accounted for 89% of differences in state scores on standardized achievement tests: number of parents living at home, parents’ educational backgrounds, type of community, and poverty rate (Kohn). Clearly, these tests are not designed with all students in mind, and if funding is directly proportional to the test results, minority students will lose. With all the evidence that supports the conclusion that standardized tests are biased and unreliable, many still support NCLB’s reliance on their results. Rod Paige, who served as US Secretary of Education from 2001 to 2005, believes that “Accountability is essential to the success of any education endeavor…only through testing and the collecting of test data can the system be proven effective or not” (Fisanick 1). Additionally, Tracey-Elizabeth Clay, an employee of Teach For America, points out that the national standards NCLB promotes holds school districts accountable for student subpopulations which are being left behind (Clay 12). This is indeed a good point, as affluent suburban schools can no longer outweigh minority test results with high achieving white results due to the mandate that schools divide scores into subgroups, which correspond directly to the school district’s results on achievement. Even so, such a reliance on an unreliable system is absurd, and if the policies of NCLB continue, schools will continue to fail without change. The heavy reliance on reading and mathematics under NCLB has caused many school districts to narrow their curricula to focus on these core subjects. The standards provided by the national government have been used by states and districts to mold curricula, which has lead to a trend known as “teaching to the test.” Teachers can no longer use their skills in teaching and instead are forced to teach “shallow, facts-based” content which limits creativity (Poetter 4). In a survey conducted by John W. Hunt during the months of February and March of 2006, 240 Illinois public school superintendents that failed to make AYP for two or more consecutive years were surveyed anonymously (Hunt 120). Nearly all of the superintendents reported that both the focus and content of staff development efforts were being increasingly directed towards mathematics and language arts (Hunt 123). And with this focused curriculum comes many setbacks for educators. For decades, school districts across the country each had unique curricula which sometimes covered very different topics than those of their neighboring districts. Under NCLB, each state is required to standardize its curriculum for all public school districts, which is mandated through standardized tests (Haerr 83). Educators argue that, “by requiring districts to standardize content, [the] curriculum gets narrowed as school policies make it clear that what is to be tested is what is to be taught. Tests come to define…priorities” (Haerr 83). These priorities are quite focused, as history, music, physical education, art, and foreign language are all not part of the accountability system for schools, therefore receiving less attention (Hollingworth 322). In a survey conducted by the Center of Education Policy in 2007, 71% of the 299 school districts surveyed reported that several subjects received less instructional time to increase the time spend on reading and math “because of the pressures of No Child Left Behind” (Hollingworth 322). So what effects do these setbacks have on the students?

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 6 pages total) due: day of week, Wednesday March __17__, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

Throughout the country, students have been reduced to numbers. At one anonymous school district, a teacher remarks that students have to have a 34 or below to be in a specialized reading program, and “some kids who were 35… never got help last year” (Reichel 138). A single standardized test should not determine whether a student gets extra help or not, but this decision should be left to the discretion of the teacher. Another teacher comments, “Our children are starving. They have been placed on a steady diet of test preparation curriculum devoid of opportunities to problem-solve and create” (Reichel 139). The goal of NCLB was to make education better, but it clearly has only narrowed opportunities for students. From its passage in 2002, NCLB has sought to improve all public schools, especially those struggling to educate minority students. However, the standardized test scores mandated by the law have proved its ineptitude. In the Pittsburgh region of Pennsylvania, 20% of ninth-graders do not graduate from high school (“Improving Public Schools”). Students like these were the motivation behind NCLB, but in the 2005-06 school year, an average of 40% of 11th graders were not proficient in math and 25% in reading (“Improving Public Schools”). For these reasons, //Education Week//’s Diane Ravitch argues that the poor scoring on state assessments “provides no evidence for the effectiveness of NCLB” (Ravitch 4). Additionally, scores announced on April 28, 2009 by the United States Department of Education exposed that the state of improvement between white and minority students was smaller from 2004 to 2009 than it was from 1999 to 2004 (Ravitch 4). And despite the bylaws in NCLB, schools are still failing. Built into NCLB is the system of Adequate Yearly