You are right, that article was messy and clearly written by someone who lacked experience in the field of ed policy.

That said, I think a major difference between your take and the GOOD take is that you focus on the actual wording of NCLB, while the author of GOOD is looking at some of the collateral damage (without distinguising actual from collateral). For example, in NYC, where I taught, one test can determine whether a child can get held back or not. This is a city rule, not from NCLB, but I’m pretty sure that if NCLB did not place such a high premium on test scores the city would not have put that rule in place. We can argue about it, but I think it’s a legitimate point to argue.

I also think it’s legit to say that teachers teach to the test as a result of the high stakes attached to the test. True, NCLB does not mandate that they teach to the test, but you would be hard-pressed to deny that NCLB has not had that impact in many, if not most, classrooms. You might even believe that it’s not a bad thing. But there are many teachers who feel that teaching to the test is both a direct impact of NCLB and detrimental to student learning.

Unfortunately, the author’s poor writing delegitimizes some decent points.