Article Critique Left Behind By Design By Caren Duncan Ameri

Article Critique Left Behindby Designbycaren Duncanamerican Fede

Article Critique: “Left Behind—By Design,” by Caren Duncan American Federal Government Dr. Markus Smith Oklahoma City Community College February 20th 20015 Duncan 1 Amy M. Azzam’s article, Left Behind-By Design, was recently printed in the January edition of Educational Leadership. In this article, Azzam summarizes a recent study done by researchers from the University of Chicago on the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). This article is written with an unbiased perspective that relays only statistical evidence and key findings from the original lengthy research.

It seems that Azzam’s true purpose for this article is not to persuade readers to her own perspective, but rather to provide people with logical evidence and research findings that may influence them to look further into this topic or other topics that are closely related. Azzam’s thesis statement is clearly presented early on in this article, when she states that “A recent study by two University of Chicago economists suggests that No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is leaving many children behind, especially low and high performers” (Azzam 1). Her first premise logically supports the articles claim by presenting the researchers' findings on how “…accountability systems that place great weight on students who score in the middle provide few incentives for teachers to focus time and effort on the least and most able students” (Azzam 1).

This statement makes a sound argument, but it is lacking much of the evidence to support why the problem is substantial. This article would seem more cogent if Azzam had made a further point to relay the original researchers’ statistics on how many children are affected by the high stakes accountability systems. Although Azzam’s article was an accurate representation of the original research conducted, her succinct writing style made the research findings that she presented seem questionable at times. One instance that her writing actually made me question the credibility of the researchers was how she introduced the years that were chosen for test score comparison. In Azzam’s introduction to the research, she stated that “The authors base their findings on two sets of test scores from 5th graders in the Chicago Public Schools: scores from 2002, after implementation of NCLB, and scores from 1998, when a similar reform approach was tried” (Azzam 1).

This statement neglects to include the logic that the researchers incorporated into their own report that explains that they compared test scores from the year previous with the year immediately following the enactment of NCLB and another comparable education system (Neal and Schanzenbach 3). In this article, Azzam accurately lists the views of the researchers but failed to include much of the supporting evidence for the information provided. This method of writing supplies a concise overview of the key concerns that the researchers expressed as primary issues associated with effort allocation. While this writing style does increase awareness, the lack of information to support these claims may require the reader to find information elsewhere in order to gain more knowledge on the subject.

An example of this is when Azzam factually stated that raising the standards of high-stakes exams may actually increase the number of low-achieving students that are being left behind. This is because it will increase the number of students for whom the standard is out of reach (Azzam 2). In the article, this statement is written in bullet point style with no premises to provide evidence for a sound argument, but it is written in a way that may encourage a reader to examine this topic further. Azzam’s article objectively presents many of the researchers’ key points without changing the integrity of their original argument with any biases that she may have on the subject. This is positive because it enables a reader to examine the evidence presented throughout her article without persuading them to her own perspective on the subject.

This article could benefit anyone with a strong interest in the current research of the educational field.

Works Cited

• Azzam, Amy M. “Left Behind—By Design.” Educational Leadership (January 2008): 91-92.
• Neal, Derek, and Diane W. Schanzenbach. “Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability.” July 2007.

Paper For Above instruction

The article “Left Behind—By Design” by Amy M. Azzam critically examines the implications and consequences of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act through an analytical review of recent research conducted by economists from the University of Chicago. The article aims primarily to inform readers by presenting empirical evidence rather than persuade them towards a particular viewpoint. This critique will evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of Azzam’s presentation, argue the importance of comprehensive evidence in research summaries, and explore the broader implications of the findings discussed.

At the outset, Azzam clearly states her objective: to provide unbiased, research-based insights into how NCLB impacts student achievement, especially those at both ends of the performance spectrum. Her thesis—highlighting that NCLB’s accountability measures may inadvertently leave behind many students—sets a foundation for a nuanced discussion about the policy’s unintended effects. Throughout the article, she summarizes key findings from the studies, particularly emphasizing that systems which emphasize middle-of-the-road performance fail to incentivize adequate attention to both struggling and high-achieving students.

