Summary of the Article Critique Paper: Each student will select one article from a?credible?news source?(e.g.?The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Washing

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

Duncan 2  

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 amount of low-achieving students

that are being left behind. This is because it will increase the amount of students in which 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 researcher’s 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 be a benefit

for anyone with a strong interest in the current research of the educational field.

Duncan 3  

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. 20 February 2008 <http://www.aei.org/docLib/20070716_NealSchanzenbachPaper.pdf>.