Changing the Name to Protect the Guilty

[Bob Schaeffer <bobschaeffer@earthlink.net>]

As others have correctly noted, the problem with NCLB is not so much its 
misleading, overstated title but the law's false assumptions, 
unrealistic deadlines, and arbitrary, counter-productive sanctions

RENAME THE NO CHILD LEFT BEHIND ACT? DON'T BE CLEVER
Seattle Times Editorial -- February 27, 2009

Arne Duncan, the new federal secretary of education, suggests that The 
No Child Left Behind Act be renamed. That's a fine idea, and not only 
for the reasons that resonate in Washington, D.C.

There the feeling is that the name, "No Child Left Behind," is too 
redolent of our earnest and fumbling former president, who was reading 
aloud to kids on the morning of Sept. 11, 2001. More seriously, there is 
a thought that "no child left behind" is an impossible dream. Always 
some will be left behind. Educators try their best to minimize the 
number, but they cannot commit to zero.

When politicians paste ridiculous names on their creations, people 
laugh. Bush's law has been called the Teach to the Test Act, the Double 
Back Around to Pick Up the Children We Left Behind Act, and (with 
apologies to Lake Wobegon) the All American Children Are Above Average Act.

Marian Wright Edelman, whose Children's Defense Fund trademarked the 
slogan, "Leave No Child Behind," 15 years ago, now suggests the law be 
called the Quality Education for All Children Act. We would go further.

Let's stop giving bills propaganda names like "No Child Left Behind 
Act," the "PATRIOT Act," etc. Use names more like the original 
aid-to-schools bill, passed in the Johnson administration: Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act.

It was a name that made no fireworks and told no lies.

   
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorialsopinion/2008790877_editb27nochild.html