Progress, known as AYP. AYP is designed to track school and district progress from year to year for the entire school and various subgroups. In their second year of failing to make AYP for any subgroup, failing schools have their students given the choice of leaving to enroll in a better public school in that district (Ravitch 5). In the third year, students are entitled to free tutoring after school, and in subsequent years schools can be converted to private management, turned into charter schools, have their entire staffs dismissed, or be handed over to the state (Ravitch 5). In practice, however, these remedies for failing students have been a bust. Only 5% of students have chosen to leave their high schools for better performing schools, and fewer than 20% of eligible students sign up to be tutored for free (Ravitch 5). Clearly, No Child Left Behind is leaving plenty of students behind. Pressure from the national government on states has caused many to scramble in attempts to meet state assessment standards. However, only 9% of the average school district budget comes from the federal government (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). In 2008, 30,000 public schools, 35% of America’s public schools, were failing according to AYP (Ravitch 6). The pressure to make AYP has caused many states to lower their standards. Tennessee, for instance, claimed in 2008 that 90% of its fourth graders were proficient in reading, and their state assessments confirmed this claim (Ravitch 6). However, federal testing of state school districts stated that only 27% of the students were proficient in reading (Ravitch 6). In Mississippi in 2005, 89% of fourth graders were rated proficient by state tests, however, the state landed at the bottom of national standards on national tests (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). With states lowering their standards to make AYP, something has to change.

At least 2 additional pages (minimum of 8 pages total) due: day of week, Friday March 19, 2010 Completed 3-13-10.

In the utopia of NCLB, all kids, except 1% with serious disabilities and an additional 2% with other issues, must be proficient by 2014 (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). However, this goal states that by 2014, all children should be above average, an impossible expectation (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). California, which has some of the toughest K-12 curriculum standards in the nation, has no schools at 100% proficiency (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). The State of Nebraska, however, has given districts the opportunity to create their own rigorous and learning-filled assessment approaches and as of 2004 their method included no high-stakes testing (Poetter 6). Local assessments were submitted to the state and used to reflect classroom efficiency, which were used to meet AYP (Poetter 6). However, this unique method did not land the state at 100% proficiency, and it appears that Delaware, Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma are the only states on track to make the 2014 goal (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). Only 4 out of the nation’s 50 states are on track to meet AYP, so what motivation would President Obama have for continuing these policies? Focusing on the issues surrounding the Act, in 2007 educators met with Congress to discuss the efficiency of NCLB. More than 30,000 educators and concerned citizens had signed an online petition calling for the repeal of the statute (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). As a former superintendent of a school district in Ohio put it, “NCLB is like a Russian novel. That’s because it’s long, it’s complicated, and in the end, everybody gets killed” (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). Can a system which rewards schools for focusing only on below average students and ignoring kids who are on grade level or above be considered acceptable? Instead, the law needs to be removed, and a new law with the same ideals needs to be put into effect. Between 1960 and 2001, college enrollments went from 4.1 million to 14.8 million, and 90% of today’s high school seniors expect to attend college (Bauer 74). Despite this expectation, only 47% have completed college preparatory curricula (Bauer 74). Additionally, the differences in education for white students and minority students are shocking. About three fourths of white students graduate from high school, whereas only half of African American and Hispanic students do (Peterson 47). NCLB has yet to directly attack these poor graduation rates, and despite an initial promise that graduation rates would be taken into account when calculating AYP, test scores are what matter most (Peterson 55). NCLB is too focused on standardized testing to adequately reform public education, revealing that a new approach is needed. After taking office in January 2009, Obama promised a quick reform to public education. However, he has yet to deliver. Instead, minor changes to NCLB have been made. For instance, AYP is supposedly going to be replaced with an accountability system which claims to “more fairly categorize schools’ academic progress” (Dillion). Additionally, $3.5 billion is being added to educational spending by October 2011 to focus on inner-city school development (Dillon). Necessary is a new