The Act also has the chance to widen, not lessen, the gap between rich and poor. Poorly funded schools will have fewer tools with which to reach and teach all students. Well-funded schools will have access to the best materials, technologies, and teachers. Students attending poorly funded schools are, in my opinion, being penalized for circumstances beyond their control. No Child Left Behind is leaving many of our most talented students behind. Neill (2003) echoes my sentiments, claiming "NCLB is a fundamentally punitive law that uses flawed standardized tests to label schools as failures and punish them with counterproductive sanctions." Ironically, the official Department of Education Web site seems stuck in its own circular reasoning. The Department of Education offers no clear solutions for how to improve "consistently low-performing schools," but points out that many children are "trapped" in them. As they mature, students left behind at an early age grow cynical because the public education system seems stacked strongly against them. I believe that rebelliousness and delinquency in the adolescent years reflects a justifiable realization that the school system is inherently flawed. Emphasizing a narrow bandwidth of knowledge using standardized math and language tests denies the glory of music, art, and athletics in students' lives. Yet No Child Left Behind assesses a school's "adequate yearly progress," using language that seems to tolerate if not encourage mediocrity. Testing students annually does more to increase the achievement gap than it does to reduce instances of individual or school failure.

Teachers are frustrated with No Child Left Behind. The Act pressures educators to teach mainly or only that which can be applied to the standardized tests. Essentially, teachers are teaching students how to do well on their tests instead of helping students learn. The same can be said for what the tests mean for school principals and administrators. Proponents of No...

In fact, "rising test scores are primarily the result of repetitive drilling for the narrow content the exams cover, not real educational improvements," and teachers are teaching less than ever before ("Reality-Testing NCLB"). Any student who does not show quick and sudden testing aptitude will become a quick casualty of the No Child Left Behind Act. English Language Learners and student with learning disabilities become obstacles in the classroom. Teachers, knowing their very livelihoods are at stake, focus more and more on who can score well and less on who they can write off as being hopeless.
Proponents of the No Child Left Behind Act would claim that standardized tests measure core and essential language and mathematical skills. Those skills must be mastered if students are to discover academic and later, professional success. I agree, of course. However, no standardized test can measure the infinite variety of learning styles in the human species. Standardized tests assume that all students learn the same way, at the same pace, and in the same language. Especially in a heterogeneous society that claims to honor diversity, standardized tests seem like a woefully outmoded way of assessing students and schools. As a counselor or as an administrator, I would suggest rethinking the nature of assessment. I would argue that public education policy must move away from standardized testing and toward deep and meaningful structural changes.