No Child Gets Ahead: The Irony of the no Child Left Behind Act

Resumen

---

Introduction. I. Background on Gifted Children. A. Cheetah Metaphor: The Problem with Achievement-Oriented Thinking. B. Characteristics of Giftedness. II. Recent Developments in the Law. A. The No Child Left Behind Act. B. Funding for Public Schools, Grades Kindergarten Through Twelve. III. Analysis. A. Conflicting Messages of NCLB-Proficiency versus Excellence. B. Disparate Treatment of Gifted Students. C. Gifted Programs Are not Mandated, so Their Funding Is Being Diverted to Other Programs. D. Problems with Using Traditional Methods of Education to Teach Gifted Children. E. Consequences of Using Traditional Methods of Education to Teach Gifted Children. Conclusion.

Ver el contenido completo de este documento

Extracto

---

No Child Gets Ahead: The Irony of the no Child Left Behind Act

Introduction

Given the emphasis that the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB)1 places on proficiency, funding used for non-mandated programs-particularly gifted programs-will be eliminated and used toward proficiency efforts.2 This will result in neglecting the special needs of gifted children, thereby leaving them behind in the end.3

NCLB requires all public school students to be proficient in both reading and math by the year 2014.4 Schools that do not make sufficient progress toward these goals, both overall and within various subgroups, face penalties such as being required to pay for tutoring or allowing students to transfer to another school.5 There is no penalty, however, if high-scoring students do not improve, as long as they continue to be proficient.6 NCLB focuses on the bottom students, so to abide by the law and avoid the harsh consequences, schools are reallocating resources from gifted students' programs to programs focused on the bottom students.7

Gifted programs are now on the "academic endangered list" due to the fatal combination of limited funds and not requiring the programs to exist.8 Gifted programs are often "perceived as a luxury rather than a necessity."9 Because there is no mandate to offer gifted programs, school districts are free to determine the priority, or lack of priority, that gifted programs should receive.10 As a result, gifted programs are typically not given priority, and funds are being shifted toward programs for lower-achieving students.11

Due to the focus on test scores, NCLB has produced a devastating result for gifted education.12 On one hand, many gifted programs are being eliminated because districts want to focus financial resources on making sure the lower-achieving students become proficient.13 On the other hand, NCLB "also gives schools a powerful incentive to keep gifted students- rather than let them transfer to programs tailored to their skills-because these children generally score well on tests."14 Schools want to keep their gifted students for their test scores, but do not want to spend any money for the programs that they need.15

In a test-driven educational system, many schools are trying to retain their top students instead of sending them to gifted programs in other schools because test scores have far-reaching consequences for the entire community-students, teachers, administrators, schools, and entire districts.16 Most commonly, rural and suburban districts keep gifted students in neighborhood schools in order to keep their test scores, pulling the students out of their regular classrooms to receive anywhere from an hour to a half-day of gifted instruction per week.17 Simply stated, this is not enough.

We cannot take gifted students for granted any longer. Research has shown that gifted students have special needs and that they do not excel when left on their own.18 Neglecting their intellectual needs can cause severe emotional, social, and educational consequences far beyond boredom.19 Although these children are already proficient, "they have a right to soar farther ahead."20

Part I of this Comment begins by providing a background on the characteristics and special needs of gifted children. Part II highlights both the requirements and intent behind NCLB. This is followed by an analysis of how the legislation's conflicting message indirectly forces school districts to divert funding from gifted programs to programs that focus on teaching basic skills. Finally, Part III discusses the consequences for neglecting gifted students' needs-both to the students themselves and to the future of this country.

I. Background on Gifted Children

A. Cheetah Metaphor: The Problem with Achievement-Oriented Thinking

In a speech given at the Holling...

Ver el contenido completo de este documento

---