When the No Child Left Behind Act was first established in 2001, later signed into a law by President George W. Bush it raised much controversy among students, teachers, parents, and administrators. The act gave the federal government more control in education by ensuring the same quality of public education for every child across the United States. As a future educator I think that this topic is relevant to me because it is an important part of educational history. Within the No Child Left Behind Act school systems are forced to administer yearly standardized tests to students no matter their grade level, or ability. Therefore, teachers are loosing their sense of flexibly when it comes to teaching in their own way, and are forced to teach to a test, which could effect me someday as I wish to become an Elementary School teacher. In my opinion, I think this is wrong. I do not believe standardized tests reflect a student's intelligence or ability level. For myself, testing gives me anxiety which takes over making me lose everything I have studied. In the past I have tutored elementary aged children with learning disabilities, including my younger brother. For students who may have differences in the way they learn, putting the pressure on them to take a timed standardized test is too much. It is not fair for someone like my brother who is dyslexic to be forced to take a test with someone in the same grade who reads at a higher grade level and expect them to achieve the same scores. 


This source makes a claim that the No Child Left Behind Act does not receive the proper funding from the government to mandate the bill as a whole. Therefore, the No Child Left Behind Act pertains to parents, teachers, students, and school boards as they do not have the means to support it in full. Since students are made to take yearly tests which analyze the overall performance of the school itself, every students score matters. Since the tests scores are being held in such high regard they want highly qualified teachers, but are not willing to pay these teachers more. I believe this scholarly journal to be a credible source because both the authors have their doctorate in education. The two authors have studied the education field for many years, and have seen both sides of the argument which they provide in the journal.


The author of this book Deborah Meier and George Wood are the founders of the small school's movement. The No Child Left Behind Act was originally established to help the children who come from poverty, who are members of minorities, children with disabilities, and ones who are learning English. However, once the law was signed into action over twenty different states have protested the law. Since the law is so focused on test scores it is only increasing the dropout rate among the students having so much added pressure to preform well. This article is extremely informative on the negative effects it has had not only on the children, but on the school systems and the teachers as well. 


This article was written by two journalists, which may make the source less credible. However, both contributors have backgrounds in the education field with over twenty years of experience. Since there are two authors it seems like they have double the knowledge and experience making them qualified to write this entry. This particular article highlights both good and bad aspects of the No Child Left Behind Act. While it may have had negative impacts, the goals and objectives were ultimately good. They wish to add free tutoring to students who are struggling staying above grade level, and others who are getting low scores. Which adds in charter school grants, and Supplemental Educational Services (SES) to the schools who are not reaching the necessary scores. However, with adding things like these it requires the government to propose additional grants. 

My research topic is arguable because I could choose to argue for or against the No Child Left Behind Act. It can go either way; however, the majority of the articles I have read have swayed my opinion to say that it is ultimately not a good thing, and needs to be revised and reapproved. Among the articles I have found some disagree on whether the government should spend more money to reestablish the bill, or to just keep it dead all together. Overall, I think that I do have a good research question because I do have a distinct argument in mind, but I think I could change it by stating both sides of perspectives ultimately choosing just one side. 
