The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 has improved academic achievement in the U.S.

The NCLB act not only did not improve academic achievement in the U.S., it has been detrimental to it. It forces teachers to spend their classroom time "teaching to the test," that is, teaching test-taking skills specific to whatever is on the test, instead of actual material. According to education expert Alfie Kohn, "The law is not about narrowing the achievement gap; its main effect has been to sentence poor children to an endless regimen of test-preparation drills." And furthermore, "even if the scores do rise, it's at the expense of a quality education." [1] Teachers agree that NCLB is detrimental to their learning. Only 3% of teachers think that NCLB helps them teach more efficiently. [1] Kohn, Alfie, "NCLB: 'Too Destructive to Salvage,'" USA Today, 31 May 2007. For an example of how NCLB hurts learning, we can look at English specifically. The standardized tests test rules of grammar and punctuation, so, if schools want to pass, they have to focus on those things. Of course, grammar and punctuation are important, but I don't think anyone would agree that they should be the focus of English classes. Teachers and education experts agree that the best way for students to learn to write and read better is to actually practice real writing and reading, rather than waste their time on artificial standardized test questions. But have test scores improved under NCLB? Maybe. First, keep in mind that NCLB forces teachers to teach to the test instead of focusing on real learning. Second, test score data is notoriously unreliable, especially after NCLB. States that were faced with losing funding because of poor performing schools often change their tests to make them easier. This increases the percentage of students that ‘pass' these tests, but certainly isn't a sign of an improvement in academic achievement. If NCLB improved the quality of education, surely this would include high school graduation rates. Of course, that isn't what happened. Those rates did not improve, and are still terrible. [2] Academic achievement certainly can't be said to be improving if students aren't even graduating. [2] Grey, Berry, "High-School Drop Out Rate in Major US Cities at Nearly 50 Percent," 3 April 2008. Another problem with NCLB is that its focus on funding. It turns out that there is no correlation between academic achievement, contrary to popular belief that inner city schools have poor performance because of poor funding. [3] An example of this is in Kansas City, where a judge ordered the state to appropriate an additional $2 billion to fix failing schools. Per-student spending increased to $9,500, compared to $3,000-$6,000 in the surrounding suburbs. What were the results? The schools showed absolutely no improvement. [4] [3] Eric A. Hanushek, "School Resources and Student Performance," in Gary Burtless, ed., Does Money Matter? The Effect of School Resources on Student Achievement and Adult Success (Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 1996), pp. 74-92. [4] "Desegregation's Broken Promises," Forbes.com, 10 Nov. 2003. In conclusion, my opponent has provided no evidence that NCLB has improved academic achievement at all, and, in fact, the evidence points to the contrary.