What argument could be made suggesting that the premise of NCLB is erroneous?
For clarification, I am in no way trying to generalize the population's opinion of the policy nor am I implying that the policy is deceiving. I just want to know what argument could be made suggesting the inaccuracy of the premise of NCLB.
In order to do this, you must first identify what the premise of the law is. The main premise of this law appears to be that schools can get all their students to perform at grade level if they are threatened with the loss of funding or other sanctions for failure.
You can argue that this is an erroneous premise in at least two ways. First, you can say that it is not possible to get all students to perform at grade level. You can argue that there are many things that can prevent some students from achieving at grade level. The most important of these is the fact that some children come from family backgrounds that make it hard for them to achieve. Second, you can argue that threatening schools with sanctions is not the right way to improve performance. You can say that such threats will only raise the pressure on schools and will cause them to do things like "teaching to the test" or even cheating to try to ensure that enough of their students pass the tests.