The idea and logic behind the No Child Left Behind act is morally and theoretically sound. However, cracks and gaps begin to appear when the law is implemented in its full force. It is one thing to punish schools for not educating their students up to the minimum standards prescribed by the state.
However, this rule is based on the presumption that the grades of the students are a direct consequence of the quality of education with no other factor affecting performance. The act suggests summer coaching and extra tutions for those students who are weak. The success of the student has been deeply linked with the status of the school.
An organization that does not perform well in maintaining standards will suffer as a result of Federal aid cuts. Many critics have pointed out that this weakens the school further because an institution with poor teachers or poor teaching environment will require additional funds to overcome the disadvantage.
Opponents point out that not punishing the school and granting extra aids to those institutions that provide poor results would be, in a way, rewarding poor performance. Today, there is at least an incentive for schools to perform well because it will help them qualify for better aid. However, what seems like a statistic at the Federal level becomes a tragedy at the local level.
A school with hundreds of students is going to be hit very hard by cut in funding. It is the future of the students that is at stake. The law provides numerous solutions and alternatives like transfer to a safe school and transfer to a better public school with better standards.
However, if at all one considers the possibility of the student being lazy or unintelligent, new schools will be hesitant to take up those wards who have poor grades because it will increase their chances of losing aid. The overall logic behind No Child Left Behind concept seems complicated and unworkable when one gets down to the nitty-gritty details.