No child left behind is dragging the "not left behind children" down.
I'd like to argue that the no child left behind statute is actually dragging down the rest of the children. What I mean by this is, the public school system can not cater to each individual child's needs. There's no way to single-handedly bring up an individual child's academic routine without affecting other students in the same class.
If there is a child or children in a class that are slower than the rest, the teacher must slow down the material/course to allow the slower students to catch up. This inadvertently affects the children who are excelling in class, because now they are forced to slow down their pace to allow others to catch up.
My challenger must prove that while the teacher is slowing down the course to work with the slower students, that the other students are not affected by it.
Wow 1000 character limit, I'm usually rather long winded.
Where I would disagree with you is on your model that no child left behind requires or demands hetrogeneous grouping. Moreover there is nothing in the statute at all addressing how classes are to be taught. No child left behind requires the administration of schools to administer state-wide standardized tests. The corrective actions it recommends are:
a) transfer to better or specialized schools
Nowhere in the act does it recommend that teachers "slow down" and diminish average performance or not teach the curriculum. The statue never asks for that and lists alternate solutions as its preferred means of addressing problems.
 NCLB law: http://www.gpo.gov...
While the NCLB statute doesn't directly state so, in reality, there are no doubts that in-fact NCLB demands more on an overall grouping of students than it might necessarily mean to. Sure, it wants to target the individual child in need, and offers some alternatives to helping said child or children, but;
a) Transferring schools is not a reality to a lot of families
b) Tutoring will more than likely cost the parent money, which may not be an option for a family on welfare for example
b) And finally, summer school puts the student back in a grouping situation, which affects the students around them again. Not all students are in summer school to catch-up on old material. Summer school can be used for advancement, in which case once again, a student may be dragging down the class in order to obtain material that they are slow on learning
So your argument is the statue is bad because it causes things to happen that it doesn't even mention and doesn't cause things to happen that it provides funding for and mandates?
That's like saying the Iraq war resolution is bad because it caused so much speeding in Texas.
My title clearly states what the intention behind the debate is. Your analogy holds no water to this discussion. If you can't debate whether or not the effects, whether direct or indirect, of the No Child Left Behind statute are harmful to the students who aren't being"left behind", then there's no discussion to be had.
I understand your intention. And my counter is that the effect you claim is not part of the statue.
You made a claim of the form
A causes B
I'm disagreeing with statute C causes A. That's a counter case. I see no support in the statue for your contention. The statute is quite explicit about how to handle remedial needs, and provides both funding and mandates towards those alternate approaches.
If you don't like the effects of heterogeneous classes that's understandable. It has nothing to do with no child no left behind. The tracking / detracking debate (http://tinyurl.com...) has been doing on for decades. Stastically teachers teach to the 23rd percentile prior to no-child left behind (Harlen & Malcom, 1997).
|Agreed with before the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Agreed with after the debate:||-||-||0 points|
|Who had better conduct:||-||-||1 point|
|Had better spelling and grammar:||-||-||1 point|
|Made more convincing arguments:||-||-||3 points|
|Used the most reliable sources:||-||-||2 points|
|Total points awarded:||1||5|