As an early childhood education major, I have an interest in anything that has to do with education, from the laws to what is being taught in the classroom. Education should be one of the most important focuses of the government, yet nothing they have decided upon has helped the education system. Researching this topic means digging into the reason behind why the lawmakers chose the specific standards and the efficiency of the laws, past and present. The main goal of the Every Student Succeeds Act was to be an improved, more effective version of the previous law, No Child Left Behind. My problem with the new act is that it tries to fit all children in a mold, and that is not how it works. No child learns in the same manner; therefore the teaching guidelines should not be the same across the board. A child with a learning disability should not be taught in the same way a child without these challenges would, and should not be held responsible for not meeting those criteria. This is one of the many things I believe is wrong with America's education system, and I am interested to see why these education standards exist.

Carmel Martin and Scott Sargrad, authors of the article  "Leaving Behind No Child Left Behind" compared No Child Left Behind to the new and, supposedly, improved Every Student Succeeds Act. Their biggest claim was that the new bill, like its predecessors, does not leave room for a new vision and leaves out the responsibility of the government, placing all of the authority on the local and state divisions. This article takes an informative approach on the topic, focusing on the individual concepts of each bill and comparing them, identifying both the negatives and the positives. The authors carefully approached each side by giving equal attention and critique to each bill. They place high value on the effectiveness of each bill and the principles of them. The authors, both experts in education, provided equal information about both acts with little bias, only comparing the good and the bad. The source, a national news service, provides information straight from Washington. Because it was written so soon after the signing of the new bill, I am convinced that they wrote the story with as little bias as possible, considering they were provided with new material.

Gregory Korte, author of "The Every Student Succeeds Act vs. No Child Left Behind: What's Changed?" provides comparisons for the two most recent education acts. Because the article is strictly informative, the author does not make an argument for either bill, but instead analyzes them side-by-side. In doing so, he allows the readers to form an opinion for themselves. The article's main focus is on presenting each bill in a comparative manner. It identifies the changes that the government made in the Every Student Succeeds Act, and how it is or is not an improvement on the No Child Left Behind Act. Korte's only interest is to educate the public on the new bill. As an informative source, Korte avoids bias by only stating the facts and not including his opinion. In order to avoid partiality towards one act in particular, he stratifies the core issues in each bill and compares them next to each other. Korte, a reporter for USA Today, reports directly from Washington, avoiding as much secondhand information as possible.

"The Bloated Rhetoric of No Child Left Behind's Demise" by Alia Wong recounts the recent passing of the Every Student Succeeds Act and why she believes it is an improvement on the No Child Left Behind Act. Wong outlines the differences between the two education laws including the accountability of schools for the students' performance and new testing requirements. Wong places an emphasis on why the new act is not as much as an improvement as the government would like it to be, considering the waivers many of the states had put in place to get them out of the No Child Left Behind bill. She believes that like the previous act, the Every Student Succeeds Act will not prevail. Alia Wong, an education writer for The Atlantic, provides readers with her views about the events taking place. Wong takes a slightly negative attitude towards both acts, feeling that neither have reasonable or effective standards. She strives to solely make her point about the ineffectiveness of the new bill.

The views of education and the standards that the system must go by are so critical that they cause quite the controversy within politics and the general education field. With the release and signing of a new act, many educators and those outside the field of education believe that the acts published by the government are inadequate. Thus, one can argue, which act is really more effective, or are both still lacking the necessary means of productivity. Most writers believe that the act, while better than the previous, still lacks the key elements for success. They also agree that the fundamentals missed include, but are not limited to, room for advancement and who to entrust with the responsibility and accountability of the education standards. For the most part, I agree with what the articles are saying. I might need to broaden my perspective and include more than just the inadequacy of the acts, but also the strengths of them.