law, but Obama is doing what he can to rework the current Act, which is evident in the lack of change schools have seen. President Obama also promises to make the program more flexible, but this promise is an echo of NCLB, which instead limited individual school district power (Anderson). But there are many changes which Obama is scheduled to make in the near future which give hope to a complete overhaul of the Act. Convinced that education is the answer to America’s current economic crisis, Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have pledged billions in loans, grants, and tax credits to help students go to college (Bruce). This system is focused on helping students graduate from high school and continue to college or careers (Bruce). Duncan explains, “We want accountability reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards college and career-ready standards, high school graduation, and college enrollment rates” (Dillon). To achieve this goal, the President and Duncan have introduced the Race to the Top program, which has $4 billion in financing and is designed to fund schools which can demonstrate results backed by data that shows student scores and teacher performance are improving (Anderson “A $4 Billion Push for Better Schools”). Still, the Obama administration is relying on standardized testing as a method of standardizing public schools, which could defeat any progress made through the program. One of the most obvious problems for NCLB was the lack of national standards, each state creating its own assessments and standards. However, on March 10, 2010, the National Governors’ Association and the Chief State School Officers announced a mission to standardize curricula across the country (Blackburn). Together, these organizations hope to lay out detailed, high-achieving goals for math, language arts, and history at every grade level (Blackburn). Obama believes that “the solution to low test scores is not lowering standards, it’s tougher, clearer standards” (Blackburn). This standardization would also stop states from artificially lowering their standards to make their students appear to be higher performing, shown from Tennessee and Mississippi (Blackburn). With all states except for Alaska and Texas participating in the discussion, a national public school curriculum could be built (Blackburn). Although still relying on standardized testing, creating a national curriculum is the first step to managing the public education system. NCLB has failed, and it is finally time to get rid of it. As President Obama proudly proclaims, “Change is good,” and only positive outcomes can come from removing NCLB. Although the Act’s mission at narrowing the difference between white and minority students is morally sound, its execution has only broadened this gap. President Obama must remove NCLB in order to save the failing public education system, and until he does, teachers will continue to feel powerless, students will not receive adequate educations, and states will continue to cheat the system. Teaching to the test may have been the solution to yesterday’s problems, but the future success of America lies in the removal of the No Child Left Behind act, and its removal will shape the America of tomorrow.**

Edited Version:** The 21st century American public education system: providing the same for all students regardless of needs: standardization. This is the reality of No Child Left Behind, an act passed by Congress and signed into law by President George W. Bush in January 2002 (Karaba 29). Now in its ninth year, the Act has yet to deliver its promised results, and bitter bipartisanship surrounds several vague policies. No Child Left Behind has led to a narrow curriculum which has yet to deliver its anticipated results. Instead of making minor changes to policies which have bastardized the American public education system, the Obama administration should repeal the Act. In its design, No Child Left Behind was focused on four key principles, all in place for public schools to thrive under common goals. These principles forced schools to have stronger accountability for results, gave greater flexibility to school districts in the use of federal funds, gave parents of children from disadvantaged backgrounds more choices, and emphasized teaching methods demonstrated to work (Haerr 83). But for many districts, these principles seemed like government sanctions on their local education systems, and after the passing of the Act many educators began to oppose this seemingly extreme government intervention. However, No Child Left Behind is only one of many acts designed to reform the public education system. During the Civil Rights Movement, President Lyndon B. Johnson began a vigorous attempt at reforming and segregating the nation’s public schools. