ESSA vs. NCLB
Introduction
The ESSA which stands for Every Student Succeeds Act is considered to be the main federal law for the general education of K-12. It covers all of the students who are present in the public schools of the region. When the law was passed in the year 2015 and replaced the controversial NCLB law which stands for No Child Left Behind. The two laws are found to be different but have some points in common (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The major objectives of both of the laws is to develop the standards for the contents and to create the measures for the administrative assessment of the student’s performance. The accountability of measures for the institute are created through it along with ensuring the safety at the schools (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The common core standard of both of the laws that the states are not required for the adoption for the adoption of the CC standards at the schools. While in the NCLB it had been mentioned that the standards would define what the schools must be teaching which was replaced in the ESSA that the secretary of education could not influence the schools to adopt the state standards (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). Through the use of both of the laws, communication could be made with the schools constituents for the development of relationships and sharing the information, working with the data for the identification of the areas which have strength and the areas which need further improvement, a rich variety of educational experiences could be advocated in order to promote the development of the students which was holistic (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017), the interests of the students could be used for their engagement along with the extracurricular activities for the promoting the participation and promotion of the career and college readiness. The beliefs of the students must be encouraged and motivated towards the self-esteem which is higher, independence, self-determination and the cultural appreciation (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017).
ESSA vs. NCLB – The differences and similarities
| Every Student Succeeds Act | No Child Left Behind | |
| State vs. Federal Authority | It is the responsibility of the states to hold the schools accountable for the achievement of the students (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). A framework is provided by the law which is flexible which the state could set in accordance with goals for the achievement of the students within the federal framework. | It is the responsibility of the students to hold the schools accountable for the achievement of the student (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). The framework was provided by the law to set the framework which was less flexible in order to set their own goals (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). A universal goal was also put forward by the law the all of the students must be proficient in math and reading. |
| Annual testing | The student math and reading must be tested by the state annually from grade 3 till 8 along with once in the high school (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The science must be tested in grade, middle and high school. Accommodation must be provided to the students through IEPs and 504 plans. On the annual state testing (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). Nationally recognized tests could be used such as ACT and SAT. Alternate tests could be given to the people. Funds could also be provided to explore the innovative tests which align with personalized learning. Any unnecessary testing must be given up. | The students must be tested for math and reading once in a year through grade 3 to grade 8 along with this they must be tested once in the high school (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). The students must be tested for science once in grade, middle and high school.
Accommodation could be provided to the students who have IEPs or the 504 plans. The states not given an option to use any nationally recognized tests other than their own. The alternate tests had no limit or restriction. |
| Academic standards | The challenging standards of the academic must be adopted by the states in math, reading and science which could be the Common Core State Standards (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The federal government could not try to influence the federal government. | The challenging standards of the academic must be adopted by the states in math, reading and science (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). The law could not bar the federal government for the encouragement of the states to adopt a specific set of standards. |
| Accountability measures | More than the test scores must be considered by the states by using ESSA. Four academic factors must be used by the state which are included in the law (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The fifth factor could be chosen by the state which impacts the quality of the state which include scores of reading and math, proficiency in English language, graduation rates of the high schools, and the academic measures for the grade and middle schools (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The quality factors of the schools could include the factors such as the readiness of the kindergarten, having an access to completion of advanced coursework, readiness of the college and the absenteeism which is chronic. | The focus of NCLB is solely on the on the academic achievement of the students and used primarily the state math and reading scores while evaluating the performance of the schools (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). |
| Achievement targets | Achievement targets must be set by the states in the schools which could consist of ambitious goals of the students like the students in the special education (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). The goals must help to reduce the gaps with other students. Federal penalties must not be held for the schools which are struggling (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). Instead, more funding would be provided to such schools along with the development of a plan for bringing improvement. | The states must bring all of students up to the level of proficiency on the state tests which could consist of the special education of the students.
Targets might also be set for bringing improvement which are known as the adequate yearly progress (AYP). If the AYP is not met by any of the school, it could be labelled as “needing improvement” (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). It might be required by the school to fire its staff and face other types of penalties. |
| Parent involvement | It is required by ESSA to get the input from the parents and the families as the state plans are created by them (Young, Winn, & Reedy, 2017). In order to get involved, the department of education of the state could be reached. | The input of the parent is not required to be included while creating the plans for the state under the law of NCLB (Mathis, & Trujillo, 2016). |
Conclusion
The ESSA which stands for Every Student Succeeds Act is considered to be the main federal law for the general education of K-12. It covers all of the students who are present in the public schools of the region. While in the NCLB it had been mentioned that the standards would define what the schools must be teaching which was replaced in the ESSA that the secretary of education could not influence the schools to adopt the state standards. For example one of the similarities include that the students must be tested for math and reading once in a year through grade 3 to grade 8 along with this they must be tested once in the high school. The students must be tested for science once in grade, middle and high school. ESSA has been found as a fairly new framework so it might take some time by the people for understanding how it would be impacting the children. In this meantime, the expert views of the readers on how it could change the schools for the learning of the students with learning and thinking differences is important to be learned.
References
Mathis, W. J., & Trujillo, T. M. (2016). Lessons from NCLB for the Every Student Succeeds Act. National Education Policy Center.
Young, M. D., Winn, K. M., & Reedy, M. A. (2017). The every student succeeds act: Strengthening the focus on educational leadership. Educational Administration Quarterly, 53(5), 705-726.
