本文是教育专业的留学生Essay范例，题目是“No Child Left Behind Policy - Levelling Education for Disadvantaged Students（不让一个孩子掉队政策——为弱势学生提供平等教育）”。当前的教育改革运动基于对所有孩子取得更高学习成绩的坚定承诺。以标准为基础的改革始于国家财政援助，以制定内容和表现标准，提高教师的质量，并加强学校的问责制。改革运动演变为联邦纠正措施，根据2001年的法案“不让一个孩子掉队”(NCLB)和2004年的法案“个人残疾教育”(IDEA)，针对州和学校没有显著的年度进展(Hardman, Dawson, 2008)。联邦政府希望NCLB能提高学生的整体表现，缩小弱势学生和优势学生之间的差距。
The current educational reform movement based its inflexible promise on all children achieving higher academic performance levels. Standards-based reform started with states financial assistance to develop content and performance standards, improving the quality of teachers and increased accountability in schools. The reform movement evolved into federal corrective measures under the Act of 2001 “No Child Left Behind” (NCLB) and the Act of 2004 “Individuals with Disabilities Education” (IDEA) for states and schools that made no significant annual progress (Hardman, Dawson, 2008). The federal government expects NCLB to boost overall student performance and decrease the gap between disadvantaged and advantaged students.
This paper examines the Federal history in standards-based reform, policy role in guaranteeing general curriculum and research-based education access for disabled students, and future policy issues in achieving higher academic performance levels for all students.
Problem问题
During the 1990s, research showed, despite the standard of educational benefits, students with disabilities lower expectations led to their exclusion from states and national evaluations (Hardman, Dawson, 2008). Since schools ignore students with disabilities in accountability systems, the federal government introduces the NCLB and IDEA Acts to ensure that all U.S students achieve higher academic achievement levels. The academic success promise is non-exclusive and thus includes disabled students. Because NCLB mandated every student to succeed, schools must develop the highest educational levels, offer rigorous curriculums and employ clear instructions. Additionally, they must ensure that every child has access to the curriculum based on universal standards.
在20世纪90年代，研究表明，尽管有教育福利的标准，残疾学生较低的期望导致他们被排除在州和国家评估(Hardman, Dawson, 2008)。由于学校在问责制中忽视了残疾学生，联邦政府引入了NCLB和IDEA法案，以确保所有美国学生取得更高的学业成绩。学业成功的承诺不是排他性的，因此也包括残疾学生。因为NCLB要求每个学生都要成功，学校必须发展最高的教育水平，提供严格的课程和明确的指导。此外，他们必须确保每个儿童都能接受基于普遍标准的课程。
Moreover, students with disabilities must have access to evaluations measuring performance criteria and included in the reports that decide whether districts, schools, and states meet performance standards. If students fail to meet standards, the federal government will hold states, schools and professionals responsible for the failing students. The problem is that the one-size fits all federal policy approach with uneven standards, and the educational system lower expectations are not affordable; thus schools are failing and requesting waivers from NCLB sanctions in exchange for promises.
Proposed Action提出行动
Based on the researchers and educators’ arguments, the most significant recommendation is to maintain high academic standards for disabled students and to report their results by subgroup. Secondly, develop teachers ‘ ability to provide differentiated education and stricter curricula. For students to benefit from higher-level curricula, teachers must possess the content knowledge and pedagogical skills to work with a variety of children, especially disabled students. Thirdly provide incentives to entice, hire, and hold special-ed instructors. As special-ed educators retire, greater attention is necessary for developing the profession and maintaining enough instructors with the knowledge and skills to teach disabled students.