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965 were attempts by the federal government to promote social mobility though federal education legislation (Hollingworth 315). Until this time, the majority of public schools were closely tied to their communities and under tight local control (Haerr 78). The only other national act designed at organizing public schools was the National Defense Education Act of 1958, which specified science, technology, and foreign language as necessary items to secondary school curriculums (Haerr 81). Following Johnson’s attempts at reform, the public education sector followed his policies without much government attention until Reagan’s 1981 attempt at reform. Created in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan’s Secretary of Education T. H. Bell, the National Commission of Excellence in Education researched the public education system to verify it was satisfactory (Hollingworth 315). The Commission published //A Nation at Risk// in 1983, which stated that, “in the wake of the Sputnik challenge, our schools were unable to prepare America’s children for either a technological work force or for a global village ecology” (Hollingworth 316). Following this publication, achievement test scores were closely scrutinized and a reliance on standardized tests was put into place (Hollingworth 315). By 2000, education reform was once again a major issue throughout the nation’s political spectrum. Both George W. Bush and Al Gore promised public education reform, and after winning the election Bush delivered. The Bush administration reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as the No Child Left Behind act of 2002 (“Archived Information: December 2008”). Through annual testing in grades 3-8 and once in high school, all students are expected to read and do math at grade level or better by 2014 (“Archived Information: December 2008”). Additionally, the Act calls for highly qualified teachers in every classroom, something that no educator could argue with (“Archived Information: December 2008”). However, in its execution, No Child Left Behind has been a huge disappointment. Working towards narrowing the gap between minority and white students, “the main financial thrust of the policy is attached to results on high-stakes, standardized testing” (Karaba 36). Yet, in an act designed to promote equality, standardized testing is not the best choice for measuring progress. Testing throughout the world today relies heavily on standardized testing, however, achievement tests are for the most part designed for only half of the test-takers to get a single question right (Kohn). The argument behind NCLB’s focus on standards lies in the belief that “If we raise standards for all students, we automatically address the disparity between high and low achievers. Thus…minority students will benefit because they are generally found in urban schools with low achievement records” (Janesick 98). In a study conducted by //Education Week//, four variables accounted for 89% of differences in state scores on standardized achievement tests: number of parents living at home, parents’ educational backgrounds, type of community, and poverty rate (Kohn). Clearly, these tests are not designed with all students in mind, and if funding is directly proportional to the test results, minority students will lose. With all the evidence that supports the conclusion that standardized tests are biased and unreliable, many still support NCLB’s reliance on their results. Rod Paige, who served as US Secretary of Education from 2001 to 2005, believes that “Accountability is essential to the success of any education endeavor…only through testing and the collecting of test data can the system be proven effective or not” (Fisanick 1). Additionally, Tracey-Elizabeth Clay, an employee of Teach For America, points out that the national standards NCLB promotes hold school districts accountable for student subpopulations which are being left behind (Clay 12). This is indeed a good point, as affluent suburban schools can no longer outweigh minority test results with high achieving white results due to the mandate that schools divide scores into subgroups, which correspond directly to the school district’s results on achievement. Even so, such a reliance on an unreliable system is absurd, and if the policies of NCLB continue, schools will continue to fail without change. The heavy reliance on reading and mathematics under NCLB has caused many school districts to narrow their curricula to focus on these core subjects. The standards provided by the national government have been used by states and districts to mold curricula, which has led to a trend known as “teaching to the test.” Teachers can no longer use their skills in teaching and instead are forced to teach “shallow, facts-based” content which limits creativity (Poetter 4). In a survey conducted by John W. Hunt during the months of February and March of 2006, 240 Illinois public school superintendents that failed to make Adequate Yearly Progress for two or more consecutive years were surveyed anonymously (Hunt 120). Nearly all of the superintendents reported that both the focus and content of staff development efforts were being increasingly directed towards mathematics and language arts (Hunt 123). And with this focused curriculum comes many setbacks for educators. For decades, school districts across the country each had unique curricula which sometimes covered very different topics than those of their neighboring districts. Under NCLB, each state is required to standardize its curriculum for all public school districts, which is mandated through standardized tests (Haerr 83). Educators argue that, “by requiring districts to standardize content, [the] curriculum gets narrowed as school policies make it clear that what is to be tested is what is to be taught. Tests come to define…priorities” (Haerr 83). These priorities are quite