Although not all of us millennials display these characteristics to the extremes that were described in the TIME article as the rich kid behavior, it is still there. The No Child Left Behind act has many pros and cons to it that affect many students. Because it puts into play a requirement of having standardized tests in order to move up a grade, it ensures that students are learning and that teachers are doing their jobs in making sure their students were retaining information. However, because of the act, it required a stricter guideline for teachers to become teachers and the qualifications increased therefore not having enough teachers. This could have resulted in lower quality teaching. The fewer the teachers, the larger the classrooms, which resulted in lower quality curriculum. There was less one on one time with students and the student-teacher ratio was, and continues to be, very skewed. Additionally, the focus on standardized testing increased. If students didn’t do well on an exam, they probably felt as though they weren’t smart enough.
Often times, we let our test scores define our intelligence and this is the problem. If the act had been implemented in a previous generation, I think that the results of how things are now would show no change, if not, maybe even stricter. If it had been around longer, then the idea of our intelligence being measured via tests would just further consume how we viewed our own ability to learn and define how smart we were. Times are different now than they were back then, and I think that if there were to be a shift of views on the conditions in which each student is faced when it comes to their ability to take a standardized test. What are they facing outside of school that could affect their ability to do well on these tests?
- How have standardized tests affected you academically?
- Do you think that standardized tests are effective?
- What are ways that the No Child Left Behind act could improve on in terms of being academically inclusive?