Outline

=Outline=

Ultimately, No Child Left Behind has led to a narrow curriculum and has not delivered its anticipated results, evidence that the Obama Administration should repeal the Act instead of making minor changes to policies that have dehumanized the American public education system.
 * Working Thesis**:

Introduction: involves mission statements and “Choosing a Quality High School”

I. History of federal intervention of public education in America, determining high school progress etc. A. Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (Hollingsworth) B. National Commission of Excellence in Education (Hollingsworth) C. Evolution of No Child Left Behind (Department of Education 2-24-10, Karaba 2-26- 10) II. Effects and Purpose of NCLB A. Design of the Bill – (Department of Education 2-24-10) B. Key Principles: Haerr (2-26-10) C. Implementation 1. Standards Movement and Assessment (2-26-10) 2. Reliance on Standardized Testing (Background to Title I) III. Standardized Testing, AYP, Teaching to the Test A. Impact on Curriculum (Poetter 2-26-10) 1. Haerr on the government’s control 2. Standardized curriculum B. Differences in testing per state 1. State of Nebraska (Poetter) 2. PA Standards Aligned System (2-24-10) 3. Management in Philadelphia Schools – Title I (3-2-10) C. Defense of Standardized Testing 1. Accountability (Fisanick 3-2-10) 2. PA AYP (3-8-10) 3. Improving public schools (2-22-10) IV. Fixing No Child Left Behind A. A Lost cause (Ravitch 2-26-10) B. Importance of NCLB for narrowing standards (Clay 2-26-10) C. 2007 Debate over NCLB (3-8-10) D. Obama and NCLB – is it enough (3-3-10)

Conclusion