As the No
Child Left Behind
Law commences it journey toward full implementation-
the Federal Department of
Education meets a firestorm of controversy. Dan Dillon
of the New York Times expressed vehement opposition to this scheme. Since the
Department of Education demands new schemes to meet
educational goals such as
the drop in the number of students assigned to each class- these local leaders
castigated this prescription as another example of the Federal Government
ordering another unfunded mandate. If this idea meets with success- David Cruz,
a professor of law from the University of Southern California contends that-`If
the facts about educational spending are as the plaintiff alleges, then this
lawsuit has good prospects of winning.` He refers to a lawsuit filed by some
parents to stop the Department of Education from carrying out this plan.
Clearly, the
principle objective of the `No Child Left Behind` law
comes with a
halo over it due to its scheme of educating every child in the United States of
America. If, however, implementing this policy appears draconian for a numbver
of localities then Washington must come to the rescue with the necessary
funding. Some means of luring dollars to the states must spring forth in the
Department of Education that will persuade the states to create a financing
method of carrying out this policy. The principle reason for establishing an
emergency procedure for funding comes into play because of the need to enhance
each
school`s educational standards. Perhaps, these new methods will assist more
students in their quest to successfully complete the National Assessment Tests.
This objective must serve as one of the primary goals for each school`s
educational mission. Through the creation of an emergency fund, local and state
educators may surmount this testing hurdle and prevent their school system`s
treasuries from drying up.
More summaries about the New School Law Stirs A Storm of Controversy