Moog 1

Emily Moog

Stacy Wittstock

English 101

3 March, 2015

Cover Letter

This assignment was not particularly hard for me because I was able to use the

knowledge that I had from previous assignments to understand what my articles were about and

what opinions each of my authors had. The annotated bibliography was very helpful in having

summaries available and to remind me whenever I had clarifying questions about the articles. I

did however have some trouble finding and making sure I had the correct differences and

similarities highlighted and talked about throughout my piece. When you have two articles that

are opposing in nature, there will obviously be quite a few differences with the content.

However, I had to find differences that included writing style and the authors themselves instead

of just the content. I felt confident in the transitions I made from paragraph to paragraph and in

the information I included. The points I analyzed were important to both of the articles and to the

essay itself. When coming back to the piece later on, I know I want to include at least one more

point to make my essay even more credible. I would make sure that I included one more quote

from each of the authors in those points. I do have questions and comments for you. Were you

able to correctly understand what my points entailed? Did I adequately explain each of them? Do

I need to include more quotes to make the paper more credible? Were the summaries of the

articles long enough to get the main points across?

Thank you!
 Moog 2

Analysis and Synthesis Essay

There are many different opinions regarding the education system within our country and

what steps should be taken in order to improve the vast numbers of low test scores and student

capability. One main issue we face today is the implementation of No Child Left Behind. The act

has been in effect now since 2001 and over the 14 years of its existence, it has received many

critiques and praises. Heather Zavadsky, in her article How NCLB Drives Success in Urban

Schools and Kate Menken, in her article, NCLB and English Language Learners: Challenges

and Consequences provide two opposing arguments to the issue of NCLB and its impact on our

education system.

Heather Zavadsky, while taking the road less travelled, believes that NCLB has had a

positive impact on education thus far and should be seen as such. She acknowledges that the

popular view states the consequences of the act and negative outcomes from strict policies and

expectant test results. However, Zavadsky found opposing outcomes by following five specific

urban school districts who were finalists for the Broad Prize for Urban Education in 2005. These

districts were able to narrow the gap of learning, though they were impoverished districts and

economically low in standards. Zavadsky concludes that this narrowed gap and positive results

come from support through NCLB and the boundaries it puts on education.

Contrasting Zavadskys article, Kate Menken studies the impact of NCLB on English

language learning students. Some of her key thoughts center around the idea of test evaluations

and standards brought in by NCLB. She believes that because the standards have been set so

high throughout the education system, thought to differences within groups of people have not

been taken into account. According to Menken, ELL (English language learner) students are
 Moog 3

required to take tests that should be given to students who are proficient in English and have

been speaking the language for most, if not all, of their lives. Though testing has been in need of

reform, careful consideration of different groups of people is essential to ensuring that all

students of different groups succeed.

Both authors have specific individuals in mind when conducting tests and looking at data.

Zavadsky focuses on urban school districts while Menken looks at English language learners.

Menkens subjects could potentially be a sort of sub-category within the spectrum of urban

school district students. But, when writing these articles, the authors have different approaches

based upon who they are arguing for. Menken, while attempting to bring attention to the growing

issue of seemingly impossible English tests for students who do not yet speak English and the

complexities that surround students learning to speak English, must look directly at data. With

such a specific group of people to report on, and having focused mostly on test results, she is

relying on information on graphs and tables throughout her article to explain her stance on

NCLB. Her graphs show the decline in testing scores for ELL students throughout the first years

of enactment of NCLB alongside the positively changing test scores of all students in that school

district. Though ELL students are suffering and not improving, public information would tell of

the positive impact NCLB has had on the other students in the district, ignoring those who

desperately need help. Menkens graphed information helps to prove her point further and give

clarity to her statistics.

Though Zavadsky does have information and statistics to go along with her reasoning,

her thought process follows a different path. Zavadsky has a much more laid back feel to her

article, as she does not have to include tables or as many statistics. She relies more on the

explanations of NCLB. How NCLB Drives Success in Urban Schools gives lists of
 Moog 4

expectations that the government must see from districts over time and then explains how these

five districts have met those expectations and therefore are benefiting from the regulations put

upon them through NCLB. Zavadsky does not need to put her information into graphs or tables

since the benefits she has seen through NCLB can be adequately explained in paragraph form.

The logistics of the act are crucial, though stated in brief terms, to her argument.

As Zavadsky develops her arguments, she states that, One of the best changes that

NCLB has brought about is the requirement that districts and states disaggregate data by student

groups. She believes this idea is crucial to the success of students as a whole. Our schools are

filled with children and young adults who come from all different backgrounds, home lives, and

learning levels. With her specific concern for urban school district children, Zavadsky herself, is

reporting on a specific group of students. She has seen a change in the way teachers, and

government officials treat the learning differences between separate student groups through

NCLB.

Contrastingly, Menken has not seen the changes she had hoped for in the conduct toward

varying student groups. In fact, the purpose of her article is to bring awareness to a group of

people, ELL students, who are not being taken care of or noticed while they struggle in the

classrooms and NCLB required tests. While defending the unreasonable demanded tests given to

ELLs, Menken argues, Specifically, ELLs must take tests of English language proficiency to

measure their acquisition of English, and they must also take and passthe same tests of

academic content as those taken by native English speakers. This statement contradicts

Zavadskys thoughts of equality through student groups. It may be, perhaps, that Zavadsky was

able to see reform in her specific student group, the urban school districts. However, it is plain to
 Moog 5

see through Menkens thoughts that the group of ELL students are not being taken care of to

ensure that they are succeeding in their work as well.

Kate Menken and Heather Zavadsky have very different opinions about the education

system today. Contrasting in ideas, Menken wants reform to the preexisting NCLB law for its

negative effects on students, especially English language learners, while Zavadsky supports the

positive changes she has seen it bring. These variances are crucial to a well thought out and

reliable research paper. Though both women write in different ways and bring different

experience to the table, their beliefs challenge my thought as a college-age writer.

 Moog 6

Bibliography

Menken, Kate. "NCLB And English Language Learners: Challenges And Consequences."
Theory Into
Practice 49.2 (2010): 121-128. Business Source Complete. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.

Zavadsky, Heather. "How NCLB Drives Success In Urban Schools." Educational Leadership
64.3
(2006): 69. MAS Ultra - School Edition. Web. 7 Mar. 2015.