Composition I
December 10, 2009

The Gifted and No Child Left Behind As each year progresses, students are facing many more challenges and struggles. Sadly, most of these are faced in the classrooms with the emphasis on the children being adequate in their studies. To help relieve some of these troubles, former president George W. Bush passed the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) on January 2, 2002. Congress created this act to bring all students up to a base level of knowledge needed to be deemed successful for federally mandated tests as stated in No Child Left Behind (Kanjorski 1426). These standardized tests assess students’ knowledge in mathematics, reading comprehension, writing conventions and now science. With focus being shifted to bringing students up to par, the students on the other end of the spectrum, the gifted, have lost the support and programs in which they thrive. Because of this, it can be stated that No Child Left Behind hinders the performance of gifted students. Linda Kenny, a reporter for School Administrator, a well-known periodical, states: “One of the great myths is the assumption that bright kids will make it on their own… But they do need support and they do need the focus.” The curriculums that these students strive on have been pushed to the wayside in many different ways. In a school in Kentucky, the “TREASURES (To Recruit, Educate, and Serve Under-Represented Exceptional Students) Approach” was abandoned. The main reason for the abandonment is the fact that there is a lack of funding for these programs (Kenny 29). As stated in the No Child Left Behind Act, schools must maintain a certain level of proficiency to receive funding from the government. If a school does not meet the standard of student proficiency, the school will lose federal funding. This further promotes the problem of funding deficiencies. Even from the get-go, No Child Left Behind did not act to the fullest in providing funding. Title I of the No Child Left Behind act, subtitled “The Key Federal Program to help our Neediest Children,” is only being half fulfilled of what is written into the law. Moreover, under No Child Left Behind, schools are forced to pay transportation costs and supplemental services out of their Title I fund, which, in turn, is diverting money that could be used on gifted education. So far, over two-thirds of all school districts have had their Title I budget cut (Kremer). Due to the funding problems, many schools have to rework their budget system. For example, Illinois went from spending $16 million on gifted programs to zero and Michigan went from spending $5 million to $500 thousand (Kenny 30). As the act is now, by the year 2014, all school must be at one-hundred percent student proficiency (Kanjorski 1486) Gifted students are, as per No Child Left Behind: Students, children, or youth who give evidence of high achievements capability in areas such as intellectual, creative, artistic, leadership capacity, or in specific academic fields, and who need services and activities not ordinarily provided by the school in order to fully develop those capabilities (Gessner 30).
Since No Child Left Behind acknowledges the gifted students, the act should provide support for them and their programs. The No Child Left Behind Act, states that schools may use their funding on an extensive list of programs, but does not include any programs for the gifted (Kanjorski 1442). Schools must take it upon themselves to either find other sources of funding or remove these programs from their curriculum. In response to this, many schools use a method called “Tracking”, which is in essence grouped learning. This is similar to the different class levels such as: Applied, Academic, and Honors. Within this “tracking” program, the courses offered are on different levels. Although they cover the same material, they are taught differently to cater to students’ needs. For example, a student in a Academic (average level) English course, may have a weekly test on twenty vocabulary terms to prepare them for their SAT’s, while a student in an applied course will only have ten terms. This may seem like a great idea, but when you look at this type of learning, one group is learning at a much more rapid pace. In such areas as English, there is an infinite list of terms that can be covered so by the end of the semester, one group is way ahead of the other. Overall, this type of learning has its advantages and drawbacks.
Eventually, most schools replaced Tracking with different forms of education called “Co-op Learning” and “Differentiation.” Co-op learning consists of students of different levels of ability learning in the same classroom and the teacher instructs all levels individually. This program has been removed from many schools due to the difficulty of the program and the costly and extensive training that the faculty needs. Differentiation is a program that faces the fact that no two students are alike and, therefore, do not learn the same way. Differentiation allows students of different levels to be in the same classroom, which in turn creates the basis for the program. The program is based on the different learning styles of each student and encourages peer-to-peer teaching which has been proven more effective than traditional teacher-to-student teaching has. This program was highly successful with most under-adequate students but highly unsuccessful with the gifted, not by grades, but by attitude (Gessner). One student stated, “Girls learn to just ‘Sit there and shut up’, but boys become fed up and are said to have behavior problems” (Kerger). This was the attitude of many students throughout the United States. Students from Iowa have their own opinions on the challenges they face: “It’s stupid and boring because I already know all of this stuff, and I don’t want to learn it again” (Gifted Education). This student is a gifted student who was forced to be placed into a basic level class. The reason: the school’s funding was diminished so the first program to be cut was the gifted education program. She also said, “I just don’t see any reason in answering the question because it’s so easy” (Hall-Blobaum).
However, students are not the only ones outraged by No Child Left Behind. Parents and experts agree that the act must be altered in order to restore the well-being of a gifted child’s education. One teacher has stated that “…it has been nothing but a nuisance, in our quest to pass these tests; we are producing a nation full of empty, under-challenged children” (Vise). One mother of twins, one in an advanced course and another in a basic level, stated that the child in the “advanced” course only receives more homework based on a basic level. She stated the homework was simply “…more questions from that stupid book” (Hall-Blobaum). Of course, there are many other opinions as well. One teacher said, “The focus on standard math and reading takes away from advancing the gifted” (Hall-Blobaum). Another expert stated, “Since it is all about bringing people up to that minimum level of performance, we’ve ignored those high-ability learners” (Hall-Blobaum). These are just some of the opinions that many people have on how No Child Left Behind affects the gifted.