基于研究者和教育者的观点，最重要的建议是对残疾学生保持较高的学习水平，并按分组报告他们的成绩。其次，培养教师提供差异化教育和更严格课程的能力。为了让学生从更高水平的课程中受益，教师必须拥有与各种儿童，特别是残疾学生合作的内容知识和教学技能。第三，提供激励措施，以吸引、雇用和留住特殊教育教师。随着特殊教育工作者的退休，有必要更加重视发展这一职业，并保持足够多的教师拥有知识和技能来教授残疾学生。
Moreover, NCLB and IDEA necessitate information gathering and reporting on students results and program features, but the laws employ different definitions and reporting formats, which should align closer to prevent states, districts, and schools from doubling gathering efforts. Besides, NCLB should amend the reporting to include post-school results since such outcomes are a crucial indicator of students’ success. Likewise, ensure that disabled students measurement expands beyond academic skills achievement. Disabled student assessment definition should extend to incorporate professional, marketability, and everyday skills. Lastly, expand special education funding. Helping disabled students attain upper-level curricula needs extra support services, possibly extended school hours, higher quality instructors, multidisciplinary tutoring, and modern educational strategies. The present obligation to disburse 15% of IDEA funds on general education, to early intervention services shifts funding from a population already in need (National Council on Disability, 2008).
Pros Cons and Gaps of the Policy该政策的利弊和不足
The federal public policy has advantages, disadvantages, and gaps. NCLB most positive benefit is the generation of massive amounts of student performance data in English and Math. For policymakers and educational researchers, the vibrant student data availability, and test samples was a bonanza for vital statistics, higher education, and labor market. Another NCLB positive is that schools are accountable for both their students ‘ aggregate and subgroups test scores, which may disregard otherwise. A third NCLB advantage was the requirement for every teacher to be highly qualified.
联邦公共政策既有优点，也有缺点和不足。NCLB最积极的好处是生成大量学生在英语和数学方面的表现数据。对于政策制定者和教育研究人员来说，活跃的学生数据可用性和测试样本是生命统计、高等教育和劳动力市场的财源。NCLB的另一个积极方面是，学校对学生的总分和分组考试成绩都要负责，否则可能会忽略。NCLB的第三个优势是要求每个教师都是高度合格的。
Although several states addressed this requirement initially by creating distinct quality measures, they had formal teacher quality requirements pursuant the statue, and school districts (90%) reported that every core subjects teacher would qualify based on NCLB ( Ladd, 2017). Students with disabilities in the general curriculum, profoundly, experience a broader subject range. Lastly, both students; disabled and those without disabilities enjoy equal opportunity at school curriculum.
Despite the positive components, employing more draconian than constructive stepwise accountability pressure by law signifies a flawed strategy for improving schools. Foremost, the NCLB test-based accountability educational view was too constricted. Many citizens would concur that educational and schooling aspirations should be more comprehensive compared to instructing students how to ace multiple – choice exams. A broader view would recognize the role schools play in developing children skills and knowledge that will not only enable them to succeed. Secondly, NCLB was extremely unrealistic with its expectations and misguided. If we even earmarked its maximum percentage competence target as aggressive rhetoric, in numerous way the program still inflicts dysfunctional expectations. Remember, one of NCLB’s objectives was to improve the nation’s educational standards. Since the federal government bear responsibility for state-level education, federal policymakers must permit each state to set its competency standards.
尽管有积极的成分，但通过法律对学校实施严厉而非建设性的逐步问责压力，意味着这是一种有缺陷的改善学校的策略。首先，NCLB基于考试的问责教育观点过于狭隘。许多市民会同意，教育和上学的愿望应该比指导学生如何在多项选择考试中取得好成绩更全面。更广泛的观点应该认识到学校在培养儿童技能和知识方面所发挥的作用，这些技能和知识不仅能使他们取得成功。其次，NCLB的期望是极其不切实际和误导的。如果我们甚至把它的最高能力百分比目标定义为激进的言辞，该项目在许多方面仍然造成了功能失调的期望。记住，NCLB的目标之一是提高国家的教育水平。由于联邦政府对州级教育负有责任，联邦政策制定者必须允许每个州制定自己的能力标准。
A third NCLB disadvantage was that it exerted considerable pressure on schools to advance student performance without providing the support necessary to secure every student chance to learn at the highest standards. NCLB, thus only incorporated initially part one of the standardized intellectuals planned comprehensive package. The package began with high ambitious student standards but concentrated on instructors’ ability to offer an ambitious curriculum and the necessary available resources to ensure every child have the chance at the highest standards of learning. Instead, NCLB depends upon difficult test‐based motivations almost entirely. Similarly, the universal content standards establishment opinion for students with disabilities demonstrate inconsistency with the individualization concept and does not support disabled students. If every student must meet the same academic criteria, the expectation of accommodating the less disabled students lowers the bar. Lastly, it is impossible for every student to achieve the expected standards.
