How to Fix No Child Left Behind: Time Magazine

Summary:
This article dealt with the controversial topic that I am examining in my research paper: No Child Left Behind. The author disagreed with many's assertion that it has been successful. He analyzed many studies, provided many quotes, and recounted many examples of the acts failings.

Author:
Alex Tehrani from Times Magazine. He/she clearly disagreed with the guidelines that NCLB puts forth. From his use of statistics and quotes, I can discern that he is clearly much more knowledgable about the act that most people (including many education professionals)

Context/Exigence:
Written in 2007, this article was prompted by the fact that NCLB needed to be renewed in a few weeks and many dis not want this to happen.

Purpose:
The author's purpose was examine how effective the act really was after 5 years of enactment and pursuade some supporters that it wasn't as effective as they thought it was.

Audience:
The author seemed to target commoners specifically. I make this claim because, he/she provided a very brief explanation of what AYP was and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) and failed to address funding for the act at all. I feel that if he was writing for politicians voting on the legislation or educators lobbying for/against the education, he would have either neglected to say anything and just assumed his readers knew or provided an extensive summation of the act in order to convey to them that he is well-read.

Rhetorical Elements:
The author used a plethora of devices in his 4 page paper. The most frequently used were testimonies from teachers and other respected persons in the educational field, examples of schools and children who were affected, statistics to support his claimes and the use of headings to section off and arrange his/her ideas. The author also used nonsense words to stress his/her points (ex. "think-tank wonk").

Effectiveness:
I thought the author's argument was very persuasive. I was on the fence on this issue, but his carefully constructed arguments made sense and effectively refuted the oppositions' views. Their arguments, although strong, were not aggressive and did not allienate readers.