focused, as history, music, physical education, art, and foreign language are all absent from the accountability system for schools, therefore receiving less attention (Hollingworth 322). In a survey conducted by the Center of Education Policy in 2007, 71% of the 299 school districts surveyed reported that several subjects received less instructional time to increase the time spend on reading and math “because of the pressures of No Child Left Behind” (Hollingworth 322). So what effects do these setbacks have on students? Throughout the country, students have been reduced to numbers. At one anonymous school district, a teacher remarks that students have to have a 34 or below to be in a specialized reading program, and “some kids who were 35… never got help last year” (Reichel 138). A single standardized test should not determine whether a student gets extra help or not, and this decision should instead be left to the discretion of the teacher. Another teacher comments, “Our children are starving. They have been placed on a steady diet of test preparation curriculum devoid of opportunities to problem-solve and create” (Reichel 139). The goal of NCLB was to make education better, but it clearly has only narrowed opportunities for students. From its passage in 2002, NCLB has sought to improve all public schools, especially those struggling to educate minority students. However, the standardized test scores mandated by the law have proved its ineptitude. In the Pittsburgh region of Pennsylvania, 20% of ninth-graders do not graduate from high school (“Improving Public Schools”). Students like these were the motivation behind NCLB, but in the 2005-06 school year, an average of 40% of 11th graders were not proficient in math and 25% in reading (“Improving Public Schools”). For these reasons, //Education Week//’s Diane Ravitch argues that the poor scoring on state assessments “provides no evidence for the effectiveness of NCLB” (Ravitch 4). Additionally, scores announced on April 28, 2009 by the United States Department of Education exposed that the state of improvement between white and minority students was smaller from 2004 to 2009 than it was from 1999 to 2004 (Ravitch 4). And despite the bylaws in NCLB, schools are still failing. Built into NCLB is the system of Adequate Yearly Progress, known as AYP. AYP is designed to track school and district progress from year to year for the entire school and various subgroups. In their second year of failing to make AYP for any subgroup, failing schools have their students given the choice of leaving to enroll in a better public school in that district (Ravitch 5). In the third year, students are entitled to free tutoring after school, and in subsequent years schools can be converted to private management, turned into charter schools, have their entire staffs dismissed, or be handed over to the state (Ravitch 5). In practice, however, these remedies for failing students have been disappointing. Only 5% of students have chosen to leave their high schools for better performing schools, and fewer than 20% of eligible students sign up to be tutored for free (Ravitch 5). Clearly, No Child Left Behind is leaving plenty of students behind. Pressure from the national government on states has caused many to scramble in attempts to meet state assessment standards. However, only 9% of the average school district budget comes from the federal government (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). In 2008, 30,000 public schools, 35% of America’s public schools, were failing according to AYP (Ravitch 6). The pressure to make AYP has caused many states to lower their standards. Tennessee, for instance, claimed in 2008 that 90% of its fourth graders were proficient in reading, and their state assessments confirmed this claim (Ravitch 6). However, federal testing of state school districts stated that only 27% of the students were proficient in reading (Ravitch 6). In Mississippi in 2005, 89% of fourth graders were rated proficient by state tests, however, the state landed at the bottom of national standards on national tests (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). With states lowering their standards to make AYP, something has to change. In the utopia of NCLB, all public school students, except 1% with serious disabilities and an additional 2% with other issues, must be proficient by 2014 (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). However, this goal states that by 2014, all children should be above average, an impossible expectation (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). California, which has some of the toughest K-12 curriculum standards in the nation, has no schools at 100% proficiency (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). Nebraska has given districts the opportunity to create their own rigorous and learning-filled assessment approaches and as of 2004 their method included no high-stakes testing (Poetter 6). Local assessments were submitted to the state and used to reflect classroom efficiency, which were used to meet AYP (Poetter 6). However, this unique method did not land the state at 100% proficiency, and it appears that Delaware, Kansas, North Carolina, and Oklahoma are the only states on track to make the 2014 goal (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). Only 4 out of the nation’s 50 states are on