Furthermore, there are also gaps in the NCLB and IDEA Federal Educational policy limiting the intent to enhance disabled students’ academic performance. Inadequate supervision and oversight led to unattended gaps because the duties were improperly allocated for persons to manage. For IDEA, little study directly supported the assumption that access to the general curriculum and inclusion in national and district testing systems will improve students outcome. Therefore, studies into the effectiveness of the educational reforms are urgently needed, as public policy for numerous years persistently outperform practice. With the line progressively obscuring amid special and general education, policymakers must rethink and realign instructors’ roles. One unknown is whether special education can maintain its identity and rights-based rationale and still participate wholly in a reformed system that aims to provide an equitable and excellent education to every child.
此外，NCLB和IDEA联邦教育政策也存在差距，限制了提高残疾学生学习成绩的意图。由于职责分配给管理人员不当，监督和监督不足导致了无人注意的空白。对于IDEA来说，几乎没有研究直接支持这样的假设，即进入普通课程和加入国家和地区测试系统将提高学生的成绩。因此，在多年来公共政策持续优于实践的情况下，迫切需要对教育改革的有效性进行研究。随着特殊教育和普通教育之间的界限逐渐模糊，政策制定者必须重新思考和调整教师的角色。一个未知的问题是，特殊教育是否能够保持其身份和以权利为基础的基本原理，同时仍然完全参与到旨在为每个孩子提供公平和优秀教育的改革体系中。
Moreover, the federal education improvement trajectory for future years is fuzzy. Several reform subjects need addressing to fulfill the movement based on standards promise for disabled students. Will schools adopt powerful, unique education general curriculum necessary for disabled students? Are software developers prepared to offer the necessary time, training, and resources for multistep education, universal approach, and adaptive technology in the schools? Apart from highlighting academic material, will state standards ultimately represent the disabled student various needs, such as independent living and social skills training? Lastly, will general and special teachers be prepared to collaborate to fulfill every student’s needs?
Conclusion and Future Study结论与未来研究
Briefly, it was challenging to transform the NCLB policy into the classroom to positively impact children with disabilities. Every state NCLB and IDEA implementation experience was unique and impacted by several factors, like population, physical attributes, resources access, and advanced preparation levels. NCLB and IDEA’s most significant outcome stop disabled students from being discounted or disregarded. Now, people must focus on them and ensure that they receive equal opportunities as their colleagues who are not disabled. Ultimately, NCLB and IDEA impact was significant and positive. Educators, superintendents, and society know disabled students’ capabilities if hold to similar top-levels and expectations as other students. Finally, students with disabilities have talents, and the educational system must challenge, encourage, and develop these skills.
简单地说，将NCLB政策转化到课堂上，对残疾儿童产生积极影响是一项挑战。每个州的NCLB和IDEA实施经验都是独特的，并受到几个因素的影响，如人口、物理属性、资源访问和高级准备水平。NCLB和IDEA最重要的成果是阻止残疾学生被轻视或忽视。现在，人们必须关注他们，确保他们与没有残疾的同事享有平等的机会。最终，NCLB和IDEA的影响是显著和积极的。教育工作者、监督者和社会都知道残疾学生的能力，如果他们和其他学生一样拥有类似的最高水平和期望。最后，残疾学生有天赋，教育系统必须挑战、鼓励和发展这些技能。
留学生Essay相关专业范文素材资料，尽在本网，可以随时查阅参考。本站也提供多国留学生课程作业写作指导服务，如有需要可咨询本平台。