Research Analysis on No Child Left Behind
Rhetorical Analysis of “Evaluating ‘No Child Left Behind’”
When reading the 2007 article by education expert Linda Darling- Hammond called “Evaluating ‘No Child Left Behind’”, Darling- Hammond goes into depth and criticizes just how much the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accomplished in five years. The author begins by using a neutral and agreeable tone with how the law was supposed to be “a victory for American children”. She also genuinely acknowledges that the notoriously known NCLB Act initially brought high hopes for us Americans to have a sophisticated and reformed education system for our children. But almost just as fast as she agrees that the law was intended for good, she gets right to her point that she opposes the law by using much of logos and connects pathos and ethos along the lines. Darling-Hammond uses logos very strongly and acknowledges that the NCLB Act was created to help American children succeed educationally. She doesn’t fully bash the law without implementing clear ideas and alternatives as to what the government should consider to do next in order to effectively make our education system stronger after her criticisms’. She asks the rhetorical question, “What happened?” Not only does this tell us that she was baffled with the outcome of what came to be of this law, but that clearly, it took a complete180 degree turn from what she and others thought it would. She says, “ …high-profile Republicans are expressing their disenchantment with the NCLB, while many newly elected democrats are seeking a major overhaul as well.” She purposely wrote this to show that many people- regardless of political party- are not in favor of this law. What Darling- Hammond claims is that the NCLB Act backfired and left more negative effects schools than positive ones. She expresses that “… the law has been protested by more than twenty states and dozens of school districts that have voted to resist specific provisions.” Clearly stating that despite all
When reading the 2007 article by education expert Linda Darling- Hammond called “Evaluating ‘No Child Left Behind’”, Darling- Hammond goes into depth and criticizes just how much the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) accomplished in five years. The author begins by using a neutral and agreeable tone with how the law was supposed to be “a victory for American children”. She also genuinely acknowledges that the notoriously known NCLB Act initially brought high hopes for us Americans to have a sophisticated and reformed education system for our children. But almost just as fast as she agrees that the law was intended for good, she gets right to her point that she opposes the law by using much of logos and connects pathos and ethos along the lines. Darling-Hammond uses logos very strongly and acknowledges that the NCLB Act was created to help American children succeed educationally. She doesn’t fully bash the law without implementing clear ideas and alternatives as to what the government should consider to do next in order to effectively make our education system stronger after her criticisms’. She asks the rhetorical question, “What happened?” Not only does this tell us that she was baffled with the outcome of what came to be of this law, but that clearly, it took a complete180 degree turn from what she and others thought it would. She says, “ …high-profile Republicans are expressing their disenchantment with the NCLB, while many newly elected democrats are seeking a major overhaul as well.” She purposely wrote this to show that many people- regardless of political party- are not in favor of this law. What Darling- Hammond claims is that the NCLB Act backfired and left more negative effects schools than positive ones. She expresses that “… the law has been protested by more than twenty states and dozens of school districts that have voted to resist specific provisions.” Clearly stating that despite all
Cited: Darling- Hammond, Linda. "Evaluating 'No Child Left Behind ' | The Nation." The Nation 21 May 2007: 1-5. CQ Researcher. Web. 12 Mar. 2013.