Engage in reductionist thinking much, Josh?  I can think of several ideas that would probably be opposed by both groups... cloning Stalin.  Forced sterilization of the unattractive.  The promotion of Paris Hilton's movie career.  Really, the list goes on and on.

Also, there are myriad problems with NCLB, in particular that each state is allowed to define "success" by ludicrously loose standards.  The article you cite does not elucidate, so far as I can tell, how the academic improvements have been measured.  That NCLB was an unfunded mandate was hardly the least of its problems, but it was a flawed law to begin with.

There is one provision in NCLB that all good people should support and few pols have the guts: fully enforce (and fund) the public school choice provision.  Students at pathetic, failing schools who get the opportunity to go to better public schools -- at their expense (e.g., their parents have to cart them over and back or they have to make longer treks on public transportation) under the law have made staggering improvements.  But there are usually only a handful of such openings (with insane lotteries to get the spots).  Why?   The good schools claim they can't take many of these students.  Racism surely plays a role.  And, of course, the numbers are tilted in that these kids have super-involved parents who care enough to try to get their students out of their miserable local schools.  But so what?  Why crush such students with such parents?  Obama and McCain talk a lot of anti-teacher union smack, but let's see them put their swing voters where their mouths are.  

Agreed with drdannyu.  Not only that, I've been privy to some conversations between state and federal NCLB officials that would curl your toenails.  It's a program that needs major overhaul or discarded and restarted from scratch.

NCLB has driven a lot of good teachers I've worked with -- not to mention myself -- out of the profession.  Its provisions for "highly qualified" teachers are so confusingly written that the largest school district here in San Jose ruled that Resource classes for special education students are illegal and that you can't have modified curriculum for students being mainstreamed into academic classes because either requires a teacher dual-"specialized" in both their subject and special education (ie. would have two master's degrees).  This then opens the schools to lawsuits under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, since in order to meet the requirements of NCLB, they can't insure the entitlements of IDEA.  NCLB is written poorly and was not crafted with the practical effects in mind.  I know no teachers -- and I know many, thanks to my work -- who think it is a good law.

Lymon1, I hardly think racism has much to do with limiting school choice provisions.  The physical limits on class size simply prevent the admission of children into schools operating at or near capacity.  In addition, there may be state laws or policies governing class sizes.  Schools are typically funded per-pupil, meaning that for every kid that leaves a school, that school receives less funds.  Under NCLB, schools that fail to meet certain benchmarks lose their federal funding; this is bass-ackwards: "Let's take money away from the schools that need it most!"

The testing provisions of NCLB are the worst.  There are few provisions within NCLB that exempt special education students from the testing or modify it for them; such waivers must be sought on an individual basis by each school district with the state.  If such a waiver isn't granted, then the special education students are evaluated on the same basis as their typically developing peers, and count against the "totals" of the school.  There is such a focus on the content of tests that children aren't being taught how to learn anymore.  The process of thinking and evaluating is left aside for the ability to regurgitate factoids, easily forgotten and dismissed.

There are some good aspects to NCLB, sure.  And the spirit of the law is laudable.  But it needs some major overhauling.

Look, I'm all for folks coming to their own spiritual and religious conclusions, and if believers in fundamentalist Christian eschatology, whether pre-, mid-, or post-tribulation, honestly wish that their kids ascend to Heaven and thus are not left behind to face Satan's fury, I can appreciate their concern: most parents, including even a few of my friends, don't want to see their rug rats tortured endlessly by demons.

But should we be spending tax dollars to make it so? I think not; doing so HAS to cross the church-state boundary, correct?

Although I must admit a part of me would love to watch Earth's children float skyward en masse like a multitude of flailing, screaming helium balloons so the rest of us can get down to some serious partying.

JF:  While class sizes in most cities are inarguably too large, I don't think that explains it (at least not completely) -- I think there's a "incredibly overcrowded" to "quite overcrowded" difference between some of these schools within a big city, and there's pleanty of room in the suburbs (I personally know of school districts with class sizes in the low 20's).  Again, we're dealing with highly motivated parents ready to inconvenience themselves and/or their kids immensely.  But let's say you are right, the solution for that is to fund NCLB so that they will pay for extra teachers/expenses in the better schools.  My overarching point is that we need at least some wide-scale experimentation with public school choice.  Brutal, pure, public school choice.  Who will rise up?

Well, Lymon1, you could check the stats on New Orleans' school system, which is the biggest socioeconomic experiment with charter schools in the country.  If I recall correctly, the results are a mixed bag.

Maybe I should clarify, I'm not referring to charter schools.  I'm referring to the provision in NCLB that lets students in failed schools go to other, already successful public schools.  The Chicago Tribune has reported for the handful of kids who won our local school system's "lottery" and did this, their test scores skyrocketted.  Why?  Their parents didn't suddenly become more involved.  They didn't get more time to study, just the opositte!  Their class size probably changed a little, but not incredibly.  More lilkely the reason is 1) the teachers are better, 2) the peer pressure is greater/better (just "keeping up" means you have to learn a lot more), or 3) more time is speant on task than on disciplinary issues.  

Earlier today, Josh argued in favor of reauthorizing No Child Left Behind, citing a Center for American