Ensuring that all children receive quality education is a goal that successive US governments have strived to achieve. However, as the glaring inequalities that exist today show, most of the government efforts have failed to yield the intended outcomes. Children from poor neighborhoods still face serious challenges as they seek education. In order to promote equality and access, the George W. Bush government spearheaded the enactment of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) act. While it has largely been ineffective, this law was established on noble and sound grounds. Its purpose is consistent with the nonconsequentialist ethical model that Immanuel Kant developed.
NCLB Contents
In pushing for the enactment of the NCLB, the Bush government was primary driven by a desire to improve access to education for all American students. An examination of the act’s contents reveals the underlying factors that inspired its enactment. Accountability is one of the key principles that underlie the NCLB (“Elementary & Secondary Education”, n.d). Essentially, this act stipulated that schools and teachers needed to account for student performance. By demanding that teachers should be held responsible for performance, the act sought to challenge teachers and schools to invest in enhancing performance. Other major provisions of the NCLB was the requirement that teachers needed to possess necessary qualifications and competencies, and that schools should only employ methods and tools that have been shown through research to be effective. The NCLB also mandated schools to administer tests and assess academic progress. Furthermore, this law instituted penalties against schools that failed to comply fully with its provisions. The purpose of the penalties was to incentivize schools to take all necessary steps to promote impressive student performance.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Ethical Reasons for Purpose
There are various reasons that inspired the stakeholders behind the NCLB. The need to promote equality by eliminating the achievement gaps among children from different socioeconomic and racial backgrounds was the main reason (Klein, 2015). Civil rights groups, legislators and the business community are among the stakeholders who joined forces to push for the passing of the bill. These stakeholders were concerned about the disappointingly poor performance of minority and poor students (Klein, 2015). Since the NCLB demands accountability from schools and teachers, it was designed to tackle the inequalities in access and achievement. Apart from minority students, the NCLB also sought to benefit students with disabilities and non-native English speakers who have previously grappled with hurdles in their quest for quality education. Another ethical reason that fueled the enactment of the NCLB was to ensure fairness in the distribution of teachers. One of the key provisions of the act was that state authorities needed to ensure that schools that have historically performed poorly and primarily serve minority communities should receive priority in the allocation of qualified teachers (Klein, 2015). Enabling states and schools to exercise greater flexibility is yet another goal that the NCLB set out to accomplish. As already noted, the main objective of the act was to improve student performance. The legislators who passed this law understood that in order to boost performance, schools needed to be allowed greater flexibility. Provisions in the act empower states and schools to determine the areas on which to focus attention and resources (U.S. Department of Education, 2002). The only condition that the act imposes is that any policy or measure that the state or school adopt should yield improved student performance.
Ethical Justification
A close scrutiny of the purpose and motivations behind the enactment of the NCLB reveals that this act has a solid ethical justification. In particular, the act reflects Kant’s ethical theory. In calling for individuals to disregard the consequences of their actions, Kant presented the categorical imperative (Strike & Soltis, 2009). Essentially, he advised that individuals should treat others in the same way that they would wish to be treated. Another issue that Kant’s theory addressed is the need for individuals to uphold values in their conduct (Strike & Soltis, 2009). Respect for others and equality are some of these values. It is fair to contend that in passing the NCLB, the Bush government drew inspiration from Kant’s nonconsequentialist approach to ethics. It has already been noted that the NCLB was established for the primary purpose of enhancing equality. Through the act, the government set out to ensure that all children in the country had equal access to high quality education. Therefore, the act is consistent with Kant’s ethical model.
Further evidence of the consistency between the NCLB and Kant’s model can be seen in the impacts of the act. Following its implementation, the NCLB had adverse effects on education. For example, the law imposed a heavy burden on schools and states who were required to train teachers (Klein, 2015). Additionally, the NCLB caused schools to rely on standardized tests as they seek to assess student competency. The fact that the implementation of the law was not accompanied with adequate funding is another criticism that it has received (“Federal Education Funding”, 2011). Despite the various flaws of the NCLB, the Bush government remained adamant in its implementation. The government’s faithfulness to the law indicates that it disregarded the law’s consequences. Instead, it was driven by the need to uphold such values as fairness and equality.
In conclusion, the NCLB is among the boldest attempts by the US government to reform K-12 education. Established with the goal of boosting performance and enhancing equality, this law is based on the consequentialist model that Kant advocated for. In order to achieve its goals, the law mandated teachers and schools to demonstrate greater accountability. Furthermore, thanks to this law, schools and states enjoyed expanded liberty in how they used funding. It is unfortunate that the NCLB failed to fulfill its purpose. The US should revisit the law and make changes so as to enhance the delivery of education.
References
Elementary & Secondary Education Act (ESEA)/No Child Left Behind (NCLB). National Center for Learning Disabilities. Retrieved December 14, 2018 from https://www.ncld.org/archives/action-center/learn-the-law/esea-nclb
Federal education funding under NCLB: fairness contributor or inhibitor? National Education Association. Retrieved December 14, 2018 from https://www.nea.org/assets/docs/PB39revfedfundingnclb2011.pdf
Klein, A. (2015). No Child Left Behind: an overview. Education Week. Retrieved December 14, 2018 from https://www.edweek.org/ew/section/multimedia/no-child-left-behind-overview-definition-summary.html
Strike, K., & Soltis, J. F. (2009). The ethics of teaching. New York: Teachers College Press.
U.S. Department of Education. (2002). The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved December 14, 2018 from https://www2.ed.gov/nclb/overview/intro/execsumm.pdf
Florida Education Resources
Florida Department of Education. Florida statutes and state board of education rules. Retrieved from http://www.fldoe.org/core/fileparse.php/7687/urlt/0068968-1b-stats.pdf
This document addresses a wide range of issues concerning public education in Florida. Among other things, the document underscores the state’s responsibility of supporting education through funding and policy formulation. Furthermore, the document outlines the mandate of schools to accommodate students with disabilities and demonstrate accountability through student assessment. The need for stakeholders to prevent and report child abuse, tackle early pregnancies and ensure that only qualified teachers are involved in the provision of education. Overall, this document is a useful resource for any individual who wishes to understand the guidelines that govern public education in Florida.
