This will mean more, not less, federal involvement in the program. Overall, reaction to Obama's plans are negative. Most who were opposed to Bush's policy had hoped for a brand new start rather than a rehash of the old bill (No child left behind act, 2009). While this article presents a convincing argument that No Child Left Behind has fallen short of its original goals, there are those who think it has improved public education for some students, especially those with learning disabilities.

The bill forces schools to issue easy-to-interpret report cards that break down a student's progress, including those with learning disabilities. It establishes proficiency levels specifically for the disabled student in order to hold the school district responsible for ensuring adequate education is received by all students (staff, 2009).

Others feel NCLB is working better than the test scores show, because the standards, all around, are higher than they have been ever before. The U.S. Department of Education -- perhaps not the most objective viewpoint -- says that due to the accountability of teachers and school districts to higher standards, students are learning more and learning it better (Nation's report card shows record gains, 2007).

There is a faction that points to other national and international tests that students take. They point out that, according to those tests, and rankings of the U.S. education system vs. other countries, there is proof NCLB is not working. They further point out that only 68% of U.S. fourth-graders can read at a minimum proficiency level (Rogers, 2009 ).

And the difference in whether to interpret the data positively or negatively depends not only on which political party one is from, but one's view on state vs. federal control of a student's education. In my opinion, the fact that NCLB seeks higher standards for school district accountability, as well as for student and teacher performance makes the positives lean in its favor. Perhaps President Obama is correct that it needs some tweaking. No one can know that. But to throw it out would be step back in time.
Bibliography

Nation's report card shows record gains. (2007, Sept). Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from Ed.gov: http://www.ed.gov/nclb/accountability/achieve/report-card2007.html

No child left behind. (2004, Sept 21). Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from edweek.org: http://www.edweek.org/rc/issues/no-child-left-behind/

No child left behind act. (2009, Oct 15). Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from The new york times: http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/subjects/n/no_child_left_behind_act/index.html

Rogers, G. (2009, May 22). How the no child left behind act is failing students. Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from Articlesbase.com: http://www.articlesbase.com/education-articles/how-the-no-child-left-behind-act-is-failing-students-930464.html

staff, N. p. (2009, Mar 9). No child left behind act: An overview . Retrieved Dec 6, 2009, from Ld.org: http://www.ncld.org/on-capitol-hill/federal-laws-aamp-ld/no-child-left-behind-act/no-child-left-behind-act-nclb-an-overview