The whites have been seen to be superior as compared to the blacks and Hispanics in education.
The latter have lagged behind in almost all fields including education. However, changing
times have led to the enactment of laws that try to narrow the gap between the parties
involved. ‘No Child has been left behind Act’ is one of the many acts that has been put in
place to uplift the blacks and Hispanics standards of education to much those of their white
counter parts. Nevertheless, critics to the act feel that the act has made little or no
progress in achieving its mandate ( Jesse Hahnel). These sentiments have been echoed by the
National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) with its 2008 statistical findings. The act
requires individual states to raise the overall scores of specific groups of students
including whites, blacks and Hispanics to a thresh hold that is set by the government. This
means that as long as the thresh hold is attained the act does not seek to see the narrowing
of the existing gap. According to the National assessment of Education Progress, a study
conducted on students aged 9, 13 and 17 years show that in reading there was in the scores
among students from all the races since 2004.However white students were ahead of the blacks
and Hispanics by 20 points. In math there was an increase in the scores of students aged 9 and
13 while no significant rise was noted in those aged 17. Again, white students seemed to be
ahead of their two counterparts with 23 points. The conclusion was that in as much an
increment in the scores was evident the gap between the white pupils’ performance and the
blacks and Hispanics still existed. This is evident that the act had a long way to go as far
as attaining its aspirations was concerned.
Critics to the No child left behind act argue against it in three ways. The first group argues
that with limited resources the states are more likely to shift their attention on the lowest
subgroup rather than focus on all students. This contradicts with the National assessment of
Education’s Progress statistics that show an equal increment on the scores of students across
the board. They argue that the state is not in a position to allocate more resources on the
blacks and Hispanics living behind the whites. This will bring more harm than good they say.
They also challenge the act’s wisdom of bringing drastic change in the scores of the blacks
and Hispanics. According to them, this was an oversight that ought to be corrected.
The second group bases its argument on the decentralization and unfunded nature of the No
child left behind act. Besides this, the act does recommend on ways that can be used in
achieving its goals. It has no guidelines, which can be followed to ensure that its objectives
are met. This is left on the individual state and school to decide on which method to apply so
as to raise the scores of the students and narrow the gap. Supporters of this theory say that
it is practically impossible to raise the scores without additional funding and proper
logistics on how to do so (Lea, 2011).
However, the third group argues that the objectives of the act cannot be achieved on school-
based programs alone. Its supporters say that a more integrated approach is needed. They
suggest that for the act to succeed there is need to include social programs such ensuring
that all families and children get adequate health care, housing, nutrition and health
services. Their argument is drawn from Harlem children’s zone, which has coupled social
programs with school-based programs by supporting the families and children in Harlem.
However, supporters of the act respond to the critics in a two ways. Some argue that the
decentralization of the act is aimed at ensuring each state and school comes up with perfect
strategies of raising the scores of all students. They categorically state that some states
have managed to narrow the gap and the blue prints of their strategies can be implemented
elsewhere and work. Secondly, the supporters are quick to note that education has always been
funded by the states and so they are still charged with the implementation of successful
strategies. The states can create more funds by increasing overall education spending or
redistribution of dollars meant for education. The success of the act can be achieved by
analyzing the NAEP findings and working on them. They can also put the same into consideration
as they draft the NCLB Act 2 (John R. Slate.).
The Obama administration launched the ‘Race to the top’ in 2008, which used $4.35 to lure the
states to improve their education. Though the amount is small compared to the amount the US
spends on education the K-12 schools cannot complain on funds as being a problem. The latest
statistics from the department of education show that a total of $667 was spent on education
alone in 2008-2009 as compared to $553 in 2006-07. The bill includes some $100 on federal
education funding. The only setback is that the $100 is being released by formula creating a
loophole for district schools to resist reform without having to worry much about federal
funding (Jones, 2009).
It is interesting to note the US has been trying to put much funding on education with little
success to show. The amount spent per student between 1970-2004 more than doubled while money
spent on federal funding has tripled. The Race to the top is aimed at giving grants on merit.
It is aimed at rewarding those states that improve teacher quality, standards of education and
expand reach of chattered schools. The guiding principle will not be political but will be on
whether the states give the desired results. A mechanism will be put in place to determine
which state has the best strategies and the winning state will be awarded a grant. Many people
are optimistic on the race to the top initiative and lawmakers in some states including
Massachusetts Rhode Island, Tennessee, and Louisiana have already passed legislations all in
an attempt to tap the funding. However, the law will fail if it is just one-off trade of
money. However, so long as the funding supports the status quo, race to the top will be
another case of political tell and show (Webinar, 2011).