Accessibility or Accountability? Research Paper Example

In the article “Accessibility or Accountability: The Rhetoric and Reality of No Child Left Behind,” the authors discuss the NCLB act and how it affects public and private education. The authors are economics professors at the University of Northern Colorado, and their focus in this paper is the application of economics theories to the current system of education finding to determine of NCLB is a viable means of achieving its own stated goals. The authors determine that the NCLB is fundamentally flawed because it attempts to accomplish two things that are in conflict with each other: the first of these is equitability for all students, and the second is efficiency for the system. The authors assert that NCLB is based on two conflicting American values, that of the “common school” available to all and that of freedom of individual choice (in this case, the choice is between schools).  The central thesis of this paper is that the NCLB is doomed to fail because it attempts to meet the demands and expectations raised by these two opposing American values.

This article was published in 2013, so it provides a timely and current set of ideas. The authors are credible in terms of their background and approach to the material, and the article was published in an appropriately scholarly journal. The title of the article is somewhat neutral, and could just as easily be a title for an article with general appeal or one that is targeted at a more scholarly audience. In terms of the presentation of the information and ideas, however, this article is clearly aimed at a scholarly audience. The authors rely on a set of economic theories and even economic formulas and even provide a number of detailed charts and graphs to support their arguments. The authors use both primary sources, such as quotes from Supreme Court cases and the NCLB text, as well as secondary sources, such as books on the history of public education in the United States and materials that support the economic theories discussed in the article.

Most significantly, however, it is the strength of the authors’ argument that makes this article and interesting and compelling read. The authors assert that the American value of education for all is incompatible with the American value of freedom (which is seen in this context as school choice). The main idea is that any effort to make education equally available to all is going to be economical inefficient, and that competition between schools is based on economic efficiency. Schools are competing for funding and other resources, and are graded based on how well students do on standardized test scores. Schools that attract more funding will necessarily take that finding away from other schools, thereby undermining the equitability of the overall education system. Based on these ideas (which are discussed in far greater detail in the article) the authors conclude that the NCLB cannot achieve equitability for all students while also promoting competition among schools.

The article “Left Behind: Low-Income Students Under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)” takes a different approach to the discussion and examination of NCLB, but is equally critical about the Act’s provisions. Where the previous article took a more theoretical approach to the discussion, this article focuses on more specific, real-world examples of the implications NCLB has for low-income students. While the author’s affiliations, credentials, and experience are not described in this piece, it is clear that the author is writing for a scholarly and informed audience, and the material is presented in an academically-appropriate manner. Moreover, the article is published in a scholarly journal, which provides a sense of legitimacy to the material. If there is any concern about the information presented in this article, it is simply that it was published in 208, only seven years after the NCLB as passed. This does not mean that the information contained in this article is incorrect, but a thorough examination of the topics contained in this piece should include more current and up-to-date references to ensure that the available information is timely and relevant.

As is the case in the previous article, this author begins by examining the history of public education in the United States. This history includes a discussion about the landmark decision of Brown v. Board of Education in 1954, and the underlying premise that all students in the United States should have equitable access to a good education. According to the author, a growing “achievement gap” between lower- and higher-income students in the late 20^th century was one of the driving forces behind NCLB. The argument in favor of NCLB is that school choice for parents and students and competition among schools would make education more equitable for those students at the low end of the achievement gap. The central thesis of this piece is that this argument, and the NCLB, have failed to meet expectations and may actually be creating fewer opportunities for low-income students.

At its core, the author’s logic is rather straightforward: underperforming schools receive less funding, and it is the underperforming schools that often serve low-income students. The idea of school choice as presented in NCLB should mean that students in underperforming schools can simply go to different schools, but the reality of this situation does not always line up with the rhetoric. As schools rely more on test scores and funding is shifted among different schools, not all students in underperforming schools have access to alternatives for their educational needs. The author argues that NCLB has the effect of funneling money away from the schools that need it the most and to schools that are out of reach for many students. While this argument is presented in a logical manner, it would be useful to compare the information presented in the article with information and data that is more timely and up to date.

References

Aske, D., Connolly, L., & Corman, R. (2013). Accesibility or accountability? The rhetoric and reality of No Child Left Behind. Journal Of Economics And Economic Education Research, 14(3).

Sanders, Adam. Left Behind: Low-Income Students Under the No Child Left Behind Act. (2008). Journal Of Law And Education, 37(4).