BuckeyeBlog

“Fewer local districts were in trouble because they had failed to make sure no child was being left behind, but some qualified as making adequate yearly progress even though they have yet to show it for all types of students.”

“Because they had failed to make sure no child was being left behind”? Isn’t that a bit of unfortunate phrasing? Intended or not, it’s either snarky or, worse, credulous. I realize the temptation to beat politicians over the head with their own words is a powerful one, but a better way to go about it would be to not use their silly propaganda titles to begin with. The press could avoid this by not using “No Child Left Behind” and instead refer to it as “Public Law 107-110.”

Tags: Education, journalism, no child left behind

This entry was posted on Tuesday, August 26th, 2008 at 8:08 am and is filed under Observations. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.