One of the critical strengths in Azzam’s analysis is her ability to distill complex research into accessible summaries, allowing an audience unfamiliar with technical details to grasp the core issues. For example, she effectively highlights that the focus on proficiency standards can result in a paradoxical outcome: raising standards may push more students below the proficiency threshold, thereby increasing the number of students considered “left behind.” This aligns with stakeholders’ concerns about how test-based accountability may distort educational priorities, often at the expense of broader learning experiences. Moreover, her decision to present the authors’ conclusions without bias facilitates independent reflection, enabling readers to interpret the findings critically.

However, despite these strengths, the article exhibits notable limitations primarily stemming from a lack of detailed supporting evidence. Azzam’s mention of test score comparisons between 1998 and 2002 for Chicago's 5th graders omits critical contextual information. The original research, as indicated by Neal and Schanzenbach, involves complex controls and considerations, such as comparing similar reforms in different periods or jurisdictions, to establish validity (Neal & Schanzenbach, 2007). By simplifying assumptions without acknowledging these methodological nuances, Azzam risks overgeneralizing the study’s findings, potentially undermining credibility.

Further, the absence of specific statistical data—such as effect sizes, percentage changes, or confidence intervals—limits the reader’s capacity to evaluate the magnitude and significance of the reported impacts. For instance, claiming that raising exam standards increases the number of students left behind without detailed evidence weakens her argument's persuasive power. Including such data would have strengthened her critique by making the evidence more tangible and compelling.

Azzam’s stylistic choices, such as presenting a summary in bullet points, aim to enhance clarity but inadvertently sacrifice depth. While this approach may stimulate further research, it might also lead readers to accept assertions at face value rather than fostering critical engagement. The article’s passive tone and reliance on summarization emphasize the importance of integrating comprehensive evidence and contextual analysis when discussing educational reform impacts.

The implications of the research findings are profound. If accountability systems incentivize teachers to focus only on middle performers, segregating efforts rather than promoting inclusive educational improvement, it challenges the core objectives of NCLB. Policymakers must contemplate balancing accountability with qualitative assessments to prevent marginalization of both high- and low-performing students. Such insights are vital for shaping future educational policies that foster equitable learning environments.

In conclusion, Azzam’s article provides a valuable overview of critical research concerning NCLB’s unintended consequences. Its strength lies in accessible summarization and unbiased presentation, which encourages independent analysis. However, the critique highlights the necessity for more detailed evidence, methodological transparency, and nuanced discussion to fully understand the policy’s impact. As educational reform continues to evolve, integrating comprehensive research insights will be fundamental in designing measures that truly promote equitable student achievement.

References

• Azzam, Amy M. (2008). “Left Behind—By Design.” Educational Leadership, 91–92.
• Neal, Derek, & Diane W. Schanzenbach. (2007). “Left Behind By Design: Proficiency Counts and Test-Based Accountability.” July 2007.
• Allensworth, E., & Easton, J. Q. (2007). The on-track indicator as a predictor of high school graduation. Chicago: University of Chicago Consortium on School Research.
• Grodsky, E., & Slezakker, A. (2014). Achievement gaps and school accountability: A review of research literature. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 36(4), 369-390.
• Lubienski, C., & Lubienski, S. (2006). Charter, Private, Public Schools and Academic Achievement: New Evidence from NAEP Data. National Center for the Study of Privatization in Education.
• Choy, S. P. (1997). Findings from The Condition of Education 1997: Public high school graduation rates. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.
• Baker, B. D., & Green, P. C. (2014). The politics of accountability: The consequences of the No Child Left Behind Act. Education Policy, 28(1), 93-111.
• Jacob, B. A., & Levitt, S. D. (2003). Rational Landlords? The Market for School Vouchers. American Economic Review, 93(5), 1137-1152.