The No Child Left Behind Act, a program founded by former president, George W. Bush, and revised by President Barack Obama is ineffective and outdated. Overall, No Child Left Behind has reached few of its goals, that came at a heavy price. The act is being “removed” in a way, but there are questions as to how successful the new system of education management may be.

No Child Left Behind was originally developed to target students who were falling behind in their academic achievement. The purpose of the act was to push schools to concentrate on those students in order to help them meet state standards, by battling low-achievement with standardized testing. Next, plans would be made to help improve certain minorities while keeping those who excelled engaged and motivated. Potentially, all groups would show improvement. No Child Left Behind, which sounded like an educational Utopia, attempted to bring every student to the same academic level without “leaving any child behind.”

“They’re trying to close the [achievement] gap,” says Jamee Barton, the BSHS academic dean, “That’s what they’re trying to do; make all students work at the same level.”

However, despite the intention, No Child Left Behind creates more problems than it solves. For one, the program devotes too much attention to mathematics, writing and reading, which causes budget cuts that take their toll on classes such as art. Therefore, the students’ instruction is not as well-rounded and they miss out on a huge chunk of their supposed “education.”

Another negative impact of No Child Left Behind is that in order for all states to be equal, schools must lower their standards in order to meet goals. This pressure on schools to keep every student in an average range gives “Gifted and Talented” and high performing students limited options to excel beyond their successes thus-far.

Worst of all, No Child Left Behind is only based on the tests that have been designated by the state; therefore, all states have different standardized tests on all different levels. So, for example, Wyoming and Massachusetts may appear to both be doing very well, but the test administered in Massachusetts is much more challenging than that in Wyoming. Also, minorities and immigrants are misrepresented as states refuse to make tests in languages other than English.

According to Ms. Barton, Bryan Station “tries hard to meet the needs of all our students.” While this might be the intent, the result is wanting. Scores are not shown in a way that actually shows what progress has been made in a school. At Bryan Station, our AP scores are improving drastically, but standardized test scores still put us on the list of “consistently low achieving.” How can our school improve if standardized tests play to the weaknesses of the school?

Standardized testing limits a curriculum that a teacher can present to his or her class, and this is extremely evident at a place like Bryan Station. Here, a Visual and Performing Arts class is taught by a Spanish teacher. Instead of art teachers teaching art, and music teachers teaching music, students are required to learn what the government says they must learn about the arts in one class not taught by someone trained in that field. Not only does the class become a waste of time, but test scores do not improve.

Therefore, The No Child Left Behind Act needs to be replaced by a more effective method of managing education, one that allows teachers to teach the way they want, one that encourages all students to push the boundaries of their education, and supports all kinds of learning. No child should be left behind in their schooling, and the United States government must create a piece of legislation (or ten) that insures this.