NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND

Language is extremely fascinating. I really don’t know if the No Child Left Behind proposal is extremely vague or if I am just reading it that way. It was all very hopeful, but it read more as a list of goals without any method for achieving them. If I had to sum up No Child Left Behind in one sentence, it might be, Schools, and everyone in them will be expected to improve on their own, by their own standards, and then evaluated by a multiple choice national exam at the end of the year. I know I left out the funds that are handed out, and those are important – but, even the money given to the higher needs schools is difficult to understand. Who determines what makes a proficient school? What really happens to a school that is taken over by a state? Is the state ever unsuccessful? If so, do all students really have the opportunity to go to an “adequate” private school? Really?
While reading this proposal all sorts of questions, ones which demand specifics, were springing up in my head. It seems that the government wants to put more pressure on education, but is willing to leave it up to individual states to decide how and where this pressure will be placed. I don’t want to say that this type of freedom for the state is bad, but there seems to be a huge negative outcome: the state can lower its standards in order to remain proficient. I don’t know if this thought of mine is entirely true, and – if it is true – I am struggling to think of a positive solution.
So, is No Child Left Behind the way to go? Unfortunately my knowledge of the history of America’s education is still limited to what I’ve learned in the past couple of months. However, I feel that I know enough to say that No Child Left Behind is hopeful. It certainly needs some tweaking – in which way, I’m not sure – but I believe that it could be successful.