As one teacher stated, “The focus on standard…takes away from advancing the gifted” the focus is also stopping the gifted from grade acceleration. Under No Child Left Behind, grade acceleration is very limited due to the chance of a child falling behind and bringing down a school’s test scores (Kanjorski 1536). According to Christopher Moshinskie, a college student from Pennsylvania State University majoring in Secondary Education:
I have studied No Child Left Behind extensively for over three years of my college career. I feel that the act is overbearing in its stipulations and regulations. As a gifted student, I feel that No Child Left Behind has dropped the ball on the talented and needs to be reformed to allow more programs for them or at the very least allow the mentally able to skip grades in order to suit their needs. The sheer fact that gifted students are willing to drop out of school in order to receive the catered education that is needed for them that No Child Left Behind does not offer makes me feel flabbergasted (Moshinskie).
During this interview, Moshinskie was very passionate about what he was saying. He feels strongly that students should be able to advance in grades to provide the academic challenges needed to keep them going. It is true that some schools do not allow students to skip grades. When questioned by a reporter, one superintendent from a New York school, who wished to remain anonymous, stated why the gifted were being held back. The reason is that the school district feels that lower-ability students will strive to do better if there is a mixed ability level in the classroom. The gifted are then left to “fend for themselves” because they are moving too slowly. This falls back on the principality of the Differentiation approach of learning. The same school in New York that purposely held students back, admitted to giving the gifted students “busy work” that they called “extra credit” in order to keep the gifted occupied while the under ability learners struggled to finish their work (Cloud 57).
Many people ask if No Child Left Behind will be leaving any time soon. Sadly, it looks as if No Child Left Behind is not going away any time soon. According to research conducted by Tina Beveridge, professor of Music at Lower Columbia College in Washington, this is the answer to a question that many people ask. In part, President Obama has stated that one of his top three priorities is education. “He has also said on numerous occasions that providing children with a well-rounded education that prepares students for college and future jobs needs to be our primary focus in education.” Although that is a great stance, how can we get students prepared for college and jobs by narrowly focusing on mathematics and basic reading skills? In many colleges, students are required to take Humanities, Social Science, and even courses on the Fine Arts. How can the students who are solely focusing on mathematics and reading be prepared for these courses that focus on other aspects of life? As Bevereridge says: “Is our goal simply to get students to college, or to help them succeed in and graduate from college?” (Beveridge). A writer for The New York Times spoke with a superintendent from a Texas school that used a basketball game to make a point about No Child Left Behind. “If you can’t make any lay-ups, then you’ve got to work on lay-ups” (Dillon). The man speaking was defending the huge time devoted to math and reading to bring up test scores. Now, when was the last time you saw a basketball game won by making only lay-ups? The point being made here is that you cannot just focus on one area without even making strides to help in other areas. When intensive training, or teaching, is focused in one area, the students lose the previous information they were taught (Beveridge). One small-scale example of this is that many people have experienced the art of “cramming.” Whether it is for a job interview, recital, or even test, most people have done it at some point in their life. By the end of the “session,” the person has lost much of the essential knowledge that was needed at the beginning. This is seen too many times in grade school students. It seems that the current teaching methods needed for students to be “proficient” promote these bad habits. Because children hang on to the newest information that they will be tested on, they seem to do “better” on these tests. Since the standardized tests that many students take are based on current material and not cumulative, many students are now suddenly becoming “proficient” when actually they are expanding their short-term memory. From the government viewpoint, they do not care how these scores are being obtained, they just care that they are at a certain level by 2014. With teachers adapting to this, the government sees no reason to remove the act (Beveridge).
As stated, No Child Left Behind has made it difficult for gifted education programs to remain. If continued, gifted education will cease to exist in public schools across the nation. This will not only lead to a high number of under-educated, high-ability learners across the nation, but to a nation of “empty students” who do not have the initiative to push forth in their academics. Gifted students have been brutally hindered in the field of education due to the No Child Left Behind Act.

Works Cited
Beveridge, Tina. "No Child Left Behind and Fine Arts Classes." Arts Education Policy Review (2010): 4-7.
Cloud, John, et. al. "Saving the Smart Kids." Time 27 September 2004: 56-61.
Dillon, Sam. "School Cut Back Subjects to Reading and Math." New York Times (2006).
Gessner, Stephen L. "The Gifted Express, Now Leaving on Teack One." Education Week. 23 Jan 2008. 28+.
Gifted Education: the Effects of No Child Left Behind. Perf. Paula Kerger. Newshour. 2004.
Hall-Blobaum, Melodie. "Teachers and Parents Bash Standards: Lawmaker Gets Many Responses When He Asks How NCLB Can Be Improved." Kansas City Star. 10 Apr 2007.
Kanjorski, Paul E. "No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." Washington, DC: United States Congress, 27 Mar 2002. 1425-2095.
Kenny, Linda C. "Defying the Ripple Effects." School Administrator. Professional Development Collection, Feb 2007. 28-31.
Kremer, Jon. NEA: Priorities for Changing NCLB- Funding. 16 Apr. 2008.
Moshinskie, Christopher. Personal Effects on NCLB James Wright Jr. 16 Nov 2009.
Vise, Deborah. "Experts Question Inpact of 'No Child' on Gifted." 25 Nov 2007. Washington Post. EBSCO Host.