track to meet AYP, so what motivation would President Obama have for continuing these policies? Focusing on the issues surrounding the Act, in 2007 educators met with Congress to discuss the efficiency of NCLB. More than 30,000 educators and concerned citizens had signed an online petition calling for the repeal of the statute (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). As a former superintendent of a school district in Ohio put it, “NCLB is like a Russian novel. That’s because it’s long, it’s complicated, and in the end, everybody gets killed” (“How to Fix No Child Left Behind”). Can a system which rewards schools for focusing only on below average students and ignoring kids who are on grade level or above be considered acceptable? Lawmakers could not agree, and therefore no changes were made. Instead, the law needs to be removed, and a new law with the same ideals needs to be put into effect. Between 1960 and 2001, college enrollments went from 4.1 million to 14.8 million, and 90% of today’s high school seniors expect to attend college (Bauer 74). Despite this expectation, only 47% have completed college preparatory curricula (Bauer 74). Additionally, the differences in education for white students and minority students are shocking. About three fourths of white students graduate from high school, whereas only half of African American and Hispanic students do (Peterson 47). NCLB has yet to directly attack these poor graduation rates, and despite an initial promise that graduation rates would be taken into account when calculating AYP, test scores are what matter most (Peterson 55). NCLB is too focused on standardized testing to adequately reform public education, revealing that a new approach is needed. After taking office in January 2009, Obama promised a quick reform to public education. However, bureaucratic issues prolonged this promise. Instead, minor changes to NCLB have been made. For instance, AYP is supposedly going to be replaced with an accountability system which claims to “more fairly categorize schools’ academic progress” (Dillion). Additionally, $3.5 billion is being added to educational spending by October 2011 to focus on inner-city school development (Dillon). Necessary is a new law, but Obama is doing what he can to rework the current Act, which is evident in the lack of change schools have seen. Obama also promises to make the program more flexible, but this promise is an echo of NCLB, which instead limited individual school district power (Anderson). But there are many changes which Obama is scheduled to make in the near future which give hope to a complete overhaul of the Act. Convinced that education is the answer to America’s current economic crisis, Obama and Education Secretary Arne Duncan have pledged billions in loans, grants, and tax credits to help students go to college (Bruce). Duncan explains, “We want accountability reforms that factor in student growth, progress in closing achievement gaps, proficiency towards college and career-ready standards, high school graduation, and college enrollment rates” (Dillon). To achieve this goal, Obama and Duncan have introduced the Race to the Top program, which has $4 billion in financing and is designed to fund schools which can demonstrate results backed by data that shows student scores and teacher performance are improving (Anderson “A $4 Billion Push for Better Schools”). Still, the Obama administration is relying on standardized testing as a method of standardizing public schools, which could defeat any progress made through the program. One of the most obvious problems for NCLB was the lack of national standards, each state creating its own assessments and standards. However, on March 10, 2010, the National Governors’ Association and the Chief State School Officers announced a mission to standardize curricula across the country (Blackburn). Together, these organizations hope to lay out detailed, high-achieving goals for math, language arts, and history at every grade level (Blackburn). Obama believes that “the solution to low test scores is not lowering standards, it’s tougher, clearer standards” (Blackburn). This standardization would also stop states from artificially lowering their standards to make their students appear to be higher performing, shown from Tennessee and Mississippi (Blackburn). With all states except for Alaska and Texas participating in the discussion, a national public school curriculum could be built (Blackburn). Although still relying on standardized testing, creating a national curriculum is the first step to managing the public education system. NCLB has failed, and it is finally time to get rid of it. As Obama proudly proclaims, “Change is good,” and only positive outcomes can come from removing NCLB. Although the Act’s mission at narrowing the difference between white and minority students is morally sound, its execution has only broadened this gap. The Obama administration must remove NCLB in order to save the failing public education system, and until he does, teachers will continue to feel powerless, students will not receive adequate educations, and states will continue to cheat the system. Teaching to the test may have been the solution to yesterday’s problems, but the future success of America lies in the removal of the No Child Left Behind act, and its removal will shape the America of tomorrow.