The No Child Left Behind Act has been active for over a decade now and was signed by President George W. Bush in 2002. But the question is, will it continue to thrive and stay active or will it be abandoned by Congress? In the Washington Post, an editorial called The moral imperative of No Child Left Behind was written by the Editorial Board and posted on January 14, 2015. The Editorial Board exercises the thought that we as a country should continue to follow the No Child Left Behind Act because it has helped many students and  has made their education stronger.

The editorial starts off with a short story about one student’s experience prior to the No Child Left Behind Act. The student described was awaiting his graduation while on the honor roll, yet it soon was discovered that he was “functionally illiterate.” This story and the rest of the article implies that before the No Child Left Behind law, schools simply ignored and abandoned any problems that the students faced academically. Although it was very clear that the students needed more attention before this law was active, Congress is now considering dropping the law and leaving the struggling students desperate once again. The Editorial Board thinks strongly about the law and hopes that if anything, the law will be improved and not just left by the wayside. They firmly believe that in the past decade, the No Child Left Behind Act has improved students’ education and made a positive difference. I personally disagree with the Editorial Board’s stance  because there is a lack of evidence that proves or supports the positive correlation between the law and student improvement.

For much of the article, the writers were constantly trying to persuade their audience using nothing but claims. There was no proof, evidence, or statistics to uphold their claims. The first claim that caught my attention was stated at the end of the second paragraph of the editorial: “returning to that way of operating should be unthinkable.” The board is referencing that we should not return to a life without the No Child Left Behind Act. This is the way the authors end their second paragraph and yet they lack any proof that it is in fact, unbearable to live without the act. As I read this claim, I had questions running through my head. Why is it unthinkable to live without the act? Is the act really that necessary? I thought that this claim was a little dramatic due to my prior research in which I discovered that educators are teaching  more of what will actually be on the test, just so the students can pass (carleton.edu). This is not the way for a teacher to instruct students because it results in the students advancing in the heavily tested subjects such as reading and mathematics. Although this progression is great, students may begin to lack in subjects like science and history which are not present on many of the standardized tests. Therefore, this is not helping the children at all because they may one day go into a career that involves a lot more than just reading and math, yet they will not be sufficient enough in these other subjects. This claim is only the first of many present in this article.

Another claim that was mentioned in the third paragraph was “everyone agrees that the law...should be improved based on the experience of the past decade-plus.” How does the editorial board know “everyone” agrees with the law? They make it seem as though there is no opposing side, in hopes that the reader will be swayed to approve as well. If the audience is somewhat naive or does not read in between the lines, they might automatically think that the board is correct. Because of the reader’s lack of knowledge, they may simply follow suit without looking for any information to back up the claims. Additionally, after doing some research on the No Child Left Behind Act I realized the controversy surrounding the idea. In fact, there were many pros and cons on multiple websites proving that the article’s claim stating “everyone” agrees, frankly, is impossible. The claim also explains that the experience of the last decade should affect the improvement of the law. However, no where in the surrounding text does it include an explanation of what the “experience” entails. So, one of the only attempts made by the writers to back up their claim was too vague to comprehend. Continuing to analyze the article, I noticed yet another weak claim that left me wondering if there would be a single supported opinion anywhere in the writing.

The Editorial Board claimed that “the law has worked,” and that “the performance of poor and minority students has improved in the past 10 to 15 years.” After this claim was mentioned in the fifth paragraph, there was some proof by referencing how The Education Trust has catalogued the evidence and that there is a rise in the graduation rates. Additionally, they found a rise in participation in college entrance and Advanced Placement tests. Despite this, they do not give any physical statistics, showing that there may have a been a positive change. The lack of statistics gives off the feeling that the statistics to back up the improvement are not as drastic as needed in order to show that the law has really helped improve the students. Also the rise in graduation rates and people entering college may not necessarily be because of the No Child Left Behind Act, but instead it may have other confounding variables affecting the process. What if the rise in graduation rates is because unlike the years prior to the law’s enactment, today, people now know that without an education they will not have the opportunity to get a job or be financially stable? It is widely known that years ago a diploma was enough to be considered for the job, but nowadays, a diploma alone will not even result in a second glance from most employers of decent paying positions. What I mean is that as years have progressed after the law was formed, there became less of a chance that high school graduates could have an income that would allow comfortable living without a college degree. This is not necessarily due to the law, but to our developing country that now pushes for further education, which shows that there is something else  driving these students to perform better in their academics other than the No Child Left Behind Act.

Overall, Washington Post’s, The moral of No Child Left Behind by the Editorial Board explained how it is essential that Bush’s No Child Left Behind Act continues to be in effect. I disagree that the Editorial Board wrote a strong argument supporting their side because they only claim how good the act is, but they do not have any rock solid support to prove that the No Child Left Behind Act is actually working. The article first  interested me being that the law may affect the education of future generations in my family. I could only hope that my future children and grandchildren would have the opportunity to learn all subjects, not simply concentrated on writing and math. All in all, in order to improve the argument of the Editorial Board, they need to give more proof and less claims to their audience. Some real data and statistics should be given about the comparison of before and after the law was enacted. This would drastically improve their argument and make their audience respect them more for their opinion.